PDA

View Full Version : UK may take Quantanamo inmates


BigEndBob
1st Jan 2009, 10:09
See this news item trying to sneak out whilst everyone has an hangover!

UK may take Guantanamo camp inmates - Latest news & weather forecasts - MSN News UK (http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=12382205)
How ridiculous. If the inmates can't return to their mother countries then i'm afraid the US will have to take them.

Why should so called terrior suspects be allowed to come to the UK and be given handouts and housing.

I,m sure there are some Muslim countries that will welcome them.

Load Toad
1st Jan 2009, 10:23
We have long pressed the US for release of British nationals and residents. To date, we have got all British nationals back, as well as four former residents.
"We continue to press for release of the two remaining former British residents, Binyam Mohamed and Shaker Aamer. Our priority has been to get Binyam Mohamed back to the UK and our offer for receiving Shaker Aamer remains open."
While UK nationals and residents have been received back from Guantanamo without significant controversy, there may be greater concern about Britain housing former terror suspects with no personal links to the country.

So we aren't talking about a whole bunch of people are we Bob?
If they are guilty - prove it an' punish 'em.
If they are not guilty - release 'em.
If they are a security risk - put 'em where you can see 'em.

BigEndBob
1st Jan 2009, 10:47
Read the bit "with no personal links to the country".
No problem with the ones from the UK, but what about all the others?
If certain countries refuse to have their nationals back, where do they go?

Load Toad
1st Jan 2009, 11:15
Britain ready to take in Guantánamo prisoners - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5426064.ece)

248 inmates, 60 scheduled for release - no indication at all so far as to what numbers of detainees, with no connection to UK who might possibly on the off chance just maybe considered to be resettled in UK.
30 - 80 detainees to be taken to the US for trial.

So it's going to be a small number of inmates to be spread around the EU.

No information as to what the resettlement plan is, the degree of security, how they would be treated, when it will happen, how it will happen, if it will happen.

The President-elect has not made any formal request for help, but there have been talks between the US State Department and his transition team and he has made clear that he will exert pressure on Europe to take prisoners no longer deemed a threat.

I don't really see a problem Bob - what would you like to do with people not deemed a threat?

Rainboe
1st Jan 2009, 11:23
God Help Us! What idiots are running this country! I don't want ANY of them, even 'alleged' British ones with names like Binyan Mohammed or whatever. They are guilty of treason- or there is enough evidence to show they are guilty of it! They should be allowed in to be hanged. When did things change? When was it decided it was OK to take up military arms against your own countrymen? 60 years ago we were hanging traitors who took up a microphone against their country. Now it seems OK to play it as a game, then try and come running home and grab a house and benefits and continue your poisonous invective against the people who are housing and feeding you and your worthless family. They will continue putting bombs on our buses and trains until we show them that it is not a game that you win when you lose- you will dangle on the end of a rope!

Load Toad
1st Jan 2009, 11:25
Ever thought of getting a job at The Daily Mail?

Don Coyote
1st Jan 2009, 11:50
I agree with Rainboe on this one; if they have no links with this country then it does not matter if there is only one of them, they should not be allowed in.

tony draper
1st Jan 2009, 12:12
Remember this is the country that allowed six taliban fighters in to stay a month after they had been shooting at British Soldiers and allowed a planefull of gunpoint hijackers to stay as well, feckin place is run by fluffy bloody lunatics.
:suspect:

Load Toad
1st Jan 2009, 12:30
I like it - loads of over reaction to something that hasn't yet happened, might not happen and if did happen might not result is some unemployed terrorist moving to UK anyway.
But folks - just keep with the sensational outrage thing - it's ace.

Rainboe
1st Jan 2009, 12:40
Well let's see HKG have them then. It's not a Mail thing, it's a Times thing, and that means take it seriously. We have wooly headed idiots running the country- they call themselves 'politicians'. Apart from awarding themselves special tax privileges and the best pensions in the country, they do not achieve much else that is useful, and must be watched closely. I believe the majority of the people want execution for treason to be upheld.

frostbite
1st Jan 2009, 12:43
Absolutely with Rainboe on this one!

This country has become a dumping ground for human detritis.

