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.

 

Argentinians protest arrival of Prince Williams on Malvinas

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Firstly, British born and bred, whether the hell you like it or not. I know most days I don't, mostly because of narrow minded folk, like you're showing yourself to be.

Secondly, are you seriously, seriously trying to tell me that those islands were untouched by anyone until the French rocked up? Really? I know it's late, but... damn... really? And then you've gone and linked a wiki page that discredits what you said in the same post:


but recent discoveries of arrowheads in Lafonia (on the southern half of East Falkland) as well as the remains of a wooden canoe provide strong evidence that they had been visited previously, most likely by the Yaghan people of Tierra del Fuego.


OK, so these folk are technically Chilean, but the fact still remains that our claim is BS. In fact, any claim of any land not directly attached to your own is BS. What do we need it for strategic sheep and penguin positioning? Get a clue. We no longer live in a world where it's OK and 'the norm' to follow imperialistic ideals or aspirations. You want an empire again, is that it?




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I know several Pakistani families in Leeds. Do Pakistan now have a claim to Britain?

Does it matter at which juncture native South Americans visited? They did so before any Europeans. As cited above, it was a tribe of Chileans who first visited the islands. But scrap all of your meaningless paperwork, treaties, and political BS. The ONLY reasons we keep hold of this useless rock is so that the RAF can wind up the Argentines and so that we have a claim to the oil within 200 miles of the islands borders.

Proximity should bear significantly more importance than any other claim in land ownership. You know it makes sense but your biased to the forces and right-wing in general won't allow you to admit it.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


Being visited by a native tribe (that has no connection to Argentina) in the distant past (but not actually settled) is no basis to form a claim by Argentina. You said you could guarantee that an Argentine has set foot on there prior to any British person. You have failed to prove this (and in fact, cannot..it is simply impossible that it could have happened)

FYI, the bulk of Argentina's population is of European descent (87%). Are you aware of the brutal conquest by the early Argentine state against the Natives of patagonia? And we get called the "imperialists"...

Again, your claim that geogrpahic proximity should define ownership is rubbish. What about Hawaii? What about French Guyana? What about Curaçao? What about Bermuda? What about Ceuta and Melilla? I could go on, but the world is full of examples of places far from their "home" country..



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


Nonsense.

The right to self determination is the important thing.

Otherwise any powerful nation would have the right to gobble up any proximate territory it had the strength to take.

The only imperialism here is Argentinian. If they can convince the islanders their better off as argentinians they can have the islands. They don't seem very good at that, I wonder why :-)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
I know several Pakistani families in Leeds. Do Pakistan now have a claim to Britain?


Again, another retarded analogy that doesn't even come close to being anywhere near the same as this.


Originally posted by Pr0t0
Does it matter at which juncture native South Americans visited? They did so before any Europeans.


But that didn't stop Argentina or other Spanish originated countries butchering their natives, did it? When we pitched up, the islands were uninhabited and to claim that because a Chilean tribe visited the islands at some point is not something one can base a claim on, especially the very countries which actually did steal the land of those natives.


Originally posted by Pr0t0
As cited above, it was a tribe of Chileans who first visited the islands.


Irrelevant. Totally and utterly.


Originally posted by Pr0t0
But scrap all of your meaningless paperwork, treaties, and political BS. The ONLY reasons we keep hold of this useless rock is so that the RAF can wind up the Argentines and so that we have a claim to the oil within 200 miles of the islands borders.


It is a mere coincidence there is Oil. We have several times since WW2 tried to settle the issue with Argentina, even going so far in the 1960's to start talks about handing them over, but the islanders got wind and protested, wanting to remain british. This is the single most important point. THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION


Originally posted by Pr0t0
Proximity should bear significantly more importance than any other claim in land ownership. You know it makes sense but your biased to the forces and right-wing in general won't allow you to admit it.


