England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

[جوري]

The islanders are keen to send out a clear signal to Argentina and the rest of the world with their referendum this weekend
Continue reading the main story Falklands referendum

• Falklanders prepare for referendum vote
• Falklanders 'must decide own future'
• Argentina vows to control Falklands
• Q&A: Falkland islanders referendum

The population of the Falkland Islands is going to the polls on Sunday and Monday in a referendum on whether to remain a British overseas territory.
Argentina has constantly reiterated its claims to the islands, 30 years after it was repelled by a British Task Force in a 74-day conflict.
The islanders decided to hold the vote in response to Argentine pressure for negotiations over sovereignty.
The tiny community is expected to overwhelmingly back remaining British.
But a "yes" vote backing the status quo is unlikely to resolve the dispute.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has said the inhabitants' wishes are not relevant in what is a territorial issue.

British forces recaptured the Falkland Islands after invasion by Argentina
Most Argentines regard the islands, which they call Las Malvinas, as Argentine and their recovery is enshrined in the national constitution.
Falkland Islanders will have their voices heard in the referendum, with 1,672 people eligible to vote out of the islands' total population of about 2,900.
Dick Sawle, a member of the island's legislative assembly, played a leading part in pushing for the vote to happen.
He told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show he hoped the result would reaffirm the principle of self-determination and send a message to both the international community and to Argentines.
"I would hope that whilst the government of Argentina may not listen to us, I hope the people... will listen to us, because I think there are many people within Argentina who are not in tune with their government."
He rejected Ms Kirchner's suggestion that they were an "implanted" population, saying the Falklands had been settled throughout history in the same way as South America, but with no indigenous population to displace.

Staff and customers at the Bittersweet Cafe in Stanley talk about being islanders

Despite the clarity of the history, he added, there was the fundamental right to self-determination "to which no-one can attach conditions".
BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt, in Port Stanley, said that in the cafes and shops of the Falklands capital there was no mistaking the sentiment - union flags fly everywhere from cars to bunting in the windows, and posters ask islanders to vote "yes" to staying British.
Julie Clarke, owner of the Bittersweet cafe, said: "Without a shadow of a doubt, it'll be a big fat 'yes'. These are our islands, this is our home, and I think the rest of the world needs to hear us and see us for who we are."
Pam Devino, who runs a beauty salon, said: "Really, hopefully, that will get Argentina to back off, stop giving us so much hassle and it will let Britain know as well that we want to be British and part of them, and we're thankful for their support."
Ten international observers will oversee the vote, including ones from Chile and Mexico, despite an Argentine request for Latin American countries not to take part.
Continue reading the main story Two sides to a story

• Argentina says it inherited the islands from the Spanish crown in 1767 and the islands were seized by Britain in 1833
• But Britain says it had long previously established a settlement there and never relinquished sovereignty
• It says it has continuously inhabited and administered the islands since 1833

• The competing claims over the Falklands

There are mobile polling stations, some of which will have to be flown out to and from the outer islands, hence the voting being held over two days.
Those who cannot vote include those aged under 18 and people who are not Falkland islanders.
Some Argentines living on the islands have "Falklands status" which makes them eligible to vote.
Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982, entering the capital Port Stanley early in the morning.
The garrison of Royal Marines was overwhelmed and other British South Atlantic territories including South Georgia were also seized.
In two months of fighting, 255 British and about 650 Argentine servicemen were killed, along with three Falklands civilians, before Argentine forces surrendered.

The Falkland Islands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are British Overseas Territories

___http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21731760_______________________

They've let their parasites there to 'vote' on keeping it British, the same way they did with Singapore placing the Chinese there to keep it from being Islamic amongst other economic thievery.

[Independent]

The funny thing about Argentina's case is that is itself based a colonial claim - but it's a Spanish colonial claim! And it pre-dates Argentina's independence from Spain. If anyone else has a claim to the islands its Spain, not Argentina.

So, Argentina is saying that it obtained independence from Spain, but mysteriously inherited its colonial claims. By the same logic Argentina could lay claim to Gibralta or Cueta.

[جوري]

There's nothing funny about that at all. The same way Portugal colonized Brazil. Spain Colonized the Islands before England but they've always belonged to Argentina, if by virtue of proximity and nothing else. At least the Spaniards if still interested in this type of thievery are closer in culture to the Argentines but still no excuse for what England proclaims. What is funny here is your logic or lack thereof.

[Abu Loren]

There are no real strategic value to these islands. So it is inhabited by 2,900 people and probably twice as much sheep. This has to do with pride, both sides will not give in. I can't see the Brits leaving. If you look at history, the British always leave after they cause internal strife and possibly civil war.