419
1st Jan 2009, 12:46
I like it - loads of over reaction to something that hasn't yet happened

It' s far better than lots of over reaction to something that has happened, beause by that time there will be no point in trying to complain about it.

If any of them do get relocated to the UK, you can just about guarantee that they will be here for life (along with their extended families), living on state handouts, and with a nice big team of legal aid lawyers (taxpayer funded) doing their best to ensure they don't have their human rights infringed.

Avitor
1st Jan 2009, 13:09
The government see this as an opportunity to enrich lawyers, and they are keen to take it.
But first....thanks to the floating of the idea...the reaction!
Has Brown, like Blair, got his eyes on US money after he is ousted?

Wiley
1st Jan 2009, 15:20
We in the colonies have also been asked to share the load, and the enthusiasm levels over here are about the same as they seem to be in the Old Dart.


Kevin Rudd may take Guantanamo Bay inmates | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24845331-601,00.html)

Kevin Rudd may take Guantanamo Bay inmates
Sid Maher | December 27, 2008
The Australian
KEVIN Rudd has left open the possibility of Australia taking former inmates from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, but warned that any US request for an inmate to come would be subject to legal criteria and assessed on a case-by-case basis.

As the Greens warned the Prime Minister he faced a political backlash if he accepted detainees held in the US military jail at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a spokesman for Mr Rudd confirmed that US authorities had approached Australia and other countries about resettling the detainees.

"Australia, along with a number of other countries, has been approached to consider resettling detainees from Guantanamo Bay," the Prime Minister's spokesman said.

"Any determination for an individual to come to Australia would be made on a case-by-case basis. All persons accepted to come to Australia would have to meet Australia's strict legal requirements and go through the normal and extremely rigorous assessment processes."

The Australian reported yesterday that the US State Department had over the past 12 months cabled more than 100 countries seeking help to clear out Guantanamo Bay.

The incoming administration of Barack Obama, which plans to shut the facility within two years, is expecting help in resettling more than 250 detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay.

About 60 detainees have been cleared for release by US authorities but are unable to return to their homelands because they fear retribution.

Greens senator Rachel Siewert told The Weekend Australian Guantanamo Bay was a creation of the US Government and was therefore Washington's problem. She said the Prime Minister should refuse to take any detainees.

"It's something they should be dealing with on home soil," she said. "We understand some can't go back to their homelands, but in those instances the US Government should be helping them within America."

Guantanamo Bay was opened in 2002 as a way of holding detainees caught in the war on terror beyond the reach of the US courts, where civilian rules for detention would apply.

Some European countries, keen to improve relations with the US, are understood to have said they are willing to help with resettling the detainees.

Germany and Portugal have acknowledged they were considering taking detainees, but The Netherlands has ruled out taking any, arguing it is the responsibility of the country that imprisoned them.

While some inmates are al-Qa'ida linchpins such 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others have been held for years without charge or trial and without presenting any threat to the US or the West.

Australian David Hicks was held there for five years before being convicted last year of providing material support for terrorism. He was returned to Australia to serve nine months' jail before being released and placed under a control order, which expired last weekend.

Another Australian, Mamdouh Habib, was released from Guantanamo Bay without charge in 2005.

airship
1st Jan 2009, 15:52
Considering:

1) The duration that many Guantanamo inmates have been incarcerated (4,5 even 6 years?) and

2) My belief in the rehabilitation programs of those incarcerated in prisons in the western hemisphere generally, I imagine that quite a few will have by now completed Masters' degrees in various fields.

Therefore, I conclude that the UK (and the EU generally) should at least initially, only consider those inmates with qualifications in IT and medicine. Only once these inmates have been shown not to be a threat and become well-integrated, should we consider others. I'm sorry if I've disappointed the operators of the 'Allah Uh Akbar' döner kebab chain (amongst others), but you'll have to make do with Romanians for deliveries for the forseeable future. The same goes for the Hard Rock cafés...

brickhistory
1st Jan 2009, 16:04
What was the profession of one of the Glasgow attackers?



Hmmm, doctor wasn't it?