Not at all. Proximity has fudge all to do with it. I support the islanders right to determine for themselves and they have spoken, time and again. I would never dream of forcing them to remain British if they wanted to leave. I fully support Scotlands right to choose (although I dispute many of the anti-English arguments the Nationalists trot out)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


Being visited by a native tribe (that has no connection to Argentina) in the distant past (but not actually settled) is no basis to form a claim by Argentina. You said you could guarantee that an Argentine has set foot on there prior to any British person. You have failed to prove this (and in fact, cannot..it is simply impossible that it could have happened)

FYI, the bulk of Argentina's population is of European descent (87%). Are you aware of the brutal conquest by the early Argentine state against the Natives of patagonia? And we get called the "imperialists"...

Again, your claim that geogrpahic proximity should define ownership is rubbish. What about Hawaii? What about French Guyana? What about Curaçao? What about Bermuda? What about Ceuta and Melilla? I could go on, but the world is full of examples of places far from their "home" country..


I stand by the sentiment. Travelers from the region, now known as Argentina, if you're openly going to be so pedantic, set foot on the islands long before us. Chile share a border with Argentina. Exactly where this tribe are from I haven't looked up, but you know what I'm saying is absolutely true and any assertion that it's not will be purely facetious.

Look, just because one nation turns up and ousts a government in favour of controlling the population, or where there is a lack of populace, sticks a flag in the ground and claims they own the place, doesn't mean any of it is right or just. And, forget the so-called legality of it all; the imperialistic, elitist warmongers who wrote those laws then, similar to those who do now, are no moral or ethical beacon for you to present as the good guys. We have no business other than death dealing and gas drilling here. Nearly 400 British people died in '82 for what you claim to be 'pride'. What does that make Britain for sending them to their deaths? Still proud?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
I stand by the sentiment. Travelers from the region, now known as Argentina, if you're openly going to be so pedantic, set foot on the islands long before us. Chile share a border with Argentina. Exactly where this tribe are from I haven't looked up, but you know what I'm saying is absolutely true and any assertion that it's not will be purely facetious.


You citing a small tribe that barely even exists (only 1 pure blood remains alive today) as basis for an Argentine claim, despite the fact the Argentine European majority actually butchered and stole lands off many such tribes in the 1800's as they expanded? Get real. That is the weakest, most pathetic argument I have heard so far and even worse than the Argentine claims.

How exactly can you say Argentines set foot there before any Brit because some tribe which never saw itself as Argentine might have visited there, once... Using that logic, you would support a Danish or Norwegian claim to Newfoundland and the entire US eastern seaboard (despite the fact the Vikings at the time didn't view themselves as Danish or Norwegian and such countries didn't even exist)



Nearly 400 British people died in '82 for what you claim to be 'pride'. What does that make Britain for sending them to their deaths? Still proud?


Proud? Damn right. We defended British people from foreign aggression, which is precisely what the Armed Forces are for. At least that time round we did the right thing, rather than Iraq...

Look, you clearly don't have a clue and are using non-sensical arguments to try and prove a point. You are failing miserably too. The plain simple truth of it is that the islanders wish to remain British.

End of.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

It is a mere coincidence there is Oil. We have several times since WW2 tried to settle the issue with Argentina, even going so far in the 1960's to start talks about handing them over, but the islanders got wind and protested, wanting to remain british. This is the single most important point. THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION


Alright, fine let's play it your way and I have another 'retarded' response for you. I'm British, live in England and would much prefer to be ruled by some other government, Argentina will do. Do I get a referendum? Oh, it doesn't work like that, right? Well you're saying it does. The residents the Falklands are all squaddies or pad-rats, or descendants thereof. It's purely a military affair. And so, no, they shouldn't have a say in what happens to the islands.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
Alright, fine let's play it your way and I have another 'retarded' response for you.


Indeed. It is perhaps the most retarded so far...


Originally posted by Pr0t0
I'm British, live in England and would much prefer to be ruled by some other government, Argentina will do. Do I get a referendum?