Question is why do both sides care about a piece of rock in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[جوري]

Naval warfare has always been England's thing otherwise its a useless little Island whose economy is based on thievery & colonies. Everything they do is for a strategic reason whether then or now. I wasn't particularly concerned about this except that I was thinking of the mess they made of Singapore by placing Chinese immigrants there completely ruining its Muslim identity & demographics.
Bottom line is awareness really, the Argentine will handle their own it is their battle and their identity at stake, for us know to know that these people are not friends!!! and not to take them for friends or allies & to just learn something from history!

:w:

[Independent]

they've always belonged to Argentina, if by virtue of proximity and nothing else

This is nonsense and it's not even the basis of Argentina's claim. The islands did not belong to the peoples inhabiting Argentina before the Spanish because they were uninhabited and nobody knew about them.

The Argentine claim is explicitly based on the Spanish colonial claim - even though Argentina has long ago claimed its own independence.

The reason its rising up the agenda again now is because Argentina's government is running into economic trouble, may need another devaluation, and needs a foreign patriotic distraction. Same as Galtieri.

[جوري]

what is nonsense is how an Island that far away belongs to England, it is nothing more than a stop over for its fleet and they have completely changed their demographics by placing their turds their and for no reason whatsoever except self interest. Stop bringing other countries into this. You deny that England has placed its citizens there so when they vote for to whom this belongs it would tip the scales and that's a Q asked in rhetoric .. nothing you write is meaningful!

You are indeed amusing on multiple levels!

[Futuwwa]

There's nothing funny about that at all. The same way Portugal colonized Brazil. Spain Colonized the Islands before England but they've always belonged to Argentina, if by virtue of proximity and nothing else.

What's this thing called "by virtue of proximity"? Is there some moral law saying that if X belongs to me, anything near X also does?

[Independent]

You deny that England has placed its citizens there so when they vote for to whom this belongs it would tip the scales and that's a Q asked in rhetoric

They've been there for a very long time, long before anyone worried about voting. If they don't have right of residence, then neither does any Argentine of Spanish descent.

what is nonsense is how an Island that far away belongs to England

In international law proximity is surprisingly unimportant. Also, the islands aren't exactly close to Argentina either.

They can't have it both ways. They can't push their colonial claim but deny someone else's. That's why Argentina doesn't want to go to interntional arbitration - because they're afraid they might lose.

And why any of this is on an Islamic forum I don't know, except as part of your usual 'I hate the west' obsession.

[جوري]

Fatwa: as opposed to what? Some far away nations entitlement for its fleet?

[جوري]

Indy: you've a problem with common knowledge?
You're such a hoot- the whole world is aware of your govt. dirty laundry why should we limit our knowledge or subscribe to your version of it oh keeper of the flame and leader of the pack?
Thanks for the usual sophomoric observation it falls on deaf ears.
There's a global awakening and it will take a lot more than a single gadfly to combat it :)

Best,

[Karl]

The Brits have nukes the Argentines don't, no contest. Maggie threatened to nuke Argentina last time, that's why they backed down, they were afraid of the "Iron lady". Britain is going very left wing liberal these days, maybe there will be a compromise as the old God Queen and country population of WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) has changed to secularist gay pride, feminism and multi culturalism. The Falkland Islanders are mainly WASPs so they may cling to mother England that they remembered.

[Independent]

Maggie threatened to nuke Argentina last time, that's why they backed down, they were afraid of the "Iron lady".

I wonder if the surrender of all their troops might not have had something to do with it?

[Futuwwa]

The Brits have nukes the Argentines don't, no contest. Maggie threatened to nuke Argentina last time, that's why they backed down, they were afraid of the "Iron lady".

Argentina didn't "back down", its troops were forcibly evicted by conventional armaments. There's no way Britain would launch a nuclear strike over a far-flung island, think of the consequences it would have, and then consider that the British government would have know about the consequences much better than anyone of us.

[Independent]

Argentina didn't "back down", its troops were forcibly evicted by conventional armaments.

Absolutely. And of course, the UK had the nuclear weapons before the war started. So it wasn't much of a deterrent.

[Abu Loren]

What in the world would Argentina do with that piece of rock? The mind boggles.

[جوري]

What in the world would Argentina do with that piece of rock? The mind boggles.