Romeo India Xray
1st Jan 2009, 16:07
Therefore, I conclude that the UK (and the EU generally) should at least initially, only consider those inmates with qualifications in IT and medicine.

My bold and underlining.

Are you serious? While the inmates of Guantanamo may have suffered treatment lower than they could have constituionally expected, you have to view this in real terms. The people in Guantanamo are not there due to their do-good charitable activites at their local branch of the salvation army. They are people who were caught taking an action holiday in the sunny resorts of Southern Afganistan, Pakistan and other places renowned for their sporting activities of shooting at moving targets (namely members of my family for a start).

Now, you want these same idiots, idiots who believe that all infidels should be dead, to work in medicine where they can kill as many infidels as they wish, and in IT where they can cause IT attcked mayhem. Please tell me you were joking, if not then you are off your :mad: rocker!

RIX

airship
1st Jan 2009, 17:08
RIX, you appear to be talking about idiots. We're obviously not on the same frequency...

brick wrote: What was the profession of one of the Glasgow attackers? Should everyone in the UK now have cause to flee their GPs because they might have originated from the Indian sub-continent...?! :rolleyes:

In case there's any doubt, I was speaking almost exclusively about those Guantanamo inmates that might have obtained qualifications in information technologies or medicinal practices during their incarcerations. And are being released because there is no viable case to be prosecuted.

It almost beggars belief that so many of our fellow citizens in the 'freer world' today harbour similarly intransigent views. If I was a billionaire, I might have some fun in organising your kidnapping, transfer in a Gulfstream executive jet for internment in some Eastern European country, before chartering a larger Russian aircraft to transport you all to Afghanistan. So that you in turn, would have to rely on the procedures in place. What would be even funnier is that after 2,3,4 or more years of incarceration, airship would be able to say to you, "Hey! We (they) got it wrong, at least in your case. Here's €250,000 in compensation, in cash. Now, all you have to do is find a country that will accept your return, noone having proved a case against you...?! Awwww, come on, take the €250,000, it was in jest. Whaddaya mean noone offered you €250,000...?! :uhoh:

Romeo India Xray
1st Jan 2009, 17:37
I think you are missing my point. While there may have been cases of some Guantanamo inmates being falsely incarcerated, I do not buy into the theory that this was a great number. I have family members in Afganistan at this time, and they are the ones being shot at, (in some cases) by "British" citizens. These are of the same mold that in all likelyhood are in Guantanamo.

I am not racist, I have friends of both African and Bangladeshi Muslim origin. I have also read the Koran and in the context in which I read it, there was no calling to go to Afganistan and shoot at my cousin after having lived in the same country as him all your life. These types who find themselves in Guantanamo deserve no hospitality in the UK, or in any other part of the civilized world, the only hospitality the deserve is that provided by a rope and noose.

RIX

BigEndBob
1st Jan 2009, 20:41
The US deprived these people of their liberty, so the home of the free should take them in. If these people are safe, then let them reside in the US, where they can keep an eye on them.

brickhistory
1st Jan 2009, 20:55
Oh, no. You didn't want us holding them. If we let them go, we can't abuse their civil liberties by 'watching them.'

You want to whine about their 'human rights?'

Step up to the plate.

Or could it be that these, or most of them, don't fit neatly into any category - criminal/terrorist/threat to Western society? In which case, what is the answer?

What I gather is that it's ok for them to be out in the world plotting to blow us up, but when faced with the reality of having to do something with them, well, that's really a US problem.

airship
1st Jan 2009, 22:08
While there may have been cases of some Guantanamo inmates being falsely incarcerated, I do not buy into the theory that this was a great number. So, just why do they suddenly wish to be rid of all these Gauntanamo residents instead of prosecuting them? Are you sure that it's not you who are missing the point here...?!

I stopped wondering about whether some people are racist, why they were that way or whatever a very long time ago?! Which is why I prefer pudicats nowadays.

