It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Argentina accused of plotting Falklands blockade

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


Your sources are all clearly blogs or one-man-band sites. They hold no actual proof other than their own words.

Its slightly embarassing that you continue to highlight your own ineptitude through your racist sentiments. If I was maknig the same allegation against someone of a different religion or skin colour, I have no doubt that I would be unable to post here now.

In fact, I might take a leaf out of your book. I'll set up a site that says ludwigvonmises003 killed 8.2 trillion people, but TPTB are keeping it a secret. Then i'll reference it when I slander you. It will hold as much sway as your argument.

Go away.




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ComeFindMe
 


there are links too like countercurrents.Also Mr.Amartya Sen estimates that 250 million were killed by the British empire. and your own british population stats indicate very major problems which the british propaganda media does not document:


Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 

British empire is the biggest mass murderer of History and you haven't debunked it.

Firstly,I do not believe british stats on india as they are corrupted.secondly the data is showing huge deviations which could be symbols of mass genocide by the British of hundreds of millions altogether at once by means of starvation or mass executions.

Secondly a lot of indians have told me stories of how murderous and racist the british people were and they don't believe british stats as they consistently changed to lie about the mass murders there are several mass graves in UP,Madhya Pradesh which have been attributed to the murderous british by indian locals...

292366,0 1860 then
135634,2 1861

155 million killed? 1857 there was a massive revolt and it does indicate A MAJOR THING (again the figures alter ,indicates data quality is poor or the british were the hiding the scale of their monstrous mass murders

300963,0 1875 then all of a sudden
201888,1 1881

100 million killed?


288730,0 1885
282801,0 1890
276994,0 1895



and then after 1900 population kept falling till 1920 despite high fertility and birth rates(starvation,mass execution,genocide?).After independence india's population exploded.

The data quality is terrible as figures are not consistent for some years and show mass alterations.But it proves one thing.British are trying to hide true data with constantly altering figures. I guess it proves my point .British waged mass genocide in india and the 1.8 billion murdered by the British empire still stands.

and this is from your own source.
www.populstat.info...
Secondly ,refer to Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History or Amartya Sen's works on indian history(nobel prize winner)


edit on 15-2-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


Exactly what has this got to do with the topic under discussion?

I would like it if you posted something relevant and with even the slightest bit of intelligence and reasoning as then I would be able to debate and show you up for the narrow minded bigot you obviously are, as it is your inane ramblings now do nothing but make people shake their heads in disbelief at one person's amount of irrational hatred and ignorance.

My post will probably be removed for being off topic whilst ludwigs will probably remain.
Go figure?
edit on 15/2/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


from your link to the population stats


Some of the data prior to 1902 with higher figures are for the whole area of British India, which included also Pakistan and Birma.


so we can assume that probably 100-150 million are from Pakistan and Birma so suddenly the numbers don't seem so bad and in the 1860's population drop is more of a statistical error as in 1871 the population is carrying on its general growth



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


So even if (big if) Mr.Amartya Sen is correct, how do you get from his total of 250 million to 1.8 billion.

You are scouring the internet for your dubious support of a fundamentally flawed and consistently debunked argument.

You've ruined yet another thread through your racist antagonism and i'm absoutely amazed you are still allowed to post here. Shocking.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The Argie politicians need to just STFU. If they invade the falklands again they'll get another slap just like 1982.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 

reply to post by ComeFindMe
 



pakistan and bangladesh had a population of 35-45 million then. Secondly there was a very devastating famine done by the British on our india in areas of Uttar Pradesh,Rajashtan in 1860-61 in which 20-30 million died atleast ,though official british statistics show it as 2-5 million.This was believed to be reprisal by the British empire on Uttar Pradesh for the 1857 revolt of independence was started in Meerut ,Uttar Pradesh.

The bangladeshis estimate that british were responsible for 50 million deaths in Bangladesh while the Pakistanis believe that british were responsible for 30-70 million deaths in Pakistan.

So like deaths in India due to British =150-250 million
Deaths in Pakistan =30-70 million
Deaths in Bangladesh=50 million

370 million deaths due to artifically created british famines and mass genocides then.
edit on 15-2-2012 by mkgandhas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Wow this topic went slightly off topic. Let's put things in to perspective, first of all, all this rubbish about Britain has done this in the past and that in the past is worthless, we could say that about every country and justify every militart action but let's look at the here and now. An eye for an eye makes the world blind and repeats a cycle not worth repeating. We have to look at lives TODAY and how actions will be affected on those who are alive TODAY!