As I stated it is a stop over for their fleets. They need many colonies and many bases. I mean what did they want with Africa or Australia or Hong Kong etc. etc.?
This however, simply mirrors what happened in Singapore and I'd urge you to read about that with the placement of the chinese to change the Muslim demographics. Muslims need to be aware of what their enemies are doing whether the Argentines are upset or not, it is their battle but we can't afford that kind of laxity.
The good thing is these gits are still dealing with folks with their 1912 mentality and we should capitalize on that before they too evolve out of their stupor!

:w:

[Karl]

Argentina didn't "back down", its troops were forcibly evicted by conventional armaments. There's no way Britain would launch a nuclear strike over a far-flung island, think of the consequences it would have, and then consider that the British government would have know about the consequences much better than anyone of us.

Why wouldn't Britain nuke Buenos Aires when it's people are under attack in the Falklands? The British are ruthless warriors, conquest is their sport. If you don't have the power to destroy them the next best thing is passive resistance like what Gandhi did and what other oppressed natives in the Anglosphere do.

[جوري]

British are ruthless warriors

That's what they used to say about Israel even managed to convince their spies like Heba Selim (Golda Meir's) favorite 'daughter'. It just the defeatist mentality no more no less. Great morale is 90% of the battle won.
I'd never want someone like you on my team.


belief in God, principal, love of ummah and country is all that is needed for victory.

[Futuwwa]

Why wouldn't Britain nuke Buenos Aires when it's people are under attack in the Falklands?

Because of the international outrage it would cause. Argentina and any other country which could imagine itself ending up on the receiving end of British nukes would scramble to put themselves in the Soviet sphere of influence for protection and a nuclear umbrella.

Britain's people *were* under attack in the Falklands, and the nuclear attack you claim should happen in that case very much did not.

[Abu Loren]

This however, simply mirrors what happened in Singapore and I'd urge you to read about that with the placement of the chinese to change the Muslim demographics.

Yes indeed I've seen first hand the situation in Singapore. The indigent Malay population are virtually non-existant. When the British left in the 1960's there was an almost equal number of Malay, Chinese and Indian citizens but the Malay and the Indians have been marginalised and the Chinese took power in all spheres of Singaporean life. When you go to Singapore you will most of the visitors to the country are actually Chinese, it's as if they have opened up the border to them.

Instead of the masjids being a dominant landmark in Singapore, sadly they are dotted around here and there.

Alhamdulilah neighbouring Malaysia and across the waters Indonesia are Muslim countries and it's two miracles of Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala how these countries became Muslims.

[Independent]

As I stated it is a stop over for their fleets.

What century are you living in? And when will you start making even basic research before you post?

The Falklands have no significant role for the British fleet and lacks the facilities to do so. By the time of the Falklands war there was just one Royal Navy supply vessel stationed there, the Endurance, which was a supply boat with no significant weaponry that couldn't have held off a Hawaiin war canoe, let alone a battleship.

Inadvertently it did play a part in the start of the war. Like so many wars this one began with a failure of diplomacy. Galtieri (an appalling military dictator who was busily killing many of his own people at the time) was becoming unpopular at home, just like the current Argentine president, and looking for a nice patriotic distraction. At that moment for budgetary reasons the British Government announced that the Endurance was to be decommissioned, leaving no naval ships at all stationed in the south Atlantic. (None at all - so much for your imperial fleet fantasy).

Galtieri misinterpreted this as a 'green light' that the Brits didn't really care about the islands and wouldn't bother to try and repossess them if he attacked. He was wrong, and the rest is history.

their 1912 mentality

What is a '1912' mentality? Are you getting confused again?

Why wouldn't Britain nuke Buenos Aires when it's people are under attack in the Falklands? The British are ruthless warriors, conquest is their sport. If you don't have the power to destroy them the next best thing is passive resistance like what Gandhi did and what other oppressed natives in the Anglosphere do.

It would be interesting to see Argentina trying 'passive resistance' in the Falklands, seeing as they have zero supporters on the island.

It wasn't an all-out war and both sides made no attempt to hit each others' mainlands. Britain declared a 200 mile 'exclusion zone' around the islands. Any Argentine ship that came within that zone wold be at risk of attack. If you looked at the amount of controversy caused by the sinking of the Belgrano (an Argentine battleship) because it was in the zone but steering a course outside, then you wouldn't be asking such questions about nuclear weapons.

The nuclear option was never an option, was never discussed, was never called for even by the most right wing press. Never mind international opinion, it would have led to the immediate fall of the UK government because the people were in no way prepared or ready to accept such a drastic escalation of the war. This is an entirely unreal speculation and even the Argentines have never claimed they were threatened - which they most certainly would be eager to do.