Having said that, I don't believe that racism has much, if anything, to do with Guantanamo and those being held there. Most of the inmates appear to have been interned on the basis that they were somehow directly involved with 9/11. The truth is probably that they are there for reasons that pre and post-date 9/11. Hence the requirement that we keep an open mind towards those Guantanamo internees who are currentlt deemed fit to be released. Otherwise, all of us allow ourselves open to be interned (innocently or otherwise) at some future date. With hardly a voice in the desert that reclaims some justice for these individuals. These are after all, individuals that for whatever reason, the US government has not considered worthwhile prosecuting after many years of internment. If ordinary Americans can't or won't recognise their predicament, then that doesn't surprise me. I stopped believing in Americans a while back. Ever since they forgot about their origins, and began instead to quote their great constitution every time there was a problem... :sad:

Oh, **** it. Who gives a shit that we're in 2009, won't change anything?

Gordy
2nd Jan 2009, 18:40
Who was it who wanted them released in the first place? This was floating around a while back...maybe we should send them to thos who wanted them released along with a letter:

Dear Liberal:

Thank you for your recent whiney-assed letter criticizing the treatment of the Taliban and El Quida detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

As part of the Administration's Liberal Re-training Program, you'll be pleased to learn that the Administration has decided to place one detainee under your exclusive care. Your detainee is scheduled to be delivered to your personal residence on Monday.

The detainee is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you strongly recommended in your letter of admonishment. It will be necessary that you hire your own caretakers. We will also conduct weekly inspections, of course, to assure that your detainee is actually being cared for in the manner you personally prescribed. His meal requirements are simple, but we strongly suggest using menus that do not require utensils. While he does bite, the rabies test was negative, although he does have a bad case of body lice that we haven't completely remedied. Although he is sociopathic and very psychotic, we do welcome your promised efforts to overcome that 'attitudinal problem' with your promised counseling and home schooling.

He's extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or light bulb. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these proficiencies at your next bridge party. He also has the ability to make a variety of lethal bombs from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, notwithstanding that it may conflict with your moral values or disrupt your maid's daily routine.

Please heed the large orange notice attached to your detainee's cage. 'Does not play well with others'. Your detainee generally bathes quarterly, with the change of seasons, assuming that it rains, and washes his clothes simultaneously. That should help with your water bill. Be assured, your detainee absolutely loves pets of all kinds, but is especially fond of cats and dogs. He prefers them roasted, but will eat them prepared in just about any manner.

You take good care of our detainee, now.

Romeo India Xray
4th Jan 2009, 12:27
So, just why do they suddenly wish to be rid of all these Gauntanamo residents instead of prosecuting them? Are you sure that it's not you who are missing the point here...?!


Quite sure and I will address this after I address one other point of yours:

Most of the inmates appear to have been interned on the basis that they were somehow directly involved with 9/11. The truth is probably that they are there for reasons that pre and post-date 9/11.

Agreed.

Before we start on the potential Guantanamo idiots who were shooting at my relatives, lets start on the principle of the pre and post 9/11 connection.

Lets take radical Islamists. Now lets put them in a 3rd country where they are contravening no law while plotting to kill westerners en-mass. Now lets pay them a visit and stop them killing our citizens. Pretty hard to try them when they have comitted no crime in their country and have not yet comitted the crime we have prevented them perpetrated. Airship, in your idealistic world of no Guantanamos we would have to wait for the slaughter of the infidels before we take action. Is that what you want? If it is then I hope you are first in the firing line.

Now as for any Guantanamo idiots who have been using my relations for target practice. You may well have read of my cousin's injuries. They were well doccumented in the UK press (and now in a published book). Thankfully he made a miraculous recovery and is now back in Afganistan. Now lets take a "British" citizen who my cousin happens to stumble across lets say 50km south of Kandahar. This, as you may know, is not a region of the globe renowned for it's rest and relaxation, hardly a holiday destination. Now lets give our "tourist" an automatic weapon, aimed at my cousin and his compadres. Supposing this idiot ends up in Guantanamo, you want to try him in a civil system??? :confused::ugh: Get real, PLEASE! These idiots left the protection of the civilian system when they decided to up-arms against their own countrymen. The only good thing for either of these types is the high jump at the end of a rope.