Argentina has absolutely no thought for the islanders or their democratic right of choice and freedom of choice. Now I'm sure this will be hit by the usual responses of Brtain didn't during 18** or 17** or even 19** but what we are talking about is now, TODAY. We cannot go on saying well if Britain didn't do this and if people weren't affected by what Britain did in whatever time. The point is I totally agree that Britain should not get involved in anyone's affairs, there should be no occupation of any country or lands unless there is overwhelming evidence that genocide is being committed by the government of that country, then we as Human beings have a duty to interfere and not allow such systematic and deliberate murder of life, but is that still justification to send soldiers on to foreign soil? However, what is done is done, is it right to then condemn the islanders to be occupied by a foreign country that they have absolutely no desire to have any connection with? This is no different from any other occupation in any period of time. What the Argentinian government and a minority of supporters (from talking to Argentinian friends, it is a minority) are proposing is to invade and take over against people's free will, this is occupation and the British government have a duty to defend against such hostility, at least while the inhabitants wish to remain a British colony.

There is nothing to support Argentina's claim except proximity and they are only very much interested in it now due to the rich energy sources that come with the territory. Their own country has inflation coming in at 25%, they are a struggling nation, regardless of what the propaganda will have you believe. They should be looking after their own people first. Yes the same should be said for Britain, but this is exactly what Britain is doing and should war come about from this, I would be 100% behind Britain defending the Falklands as the only time Britain responded to Argentina with military force in the last 100 years is when Argetntina ATTACKED the Falklands. Britain has sat down before with Argentina to discuss a resolution and share the resources but Argentina walked away from the table add to this the islanders wish to stay British, what incentive is there to do it again?

Argentina can put whatever spin they want on it, they can pay for the backing of Sean Penn who will rattle on whatever was scripted to him, they can bribe other countries in South America with nationalist rhetoric and no doubt a share of the energy spoils, but Argentina's history towards its own people is far worse than Britains and it's history in war is none too great. It would be wise to remember that Britain has a duty to defend Falklands at all costs while the islanders wish to remain British. Whatever way Argenitina wants to spin it, they want to take over the islands against the inhabitants free will, that is occupation and you are either for it or against it.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mkgandhas
 


Yet another example of blatant off topic posting and anti-UK bigotry.

Could you please explain to me how you think these outright lies and ridiculous exaggerations about past events in the Indian sub-continent have any relevance whatsoever to Argentina allegedly attempting to blockade The Falklands.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mkgandhas
 


Its easy to be critical of history with modern eyes and over a century worth of wisdom! If any one of us lived in such times it would be like living on an alien planet. As I said, if we base history as support for actions of today, then we are all destined to eventually wipe ourselves out! Every country and people could justify any form of hostility against another! I could easily say what about Pakistan's genocide during the Bangladesh War in the early 70's, surely more recent and note worthy! Should I then endorse for Hindus to unleash a similar fate on Muslims? Of course not, an eye for an eye makes the world blind. This post as no relevance to the topic at hand. Argentina's desire to take over today's inhabitants of the Falkland Islands against their will. You are either for occupation or against it.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by mkgandhas
 


Yet another example of blatant off topic posting and anti-UK bigotry.

Could you please explain to me how you think these outright lies and ridiculous exaggerations about past events in the Indian sub-continent have any relevance whatsoever to Argentina allegedly attempting to blockade The Falklands.


The simple answer is: They don't. They're off-topic and a few are racist.

Nice one for sticking with it though Freeborn



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
... Argentina allegedly attempting to blockade The Falklands.


I have been mulling over the term blockade. Surely, if it is a blockade then Argentina need to declare it as such and properly enforce. This would be an escalation and lead to a Royal Navy presence to "break" the blockade. Besides, for a blockade to have any legal legitimacy it must be enforceable and the Argentinean navy could not enforce if the Royal Navy challenged it.

Therefore, what we have is a trade embargo. Is this one-sided embargo legal? Surely the UK government should take this to the UN / WTO and appeal to European partners to introduce a challenge and retaliate.

Or, is it not worth retaliation and Argentina are just being petty because they can? Methinks this is the nub of it all. Just politics. Petty Argentinean politics.

Regards

Regards



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
It's very simple to put this into perspective, Argentina can have the islands back (fine they had them for a tiny period of time before agreeing to leave when we returned having never given up our claim in the first place.) WHEN the majority of America packs up and comes back to Europe.

I mean you have just as much right to remain living in your stolen land as the Falklanders have to live in theirs. And We only ever took it back from Argentina, we had a claim before they did anyway.

But somehow I can't see that happening, nor Australia doing the same.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I reckon that the The Falkland Islanders should make a claim for the Argentinian mainland on the grounds that it is off of their coast


That would make Kirtchner splurt coffee over her keyboard.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by Maxatoria
 

reply to post by ComeFindMe
 



pakistan and bangladesh had a population of 35-45 million then. Secondly there was a very devastating famine done by the British on our india in areas of Uttar Pradesh,Rajashtan in 1860-61 in which 20-30 million died atleast ,though official british statistics show it as 2-5 million.This was believed to be reprisal by the British empire on Uttar Pradesh for the 1857 revolt of independence was started in Meerut ,Uttar Pradesh.