Even Argentinians welcome the fact that the defeat brought about the collapse of the Galtieri dictatorship, although of course defeat is hard to accept under any circumstances.

The British are ruthless warriors, conquest is their sport

In fact there is every chance that the UK will be the first country in the world to give up nuclear weapons, probably unilaterally because no one else will agree.

This however, simply mirrors what happened in Singapore and I'd urge you to read about that with the placement of the chinese to change the Muslim demographics

The origins of the Falkland settlement are not historically clear and there are many versions. The islands were claimed successively by France, Spain, Britain and the nascent Argentinian state. Various settlements came and went, mainly concerned with whaling and sealing. At one point Argentina tried to establish a penal colony but it failed. It is not possible to be certain about this phase of history - however, when the British did take over, they did so without firing a shot and did not expel the citizens of any other country, who in any case were not born on the island.

[Abu Loren]

I remember the Falklands War very well as I was at school and the war came suddenly out of the blue. I think Galtieri in hi arrogance (him being a military dictator) thought that the Brits would hand over the Islands. Althought it was shocking at first when the patriotic fever got going there was unity within the British Isles. It was also great for the media (as is all wars).

I wonder if the same thing could happen again. It seems unlikely and unthinkable.

[جوري]

What century are you living in?

ad hominem doesn't an argument make indy. Do they not teach you that in your handy diagnosis/historical tidbits/sarcasm dossier? Your personal tantrums have no room on threads neither do your projections and ad homs. And after that incoherent rant 'Not historically clear' does not loan your cause nor credibility any support.
Why not give it up? What are you hoping to do exactly? gain grounds with like minded gadflies? surely even you can see that nothing you hurl out here is of value!

best,

[جوري]

Yes indeed I've seen first hand the situation in Singapore. The indigent Malay population are virtually non-existant. When the British left in the 1960's there was an almost equal number of Malay, Chinese and Indian citizens but the Malay and the Indians have been marginalised and the Chinese took power in all spheres of Singaporean life. When you go to Singapore you will most of the visitors to the country are actually Chinese, it's as if they have opened up the border to them.

Instead of the masjids being a dominant landmark in Singapore, sadly they are dotted around here and there.

:alhamd neighbouring Malaysia and across the waters Indonesia are Muslim countries and it's two miracles of Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala how these countries became Muslims.

That's indeed their game. 'Nukes' don't have to be used to accomplish said agenda. Singapore had more significance than Malysia or other neighboring countries it is the 4th leading financial center & a strategic port so of course they can't have it Islamic.
I believe this is the time for Islam though- it is happening now and the west is running around like a chicken that has lost its head with its agents trying to cause carnage here and there, luckily their popularity & economy are in the dumps so those two things especially must be capitalized on. People are slowly waking up to see that capitalism and their so-called democratic system doesn't work. We can stand as spectators and watch it or we can be on the offensive which is what should be done!

:w:

[Independent]

ad hominem doesn't an argument make indy.

Most of your posts (just like this one) contain more insults than facts, and many of those 'facts' turn out to be hopelessly incorrect, which is why you stop trying to prove them (just like this one).

Now you've added a non-existent fleet to your non-existent Afghan pipeline. Whatever will it be next?!

[جوري]

Most of your posts (just like this one) contain more insults than facts, and many of those 'facts' turn out to be hopelessly incorrect, which is why you stop trying to prove them (just like this one).

Now you've added a non-existent fleet to your non-existent Afghan pipeline. Whatever will it be next?!

You find it insulting when folks point out the obvious? In fact it seems like an excellent self analysis if you'd only add an admission to your reading & comprehension impediment then you'll have made a first honest statement- as for the rest saving face doesn't happen by ping ponging my observation of your writing back at me.
I have to say it is mildly amusing seeing you get all worked up when folks point out your laundry list of funnies. If you can't handle it, then don't be a member here =)

best,

[Independent]

You find it insulting when folks point out the obvious? In fact it seems like an excellent self analysis if you'd only add an admission to your reading & comprehension impediment then you'll have made a first honest statement- as for the rest saving face doesn't happen by ping ponging my observation of your writing back at me.
I have to say it is mildly amusing seeing you get all worked up when folks point out your laundry list of funnies. If you can't handle it, then don't be a member here =)

Another fact free zone! Still no fleet!

[جوري]

Another fact free zone! Still no fleet!

Big surprise innit? you offer nothing but BS you get nothing but BS.
Go sign for a refresher course at the shill academy!

best,

[Abu Loren]

Now you two you are now getting personal. It's a shame because it look like you two are the most intelligent people here. Focus on the subject matter and leaven everything else to the haters.