As you can see Airship, I am not missing the point at all. For those who choose to operate outside the civilian system there should be a just military let response. Releasing such individuals from Guantanamo is the worst days work possible. Your utopian world for all i am afraid does not work. These Guantanamo idiots by taking up arms have simply put themselves into a quasi POW situation following their incarcaration. Does a waring side just release the POWs because they happen to really seem like nice people and we are unable to give them a civilian trial - please, get real!

RIX

Matari
4th Jan 2009, 15:12
Airship:

If ordinary Americans can't or won't recognise their predicament, then that doesn't surprise me. We had an election in which ordinary Americans participated. Let's see what the new guy, after all his rhetoric, brings.

I stopped believing in Americans a while back. Ever since they forgot about their origins, and began instead to quote their great constitution every time there was a problem...What on earth are you on about? Our origins? One could argue that our quaint old constitution helps to preserve the centuries-old ideals that you (presumably) hold so dear.....

Rollingthunder
4th Jan 2009, 15:18
Yo soy un hombre sincero
De donde crecen las palmas
Yo soy un hombre sincero
De donde crecen las palmas
Y antes de morirme quiero
Echar mis versos del alma

Chorus:
Guantanamera
Guajira Guantanamera
Guantanamera
Guajira Guantanamera

Mi verso es de un verde claro
Y de un carmin encendido
Mi verso es de un verde claro
Y de un carmin encendido
Mi verso es un ciervo herido
Que busca en el monte amparo

Chorus

I am a truthful man from this land of palm trees
Before dying I want to share these poems of my soul
My verses are light green
But they are also flaming red

(the next verse says,)
I cultivate a rose in June and in January
For the sincere friend who gives me his hand
And for the cruel one who would tear out this
heart with which I live
I do not cultivate thistles nor nettles
I cultivate a white rose

Cultivo la rosa blanca
En junio como en enero
Qultivo la rosa blanca
En junio como en enero
Para el amigo sincero
Que me da su mano franca

Chorus

Y para el cruel que me arranca
El corazon con que vivo
Y para el cruel que me arranca
El corazon con que vivo
Cardo ni ortiga cultivo
Cultivo la rosa blanca

Chorus

Con los pobres de la tierra
Quiero yo mi suerte echar
Con los pobres de la tierra
Quiero yo mi suerte echar
El arroyo de la sierra
Me complace mas que el mar

Jose Fernandez Diaz

Matari
4th Jan 2009, 15:42
Rollingthunder:

Lovely song that. I always ask the roving mariachis in our Mexican restaurants here to play that song when I'm dining with out-of-towners.

Although Diaz wrote the song, the original poem was written by Jose Marti, Cuba's famous poet/writer.

Really ticked old Castro off when the U.S. named its VOA-equivalent radio station in Miami "Radio Marti"...

Romeo India Xray
4th Jan 2009, 17:17
Funny how not many other countries want to deal with the problem, but would rather leave it to the US. Then have great fun chastising the US for doing just that.


I wouldn't trust the mamby-pamby socialist do-gooding british government to have them. After giving them a house, income, probably car, paying their bills and probably giving them a police officer who is not permitted to stop them doing ANYTHING (because said officer would find himself on a discrimination charge), they would then be free to go and mingle with their old chums and cause the next wave of devastation. I believe this sort of thing has already happened. Tell them they are naughty and not to mix with their former buddies, then leave them to it. Damn there are some bright sparks in british government these days (lower case "B" is intentional before the linguistic police jump on my back).

RIX

viktor inox
4th Jan 2009, 18:04
Why aren't these detainees (who are now, apparently, not going to be prosecuted after all) not simply sent back to where they were initially arrested or, if that is not feasible, to their home country?

Gnirren
4th Jan 2009, 22:00
What I gather is that it's ok for them to be out in the world plotting to blow us up, but when faced with the reality of having to do something with them, well, that's really a US problem.

That's assuming one agrees that all of them were in fact plotting to blow anything up. What about the goat herder who got sold out by his rival goat herding neighbor to the US with some fine "testimony" to clear some competition and get a few dollars to boot? Exactly how loose are the criteria before someone is seized?