As a single person in a country of 60 odd million, I'd think you'd have a hard time winning. But, by all means, submit a petition to the PM and if you can get enough signatories supporting your desire to be ruled by Argentina, then they will debate it in Parliament for you. Assuming it had sufficient support, a referendum would be granted, whereby the residents of the UK could then vote.


Originally posted by Pr0t0
Oh, it doesn't work like that, right? Well you're saying it does.


If a single person wishes to be an Argentine, then piss off there. If the majority of the country supported it, that's another thing entirely. Just like Gibraltar, over 98% of the population fully support being part of the UK.


Originally posted by Pr0t0
The residents the Falklands are all squaddies or pad-rats, or descendants thereof. It's purely a military affair. And so, no, they shouldn't have a say in what happens to the islands.


Again, showing your total and complete ignorance on the matter. Most of the Islanders are descended from the Welsh and Scots sheep farmers who migrated there in the 1830's. The last census in 2006 listed just over 2000 people living there, which doesn't include the military garrison (which increases it by about another 1,000 or so). I can tell you too that the vast majority of the Forces personnel that are stationed there don't stay as well.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
###SNIPPED###
You, your beloved politicians and your secret society members are the one's who need to piss off. You'd be surprised at how many Brits are not just sick of the endless wars, the constant claims of ownership of this land, that land, the other land; all for oil, but are also sick of the type of old world ideas and laws that should have been buried along with the imperialists that imposed them. But, there's always folk like you, Stu. Carrying that empire building standard all the way to the grave.

We were drilling in the North Sea as far back as 1851 so don't try telling me that there has never been a hint of this being the real reason we hold onto this useless rock.

2000 people could have surrendered and given the Argentines what they wanted. Instead, 400 people died protecting those 2000. That's a ratio you're proud of? 1 death for every 5 inhabitants? And, now it looks like we're heading in for seconds. You don't think there comes a time to 'cut your losses' as they say?
edit on 4-2-2012 by Pr0t0 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Overly dramatic? You did say that!


The potato famine that was intentionally sparked by the British Government


Quite clearly lies and well deserving of me being "over dramatic"...


As ive said how is invading a foreign land, harshly imposing laws that keep the citizens enslaved, stealing their food supply and blocking aide to the country bringing anything useful to it?

I find it funny that you failed to address anything the article i brought up noted. Apparently when historical fact meets your revisionist out look on the past you shut down.

Trying to claim England brought civilizations is absurd as saying Americans are bringing freedom to the middle east.
Again as i said earlier its amusing how Americans get a bad rap as being over nationalistic and pig headed when you see this attitude exercised just as much by other peoples. This thread is perfect example of this delusion.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


Swearing at you? When?

Oh, I see..You took my "if a single person wants to be Argentine then they can piss off" as swearing at you? Not at all, my jumped up little friend, not at all. I was merely indicating that if someone (anyone) had such feelings, they would better off there than here.

You, on the other hand, crossed the line in your response. Not only have you shown yourself to be incapable of presenting even a slightly cohernet argument and uttering nonsense you know nothing about, but you get aggressive and start shouting abuse at someone when you have clearly been shown the fool.

Grow up.

Oh, by the way, North Sea oil wasn't being drilled in 1851, not from the Sea anyway. I suggest you read Wikipedia properly before quoting it
It was all done on land! It wasn;t until the 1960's that rigs were used to extract the Oil and Gas from the Sea....

Yet another thing your catastrophically wrong on. At least you're consistent!



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by paganini
As ive said how is invading a foreign land, harshly imposing laws that keep the citizens enslaved, stealing their food supply and blocking aide to the country bringing anything useful to it?


"As you've said"? I haven't commented on anything you have said aside your claim the British were the ones who started the potato famine, which was patantly false. Anything else you have said I have either not seen or it has been irrelevant. I only took umbridge at you claims of British genocide in Ireland.


