White Farmers Banned From Owning Land In Zimbabwe

Quote:In fact Kwami, you and Maps will both be violently evicted by Billy Two Willies and Shep Proudfoot tomorrow for unlawfully occupying their grandfather's land.

AH YO!  I COMMITTED NO HISTORICAL CRIME AGAINST THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THE WEST INDIES!  THAT I AM IN THE WEST INDIES AT ALL IS A CRIME AGAINST ME. 

I WOULD GLADLY, HAPPILY, WILLINGLY, GIVE BACK THE WEST INDIES TO ITS ORIGINAL INHABITANTS AND SAIL TO AFRICA, IF ALL OF THAT CAN BE ARRANGED.  I WOULD LEAVE ALL MY POSSESSIONS TO THE BUCK MAN, AND ANY MONEY I COULD SPARE TO HELP HIM TO RE-ORGANIZE HIMSELF

quid pro quo is that all the interlopers leave africa..get to fuc' out and stay out! >

[quote author=mapoui link=topic=91072.msg574200#msg574200 date=1404858197]
AND IF IT IS NOT  OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN YOUR LAW THEN YOUR LAW IS AN ASS!

AND IF THE CURRENT GENERATION OF SETTLER DESCENDANTS HOLD ON TO THE LAND, BENEFIT FROM IT, PARTICIPATE IN EFFORTS TO FRUSTRATE THE PEOPLE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO GET BACK THEIR LAND, EVEN KILL THEM IN THE PROCESS.. THEN THEY ARE CULPABLE IN THE ORIGINAL CRIME AND CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CRIME OF THEIR FOREBEARS.

and if  the people of Zimbabwe move to take back the land... remember that the popular will and participation of and general public in the general action, in the movement to take back the land is basic law as far as I know.  if the action stands.. the then it is the popular will that it stand..it is what the people want and so it stands as law..an accomplished fact.

that I know to be the law..like when the people carry out a revolution and it stands, then the world recognises the new dispensation because it stands, solidifies itself.  and if it does it is the popular will.. so recognition must follow

if you want to look at a popular movement and single out any group and call them what you will..thugs, bullers, zami-makers etc., using them to call the general movement limited and unrepresentaive.. that is your affair.  again you have to prove it..prove that it is a fact and that it is not your propaganda against the popular movement
[/quote]


"'IF'  is not precedent.  you cant work with IF in a court of law I dont think" - Mapoui

Quote:"'IF'  is not precedent.  you cant work with IF in a court of law I dont think" - Mapoui

yes I can... for all I have said is full of precedent. 

there is nothing illogical in all I have posed, like 8 billion people..the planets population with grudges against each other, suddenly all wanting legal resolution for their grievances at one specific moment in time..NOW. 

that is your IF..abstract really

my if is not anstract, without precedent,  but practical and in sync with routine reality

[quote author=mapoui link=topic=91072.msg574208#msg574208 date=1404859947]
yes I can... for all I have said is full of precedent. 

there is nothing illogical in all I have posed, like 8 billion people..the planets population with grudges against each other, suddenly all wanting legal resolution for their grievances at one specific moment in time..NOW. 

that is you IF

my if is not illogical, without precedent,  but practical and in sync with routine reality
[/quote]

So "if" is a precedent if it is logical?  Any other departures and variations on this legal principle we should know about? ::LOL::

but in all I have said above IF is not really a factor.  it is you who imposing IF on it and asking me to discuss.  why?

where is there IF in this:

Quote:you see I dont understand you.  you represent western law..magna carta and all dat.. but you are not being fair.

there is a long line of horror, suffering and loss over a century from the theft of the land. but due to a change in the social power a chance appears to redress that problem because the nation has a responsibility to resolve it.  it is a national issue of the greatest scope and importance caused by invasion and settler expropriation of a people by force.

but after a hundred years and many legal attempts according to what you call law..the law by which you operate.. the problem remains due to YOUR side's intransigence and refusal to live up to deals to resolve the issue, made according to law..again YOUR law!

but also those descendants of the original criminals refuse to budge, hold on the the land their fore-fathers  stole and benefit from it, fight the people, even kill them in their efforts to get back their land in their current generations.

what the hell is that if its not obstruction of justice..for what is justified in the situation but the people getting back their land ::confused::

that is not only aiding and abetting historical crime etc., but also obstruction of justice..BUT YOU WONT ADMIT THAT! 

AND IF IT IS NOT  OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN YOUR LAW THEN YOUR LAW IS AN ASS!

AND IF THE CURRENT GENERATION OF SETTLER DESCENDANTS HOLD ON TO THE LAND, BENEFIT FROM IT, PARTICIPATE IN EFFORTS TO FRUSTRATE THE PEOPLE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO GET BACK THEIR LAND, EVEN KILL THEM IN THE PROCESS.. THEN THEY ARE CULPABLE IN THE ORIGINAL CRIME AND CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CRIME OF THEIR FOREBEARS.

and if  the people of Zimbabwe move to take back the land... remember that the popular will, and participation of the general public in the general action, in the movement to take back the land.. is basic law as far as I know.  if the action stands.. then it is the popular will that it stand..it is what the people want and so it stands as law..an accomplished fact.

that I know to be the law..like when the people carry out a revolution and it stands, then the world recognises the new dispensation because it stands, solidifies itself.  and if it does it is the popular will.. so recognition must follow

if you want to look at a popular movement and single out any group and call them what you will..thugs, bullers, zami-makers etc., using them to call the general movement limited and unrepresentaive.. that is your affair.  again you have to prove it..prove that it is a fact and that it is not your propaganda against the popular movement

Quote:and if  the people of Zimbabwe move to take back the land... remember that the popular will, and participation of the general public in the general action, in the movement to take back the land.. is basic law as far as I know.  if the action stands.. then it is the popular will that it stand..it is what the people want and so it stands as law..an accomplished fact.

they did take the land back

Quote:if you want to look at a popular movement and single out any group and call them what you will..thugs, bullers, zami-makers etc., using them to call the general movement limited and unrepresentaive.. that is your affair.  again you have to prove it..prove that it is a fact and that it is not your propaganda against the popular movement

YOU did look at the popular to take the land back and singled out a group you called 'thugs'.

how in the hell can you look at a popular movement and do that?  that's impossible to do!

Quote:but after a hundred years and many legal attempts according to what you call law..the law by which you operate.. the problem remains due to YOUR side's intransigence and refusal to live up to deals to resolve the issue, made according to law..again YOUR law!

but also those descendants of the original criminals refuse to budge, hold on the the land their fore-fathers  stole and benefit from it, fight the people, even kill them in their efforts to get back their land in their current generations.

what the hell is that if its not obstruction of justice..for what is justified in the situation but the people getting back their land ::confused::

totally true..based on history we all know and can easily verify!

Quote:that is not only aiding and abetting historical crime etc., but also obstruction of justice..BUT YOU WONT ADMIT THAT! 

AND IF IT IS NOT  OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN YOUR LAW THEN YOUR LAW IS AN ASS!

AND IF THE CURRENT GENERATION OF SETTLER DESCENDANTS HOLD ON TO THE LAND, BENEFIT FROM IT, PARTICIPATE IN EFFORTS TO FRUSTRATE THE PEOPLE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO GET BACK THEIR LAND, EVEN KILL THEM IN THE PROCESS.. THEN THEY ARE CULPABLE IN THE ORIGINAL CRIME AND CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CRIME OF THEIR FOREBEARS

again historically true and reasonable position. the white 'farmers' were compounding a historical crime and committing more on top of that

man what [size=18pt]if[/size] you talking about! ::confused:: ::confused::