It seems pretty clear-cut from your perspective because you start in the wrong end. You look at it and say person A is in gitmo, ergo he is a dangerous person who belongs there. Never mind the circumstances of his capture, never mind the proof. If you're in gitmo then you must have done something to deserve it. I doubt that's correct. Same thing with prisons, there are innocent people in those too. The difference is that there are at least checks and balances along the journey towards the jail cell. Sometimes they all fail and someone slips through, but in this case it's a completely closed circuit with people being sent away indefinitely based on what exactly? Oh we have to keep this guy locked up because he might be dangerous some day, we think... probably. Would you like the criminal justice system to function the same in the US? Guilty before charged?

As for the gitmo inmates, just send them to Sweden we seem to be housing most of Iraq already anyway. :hmm:

Wod
5th Jan 2009, 08:07
Good thread. I like it. Healthy exchange of ideas and nobody actually dead yet.

I know nothing of the current Gitmo detainees, but I think my country, as well as others should certainly consider some of those who cannot return to their "home" countries for fear of their lives. (Whether because of regime change or suspicion of collaboration). Surely that is a criterion for refugee status.

Like everyone else, I worry about some of the others, who should simply not to be accepted into democratic, secular societies.

After that, of course, there are the ones we know little about, because their "crimes" have never been properly examined.

Typical aftermath of war. Stateless persons again.

Captain Stable
5th Jan 2009, 13:24
Given that:-

There is very little evidence that (at least some of) the Guantanamo prisoners were actually picked up in Afghanistan or Iraq,
That some, at least, were picked up a few thousands of miles away from any conflict zone,
There is significant evidence that some were picked up and transported illegally, contrary to international law,
The USA has failed to propose any means by which any of them could be given a fair trial,
Much of the evidence against many of these was obtained by torture under which most people would name their own grandmothers as terrorists,
The USA is totally responsible for f :mad: ucking up the lives of any prisoners who might actually be innocent of anything'
Many of those are now in danger of persecution and/or death immediately upon return to their own country
it appear to me that the only equitable solution is that the USA releases them and resettles them in the US or any other country of the prisoners' choosing with sufficient means for them to resume their lives with sufficient compensation for their long and unjustified incarceration and their names cleared, and all costs of so doing to be incurred by the US Government.

airship
5th Jan 2009, 15:45
Lets take radical Islamists. Now lets put them in a 3rd country where they are contravening no law while plotting to kill westerners en-mass. Now lets pay them a visit and stop them killing our citizens. Pretty hard to try them when they have comitted no crime in their country and have not yet comitted the crime we have prevented them perpetrated. Airship, in your idealistic world of no Guantanamos we would have to wait for the slaughter of the infidels before we take action. Is that what you want? If it is then I hope you are first in the firing line.

Fact #1: Lets take radical Islamists....most of those involved in the 9/11 attacks apparently held Saudi citizenship. Did you extract vengeance on Saudi Arabia? No. You invaded Iraq instead...

Fact #2: Now lets put them in a 3rd country where they are contravening no law while plotting to kill westerners en-mass. ...why do you believe that you need to be in a '3rd country' in order to contemplate mass destruction? That sounds pretty much like how every modern democracy, including the USA, UK, France, and all the others such as the USSR, China etc. have behaved on the basis of 'self-preservation' over the past half-century at least.

Fact #3: Now lets pay them a visit and stop them killing our citizens. Pretty hard to try them when they have comitted no crime in their country and have not yet comitted the crime we have prevented them perpetrated....ahhh, the latest doctrine - any perceived threat is a valid excuse to attack first (provided your forces are vastly superior to those of the perceived enemy)...?! It never ceases to amaze me just how many democracies that rely on all those great constitutions enshrining personal liberties, the rights to happiness, liberty, equality and the rights perhaps to challenge their adversaries in an independent court, rarely allow their so-called adversaries the succour of being granted the same 'rights'? The old Bee Gees song "How deep is your love?" comes to mind (exchange 'love' with any of the usual 'guarantees'...

