England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

**جوري** · 03-10-2013

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

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.
66303614 66303613 1 - England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

66303614 66303613 1 - England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

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.
66233539 66233538 1 - England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

66233539 66233538 1 - England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

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.
65060578 falklands 464 1 - England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

65060578 falklands 464 1 - England's thievery of the Falkland/Malvinas islands

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.

**Abu Loren** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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.

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

their 1912 mentality

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

Originally Posted by Karl

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.

Originally Posted by Karl

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.

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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** · 03-11-2013

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by Independent

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by Abu Loren

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!

**Independent** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by Independent

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by Independent

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** · 03-11-2013

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by Abu Loren

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.

I just simply cut through the crap.

**Abu Loren** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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.

I just simply cut through the crap.

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

**Independent** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by Independent

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!

Originally Posted by Abu Loren

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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** · 03-11-2013

Originally Posted by Trumble

Well, you have to admire British forward thinking

But of course and

back..

Originally Posted by Trumble

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?

Originally Posted by Trumble

(alas, Hugo Chavez is no longer with us)

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

best,

**Trumble** · 03-12-2013

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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** · 03-12-2013

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** · 03-12-2013

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** · 03-12-2013

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!