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?

 

[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!

 

[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!

 

[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.