Fact #4: Airship, in your idealistic world of no Guantanamos we would have to wait for the slaughter of the infidels before we take action. Is that what you want? If it is then I hope you are first in the firing line...infidels - isn't that what we are to them, and what they are to us (or you), because we / they don't necessarily behold the truths that you endeavour to shove down our throats daily as such...?! Pre 9/11, there was no Guantanamo. However, I'm sure that there were a multitude of similar establishments dotted around the globe. But none of them had the official sanction of the USA (United States of America) - the bastion of the free world hitherto. The sad truth is that ordinary Americans and others across the globe are therefore encouraged to believe that the cooercitive and repressive actions by their governments are 100% due to terrorist threats, without any regard to other interests.

First in the firing line? Yes, I pray that if or when it happens, it will be quick and relatively painless. There are a dozen or so stray cats which I've been feeding for almost 12 months, every 2 days, until the evening of 21st December. When during their feeding, I was confronted by a deranged individual accusing me that because of my actions, the cats were getting fat and they no longer controlled the rat population. The said individual called 'Momo' claims to have introduced the 1st cats here over 30 years ago. My initial reaction, considering that 'Momo' was someone whom I thought also had the well-being of the cats as a priority, was one of confusion and disarray. I heard his voluminous threats in one ear without wishing to react forcefully. His shouting eventually attracted the intervention of 3 guards and their dog from the adjacent shipyard. Who overwhelmingly encouraged me to cease my activities. "It's very generous of you to feed these cats, but perhaps there are other cats in the town that you could feed instead of hereabouts (and not antagonising 'Momo')...?!

In my wildest dreams, 'Momo' would by now have fallen victim to his generally aggresive tendencies to everything he is confronted with in real life. I've contemplated a more direct approach, but cannot assume such serious consequences over the issue of mere pudicats. Stray cats they may be. But Oscar, 'boss-cat', 'blackie-cat', Noisette, 'bullet', mommie-cat and Moustique etc. and I have since developed a relationship. After 2 weeks without seeing them, I'm ready for anything. The ideal solution would be that I equip myself with a flame-thrower. I'd burn Momo's car, then proceed to where he moors his little boats and burn that up too. Provided Momo was either in his car or on his boat, the self-defence strategy would bring immediate benefits.

Otherwise, I'd be confronted with debating to what extent my feeding of the port's stray cats really changed anything - I mean, the cats wouldn't anyway eat the rats they killed, which apparently everyone concerned agrees upon. And I've suggested that the cats, well-fed, will anyway devote their increased free-time towards play, which would also involve the odd rat (what rats?) or seagulls available.

PS. Regardless, 'Momo' is a dead-man walking so far as I'm concerned. He's made so many enemies over the years that it's not a question of if, but when. I'm confident that at some stage over the next few years, I'll renew my relationships with all those pudicats.

The principle is that noone ever forgets what they are, what they represent and what they're trying to achieve. Once everyone knows what they have to deal with, the sooner everything will fall into their natural order. Even though I might appreciate the intervention of a few Royal Commandos or even the French counterparts today, I realise they have their hands full combatting more serious threats...?!

BenThere
5th Jan 2009, 15:55
How about just opening the gate and letting them make their way in Cuba, one of the most progressive, socially advanced, happiest countries in the world, I'm told?

Their medical needs, education, and monthly chicken would be provided, and they'd likely end up as doctors, caring for mankind, and forgetting any ideas of jihad, if indeed they had any.

Would this not be a win-win for all concerned?

airship
5th Jan 2009, 16:22
How about just opening the gate and letting them make their way in Cuba, one of the most progressive, socially advanced, happiest countries in the world, I'm told?

Their medical needs, education, and monthly chicken would be provided, and they'd likely end up as doctors, caring for mankind, and forgetting any ideas of jihad, if indeed they had any.

Would this not be a win-win for all concerned? One of the most juvenile, if not delinquent responses I've ever witnessed here on PPRuNe...medical practioners who gained their credentials by way of geovenmental programs. And end up earning hardly 100-150% of the average wage...?!

Perhaps, one day, all those who reclaim governmental 'teats' will be identified. I dare say it will make hardly any difference in Cuba, but what about western countries? And those medical practicioners who've gone on to earn 10, 20 x the average wage thanks to the benefits allowed them. Of course, once they've become millionaires, they're more than willing to devote 5% of their free time inreturn for their benefits. Or so I'm lead to believe.