The bangladeshis estimate that british were responsible for 50 million deaths in Bangladesh while the Pakistanis believe that british were responsible for 30-70 million deaths in Pakistan.

So like deaths in India due to British =150-250 million
Deaths in Pakistan =30-70 million
Deaths in Bangladesh=50 million

370 million deaths due to artifically created british famines and mass genocides then.
edit on 15-2-2012 by mkgandhas because: (no reason given)


if i was to play agent provocatuer , could the rise in deaths AFTER the uttar pradesh revolt, be put down to the lack of order , farming and distribution in those areas soley due to the revolt itself?
If it was seen this way it could be seen to reinforce how the british empire actually improved health,communications and transport , all of course for the benefits of trade.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


Your sources are all clearly blogs or one-man-band sites. They hold no actual proof other than their own words.

Its slightly embarassing that you continue to highlight your own ineptitude through your racist sentiments. If I was maknig the same allegation against someone of a different religion or skin colour, I have no doubt that I would be unable to post here now.

In fact, I might take a leaf out of your book. I'll set up a site that says ludwigvonmises003 killed 8.2 trillion people, but TPTB are keeping it a secret. Then i'll reference it when I slander you. It will hold as much sway as your argument.

Go away.


Dude, the British invented the concept of "Concentration camp's". Britain was the first Empire/Nation to use death camps(see Boer History).

Then add in the fact that the British sent agents to India to jack up the price of wheat so the locals couldn't afford it, leaving the surplus for the British to buy up(that is when they didn't just outright steal it).

And the British are doing the same exact thing to America and oil.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gambon


if i was to play agent provocatuer , could the rise in deaths AFTER the uttar pradesh revolt, be put down to the lack of order , farming and distribution in those areas soley due to the revolt itself?
If it was seen this way it could be seen to reinforce how the british empire actually improved health,communications and transport , all of course for the benefits of trade.


Then please explain why the areas that the British controlled are today the poorest and most disenfranchised parts of India? Also it is amusing that you ignored education. Because India had a far superior public educational system prior to the British invasion(in-fact the British copied many aspects of India's public educational system).

P.S

Farming distribution problems caused the mass deaths? In a way, yes. You see all the wheat grain was being distributed to London.
edit on 19-2-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
Then please explain why the areas that the British controlled are today the poorest and most disenfranchised parts of India? Also it is amusing that you ignored education.


Look, India has been responsible for their own affairs for quite a few decades. Stop trying to blame the British for India's current problems. The debate over the effects of the British Empire, Spanish Empire, Portugese Empire, Russian Empire, Japanese Empire and any number of other Empires is completely irrelevent to this thread. Before the British became involved in India, there were numerous invaders of India.

'nuff said

Let's try to stay on topic.

Regards



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by gambon


if i was to play agent provocatuer , could the rise in deaths AFTER the uttar pradesh revolt, be put down to the lack of order , farming and distribution in those areas soley due to the revolt itself?
If it was seen this way it could be seen to reinforce how the british empire actually improved health,communications and transport , all of course for the benefits of trade.


Then please explain why the areas that the British controlled are today the poorest and most disenfranchised parts of India? Also it is amusing that you ignored education. Because India had a far superior public educational system prior to the British invasion(in-fact the British copied many aspects of India's public educational system).

P.S

Farming distribution problems caused the mass deaths? In a way, yes. You see all the wheat grain was being distributed to London.
edit on 19-2-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)



Erm, we controlled all of India, so your comment makes no sense.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
"Then please explain why the areas that the British controlled are today the poorest and most disenfranchised parts of India?"

YES could you please explain 1, which areas of india the british empire didnt control



"Also it is amusing that you ignored education. Because India had a far superior public educational system prior to the British invasion(in-fact the British copied many aspects of India's public educational system)."

You mean the education system based on the caste system , only teaching caste members things needed for them to do the castes duty to members of the higher caste?....



The Brahmans learned about scriptures and religion while the Kshatriya were educated in the various aspects of warfare.[1] The Vaishya caste learned commerce and other specific vocational courses while education was largely denied to the Shudras, the lowest caste.[1] The earliest venues of education in India were often secluded from the main population....wiki

I suppose it is sort of like the british system , but not i think , for the same reasons as yourself

As India has a space program , nuclear bombs and nuclear powered subs , is it not beyond reason to EXPECT them to , by now be able to feed their own population, instead of asking for foreign aid?



edit on 26-2-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2012 by gambon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join