Love and peace.

[جوري]

It's a shame because it look like you two are the most intelligent people here

Now I am starting to feel insulted truly- Please don't compare me to that.
He seldom focuses on any subject matter and enjoys meandering topics or resorting to ad homs for fillers as a way to deflect from the facts. He's a paid shill and if others on this board wish to give him airtime on account the forum stats are down more power to them. I don't buy into the bull ****, I am certainly not getting paid for it to invest in point style or trollism. :alhamd: I just simply cut through the crap.

:w:

[Abu Loren]

Now I am starting to feel insulted truly- Please don't compare me to that.
He seldom focuses on any subject matter and enjoys meandering topics or resorting to ad homs for fillers as a way to deflect from the facts. He's a paid shill and if others on this board wish to give him airtime on account the forum stats are down more power to them. I don't buy into the bull ****, I am certainly not getting paid for it to invest in point style or trollism. :alhamd: I just simply cut through the crap.

:w:

Indeed but you must ignore certain things. There will always be people like him.

[Independent]

Now you two you are now getting personal. It's a shame because it look like you two are the most intelligent people here. Focus on the subject matter and leaven everything else to the haters.

Well said and i regret the constant descent into bickering. But I see no reason why Shaden should have a monopoly on insults, including the 'shill' routine and 'you're not Muslim enough' which many of us are subjected to. If you check the start of this thread, as most others, you will find the first 'personal' remark was by her in Post 3:

What is funny here is your logic or lack thereof.

There are many people on this forum with all kinds of views here which are interesting to read, even when we disagree. Most other members are able to get by without the personal stuff. I'd be more than happy to stick to the debate but I've got a feeling it's not going to work out that way.

[جوري]

There are many people on this forum with all kinds of views here which are interesting to read, even when we disagree. Most other members are able to get by without the personal stuff. I'd be more than happy to stick to the debate but I've got a feeling it's not going to work out that way.

Again, start with yourself. If you're finding only one kind of response there only two logical conclusions in your particular case:
1- folks lost interest.
2- Folks are drawing from what you've personally presented.
Go review your posts, your vile acrid nonsensical venom and ad homs and there you'll have why you elicit one or two different types of responses. I can't dignify the rest with a response, and in the future it will do if you simply speak about your own bruised ego and color it with your personal creativity.
I challenge you to show me a post otherwise where I said to a Muslim, 'you're not Muslims enough' - and you wonder why you have no credibility, none whatsoever!

Indeed but you must ignore certain things. There will always be people like him.

I am certainly not losing sleep over it and he's not as benign as all that!

best,

[Trumble]

They've let their parasites there to 'vote' on keeping it British

Well, you have to admire British forward thinking, then. Putting those "parasites" (on what, exactly?) there in preparation for their decendants to 'vote' (reason for inverted commas uncertain) 200 years later. Still, they only live there. Who cares what they think?

Let's face it, the only reasons the Argentines really give a toss about a couple of islands in the middle of the Atlantic is the possibility there might be oil there. And as a nice diversion for Jose Public when the Argentine economy goes down the toilet and the politicos desperately want them to think about something else. Nobody in Britain gave a toss either prior to 1982, and a bit of clever Argentine diplomacy would have resulted in solution that kept everybody happy. But, no... in with troops and, oops.. the British decided they weren't impressed with that and kicked them out again. End of.

The elite from both countries went back to playing polo with each other, the plebs went back to playing soccer with each other, and everyone got on splendidly again while we waited for the next recession and a bit more assorted mouthing off, flag waving and general jingoistic stuff. This time, though, no doubt to the acute disappointment of yourself and Sean Penn (alas, Hugo Chavez is no longer with us) the officer corps of both countries are far more concerned with the next chukka than the possibility of shooting at each other.

[جوري]

Well, you have to admire British forward thinking

But of course and :welcome: back..

couple of islands in the middle of the Atlantic is the possibility there might be oil there

I doubt it.. probably just pure hatred for the colonialists and who can blame them?

(alas, Hugo Chavez is no longer with us)

Indeed.. perhaps they've gotten better with their use of polonium now..

best,

[Trumble]

I doubt it.. probably just pure hatred for the colonialists and who can blame them?

Hmmm... you do the Argentines something of a disservice I think; I don't recall much evidence of 'pure hatred' from anybody in this context, even in 1982. What there was on both sides was the result of whipped-up jingoism for political gain rather than some perceived historical injustice.

There's enough 'pure hatred' in the world already without dreaming up any more of it. The only Falklands refugees were a few displaced penguins, and the only 'prisons' a few sheep pens.

[جوري]

Judging from those interviewed that's exactly what it is and I doubt that it will go away anytime soon well with England thieving and its spawn voting and all!

[Independent]

Remarkably enough the Falklands were not the only islands disputed by Argentina at the time. They also laid claim to a group of islands in the Beagle Channel, in rivalry with Chile. This was known as the 'Beagle conflict'. Unlike with the Falklands, Argentina agreed to put the issue to international arbitration as the tensions mounted.

Unfortunately for Argentina, the court decided in favour of Chile )which explains why they don't want to go to arbitration with the Falklands). Argentina then repudiated its own legal agreement and began secret plans for an invasion in 1978, just 4 years before the Falklands War. At the last minute they backed out for fear of an escalation with Chile.

Obviously they decided that the UK was a safer bet.

[Independent]

More Fun Facts about Argentina...

Even the 'proximity' claim (which has little significance in international law anyway) isn't quite as good as it seems. The Falklands are nearest to what is now southern Argentina. But at the time of the British takeover (1833) this native Indian area was yet to be conquered by Argentina in a land seizure known as 'the Desert Wars'.

So, to be chronologically consistent, Argentina should be requesting that the Falklands are given not to themselves but to a reconstituted independent Indian state based in southern Argentina!

[جوري]

Argentine 'delusions' certainly don't justify British squatters. And I do hope they get rid of them by whatever means necessary - if this per British thieves doesn't hold up in a court of law given their squatters' say it certainly holds in the court of public opinion. Hopefully they'll get what is coming to them.
This is somewhat different but reminiscent of what happened in Hong Kong ''Military of Hong Kong under British rule". .. when they were used for military purposes with the Promise of British citizenship, and of course we know how well the Brits do on their promises. They were basically kicked out if they weren't already expired in wars.
Brits were basically toting as they so often do how they engaged in wars and never lost a British soldier. Other folks sacrifice their lives and their homes for a disgusting vile little island of Drunks with a superiority complex.

Hopefully the Argentine have a bit of a fiery spirit about them to kick the sons of *****es out in a most humiliating manner and :ia: it will happen truly everywhere else their tentacles reached and in a similar fashion including the colonial settler cockroach zionist state they helped establish!

[Abu Loren]

disgusting vile little island of Drunks with a superiority complex.

I concur.

[Abu Loren]

Sorry I forgot to elaborate, probably one of the reasons that the Brits are so high and mighty is because they STILL think they rule the world and every so often they sing their all time favourite 'rule britannia....'.

My be I shouldn't whinge and whine as I hold their shiny red passport.

[جوري]

My be I shouldn't whinge and whine as I hold their shiny red passport.

Pretty soon there will be one globalized passport .. we're all branded like a herd.. but I plan to spend my twilight years in the Serengeti :D

[Abu Loren]

Pretty soon there will be one globalized passport .. we're all branded like a herd.. but I plan to spend my twilight years in the Serengeti :D

Masha'Allah that reminds me of a lecture by Mufti Menk of Zimbabwe where he said that he went into the bush and out on a clearing there were at least 200 - 300 people making salat during Asr. Allahu Akbar!

[جوري]

ahh many moons ago my dad was stationed in that lovely country so even though I was merely born there and lasted 4 weeks I do have citizenship so I am hopeful they'll welcome me with open arms :D

innit it gorgeous?

[Futuwwa]

Argentine 'delusions' certainly don't justify British squatters. And I do hope they get rid of them by whatever means necessary - if this per British thieves doesn't hold up in a court of law given their squatters' say it certainly holds in the court of public opinion. Hopefully they'll get what is coming to them.

You would forcibly expel them if it was up to you? ^o)

[Futuwwa]

Sorry I forgot to elaborate, probably one of the reasons that the Brits are so high and mighty is because they STILL think they rule the world and every so often they sing their all time favourite 'rule britannia....'.

My be I shouldn't whinge and whine as I hold their shiny red passport.

When was the last time the Brits showed any signs of actually believing they ruled the world?

The Royal Navy is a shadow of a shell of its former self, and I don't know of any faction in British politics actually lobbying to change that.

[جوري]

You would forcibly expel them if it was up to you? ^o)

Not at all I'd prefer to have them as slaves and POW's

[Abu Loren]

ahh many moons ago my dad was stationed in that lovely country so even though I was merely born there and lasted 4 weeks I do have citizenship so I am hopeful they'll welcome me with open arms :D

innit it gorgeous?

Watch out for the lions. I like your house Masha'Allah.

I think we are going off topic but that's ok it's your thread. :hiding:

[Abu Loren]

When was the last time the Brits showed any signs of actually believing they ruled the world?

The Royal Navy is a shadow of a shell of its former self, and I don't know of any faction in British politics actually lobbying to change that.

You live in Finland? The reason why you wouldn't understand what I'm talking about. Is it still cold there btw?

[جوري]

Watch out for the lions. I like your house Masha'Allah.

I think we are going off topic but that's ok it's your thread. :hiding:

'tis not my house but I can get a tree house next door lols.. I wuvvvvvvvvv wild animals and I love hunting wink wink.
my thread was ruined when you know who showed up I rather like it this way :D

:w:

[Futuwwa]

You live in Finland? The reason why you wouldn't understand what I'm talking about. Is it still cold there btw?

Nice ad hominem. Got actual arguments?

[جوري]

Nice ad hominem. Got actual arguments?

We can all agree it stopped being an 'actual argument' when you introduced such terms to the mix:

You would

if it was up to you?

Or are you guys exempt?

best,

[tearose]

When was the last time the Brits showed any signs of actually believing they ruled the world?
The Royal Navy is a shadow of a shell of its former self, and I don't know of any faction in British politics actually lobbying to change that.

There is a weird mentality from many people in the UK - when talking about things happening in other countries they'll say things like 'we can't allow that to happen'. Or they'll say 'should we let this kind of thing continue?'. I've heard statements like that quite a few times. And although the rhetoric and tactics may be different, they are still intervening in so many other countries where they have no business to be. It doesn't matter about the navy, these days they try and maintain control through other means.

[Futuwwa]

Not at all I'd prefer to have them as slaves and POW's

So being born in the wrong place is a crime worthy of punishment. How very Zionist of you.

[جوري]

So being born in the wrong place is a crime worthy of punishment. How very Zionist of you.

Not the only reason for what they should have coming but it isn't up to me!

best,

[Independent]

I'd prefer to have them as slaves and POW's

Pure, unadulterated, racist bigotry.

[جوري]

Pure, unadulterated, racist bigotry.

Is that meant to stir me emotinally? :haha: what a hoot!

[Trumble]

Pure, unadulterated, racist bigotry.

Nah... she's just trying to stir it for a laugh. What's really funny, though, is that if the Falkland Islanders hadn't been so determined to remain British all they would have 'had coming' is rather larger sheep farms in a rather nicer climate in the overall top-place-to-be that is Middle Eart... erm, New Zealand, courtesy of the UK and Argentine governments. You have to admire their steadfast dedication to refuse such a lifestyle in favour of remaining in a cold, rain-soaked, wind-swept dump in the middle of nowhere in order to fulfill their evil parasitic (a reference yet to be explained) colonialist duties. Of 'voting' (inverted commas also still to be explained) every 200 years. Or sheep worrying. Or penguin baiting. Or something.

Funny lot, we Brits.

[جوري]

Of 'voting'

still to be explained

I didn't think it merited an explanation? If you bring British squatters to change the demographics the outcome of the vote for falkland to remain British would be obvious.
Falkland Islanders vote to stay British
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/world/...dum/index.html
surely you follow the same news the rest of us do?..
As for the rest of that sinister apologetic bit, well one does wonder what British interest was in Hong Kong, Or Egypt, Or India, Or China, or Africa or virgin islands or cyprus or or or falklands? If it is scenic and lovely in jolly old England then keep the ambitions to the local pub?

she's just trying to stir it for a laugh

I think it would be difficult to train British slaves/ POW to exercise better hygiene & be less chatty but on the long run it will be worth it :D I think many people would enjoy it and I personally think that day is fast upon us

best,

[Trumble]

I didn't think it merited an explanation? If you bring British squatters to change the demographics the outcome of the vote for falkland to remain British would be obvious.

I hesitate to threaten the lighthearted tone of this exchange, but have you actually done any research on this subject at all?

The first 'settlements' were French (on East Falkland) and British (West Falkland). The French flogged theirs to the Spanish, who kicked out the Brits in 1770, who left a nice plaque asserting their claim. The Spanish had had enough of the place by 1809, when they all decamped to somewhere warmer and drier, leaving another nice plaque asserting their claim. The only actual Argentine presence (in almost comedic fashion, the Islands had been claimed for Argentina by an American pirate captain forced to shelter there from a storm) was a failed penal colony, the remnants of which were booted off by the British. The Brits started a civilian settlement in 1840 and have been there ever since.

In short, the only Argentines who have ever lived there are a few soldiers and convicts, most if not all of whom I think we can safely assume would far rather have been somewhere else. A Buenos Aires brothel, probably. The only civilian population since the Spanish upped and left voluntarily has been British... so what 'change of demographics' are you talking about?

BTW, the votes are in. Of a total electorate of 1,650, 92% voted. All but 3 voted to remain British. That's 'three'. Even the Argentines aren't claiming the result was rigged, settling for the favourite adjective in such circumstances of 'illegal'. Quite what they think would have changed were the vote 'legal' remains unclear.

[جوري]

I watched an entire documentary on the matter a couple if days ago- the Argentines obviously tell a different story and I am not surprised your version of events differs - for obvious reasons I am inclined to believe theirs and after a little British mishap called Israel you can see my dilemma.

It doesn't matter to me otherwise if the Brits elevated it from a certain brothel, anymore than I care that 'Israel' is the only so-called 'true democracy' in the Middle East.
If the Argentines want a brothel they should be so entitled it isn't the issue here.
And yes the votes were going to be 99% in British favor no surprise there it's full of British squatters voting so what are we arguing exactly?!

[جوري]

Sorry about the typos I am using my phone- too small to edit or fix but I think you're smarter than your counterpart who often and when lost for an argument fixates on syntax and grammar.

Best,

[Trumble]

I watched an entire documentary on the matter a couple if days ago- the Argentines obviously tell a different story and I am not surprised your version of events differs - for obvious reasons I am inclined to believe theirs and after a little British mishap called Israel you can see my dilemma.

As far as I'm aware the extent of the 'different story' is that the penal colony had an associated civilian settlement, a point I'd be happy enough to accept for the sake of argument anyway. Somebody had to do the laundry.

The Argentine claim is one of sovereignty; even they don't suggest anything else. Like many other such claims around the world, it is disputed. The Falklands are no Palestine, nobody was displaced, nobody longs to get their stolen 'land' back, there are no refugees, no oppressed population. There had never been a significant Argentine presence on the Islands until their troops started stomping all over them in 1982. In contrast, there has been a viable, peaceful British civilian presence there for over 170 years. Virtually all those who 'voted' were born there.

What I am arguing about is that your portrayal of the Falkland Islanders as 'squatters' is both bizarre and totally unsupported by the facts even the Argentines do not dispute. The sub-dispute, as it were, between Britain and Argentina in connection with the referendum is not about the result or any manipulation of it, but of whether the view of those who live there as regards to sovereignty matters. Were the place handed over to Argentina tomorrow, the only Argentines you would ever see there would be a few government officials and tourists. A few residents would leave, most wouldn't, and life would go on under a different flag.

Again, this isn't some South Atlantic Palestine, Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore or anywhere else you keep going on about. Some 2,000 lives were lost in 1982 because the Galtieri regime needed some whipped up jingoism to prevent it collapsing, and Thatcher was perfectly happy to oblige with some at her end for much the same reason. That was the real crime, not some alleged colonial injustice . In 2013 both sides know that, and hence that any hot air will remain just that.

[Independent]

What I am arguing about is that your portrayal of the Falkland Islanders as 'squatters' is both bizarre and totally unsupported by the facts even the Argentines do not dispute

This is well argued but a waste of breath. She is not interested in any argument at all, no matter how valid. Even if every single fact was round the other way, she would still support Argentina over Britain because she hates the British - anywhere and everywhere.

Even these Falkland Islanders whose only 'crime' was to be born there. Only one thing matters to her - the British race. Might as well wear a yellow star on your sleeve.

[جوري]

not some alleged colonial injustice . In 2013 both sides know that.

events don't have to mirror image to be relevant. There doesn't need to be a wall, colonies, alleged entitled ones from Poland, Russia and Sudan (squatters will do- does being a second or third generation squatter change the facts around?) there need not be changing of infrastructure or displacing locals!
It would be stale to repeat the same pattern if for nothing else but variety' sake.
It does indeed come down to sovereignty and there's no reason to doubt the Argentine version of events.
Brits weren't magically brought there by some celestial stork.
I don't need to argue the matter with fervor as you can probably tell it doesn't aggrieve me it's only slightly amusing but given my strong hatred for your govt. and the occasional turds
I am looking forward to any type of event that troubles your govt. and its supporters.
This isn't Afghanistan or Palestine or Iraq etc. for me to lose sleep over. Whether they remain Brits and subjects to her massive royal behind or argentine property and forced to farm and plough and clean toilets or are dumped alive and fed to sharks is all the same in my book I'd certainly prefer the latter though and hope it has a cascading effect.


Best,