Originally posted by paganini
I find it funny that you failed to address anything the article i brought up noted. Apparently when historical fact meets your revisionist out look on the past you shut down.


I haven't commented because it is nothing to do with the topic! I am not going to drag the thread off topic to satisfy your egotistical need to show the UK in as bad a light as you can. This is a thread about the Falklands. Need to make yourself feel special and crap on the British, start a thread about it.


Originally posted by paganini
Trying to claim England brought civilizations is absurd as saying Americans are bringing freedom to the middle east.


I never said such a thing, so laugh away friend. Care to point out where I said "England brought civilization"?

Me thinks you're getting confused.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason


"As you've said"? I haven't commented on anything you have said aside your claim the British were the ones who started the potato famine, which was patantly false


Not it is not as the article i posted noted. All the laws the brits imposed on the land along with forcibly taking away the Irish crops in addition to neglect of aide is what caused the famine. There is only one way to point the finger and it rests solely on the government. But of course just stating something is false washes over the information i provided.


Originally posted by stumason
I haven't commented because it is nothing to do with the topic! I am not going to drag the thread off topic to satisfy your egotistical need to show the UK in as bad a light as you can. This is a thread about the Falklands. Need to make yourself feel special and crap on the British, start a thread about it.




Originally posted by stumasonI never said such a thing, so laugh away friend. Care to point out where I said "England brought civilization"?

Me thinks you're getting confused.


Im not painting anything in a bad light im showing the reality of empire building and i gave an crystal clear example of The typical M.O of the British at the time. It was brought up by quite a few here that their colonial expansion was largely benevolent and this is out right bunk thus i used the issues in Ireland to highlight the errors in this statement.

Thats not to say this behavior was unique to the British, As i stressed before this was TYPICAL of various peoples and nations so accusing me of attempting to single out and crap on the Brits is silly and again little more than thin skinned defensiveness. What i stated was perfectly relevant to the topic since this issue was brought up continually since the start of the thread. If it comes off like im targeting Brits thats because they are the topic at hand.
However I feel the same way about my countries colonial expansion and dont attempt to excuse their actions and paint them as anything other than what they were.


Also this is needed viewing for some of you.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 4-2-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Yes Stu it was a statement of irony, designed to highlight the ludicrissness of those stating that Prince William being on the Islands is an act of war.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
The anti Brit crowd on this site always make me laugh..

Wahhhh the potatoe famine

Wahhhh imperialism

Wahhh india

Wahhh, wahhh wahhhhhhhhhh!

Tbh, if all of those countries who we conquered, "raped and pilliaged" could not take us on, even with their overwhelmingly numerical superiority, then they deserved to be conquered! Seriously.. The people of this teeny tiny island no less!

I could not give a crap about our past except that im extremely proud of what my ancesters achieved against all odds.. Im not ever going to feel guilty about it, but be immensely proud.

If you do not like our country.. Why dont you try doing something about it.. Go on.. We are waiting
..

That, or continue to cry on the web and be jeleous of our amazingness and ingenuity, not to mention our hard as nails violent streak

I love this land, This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise; This fortress, built by nature for herself, Against infection, and the hand of war; This happy breed of men, this little world; This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands; This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England!!

So I say to all of you haters;



And,

Come and have a go if you think you are hard enough..



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I had a sensible reply, but changed my mind. You don't deserve it, and neither does this website. If the mod's are willing to pick and choose who gets to be civil and who doesn't then forget it. You win nothing. I'll take my content elsewhere. No loss to anyone either. I'll leave you here, full of mental self-masturbation, yet no capacity to think for yourself just spouting parroted pro-government propaganda. I've suspected you had your tongue firmly inserted in the staffs jacksy's for quite some time now.

STAFF

Thank you for confirming that your version of 'civility and decorum' is slanted in favour of allowing arseholes like Stu here to swear, rant and advocate murder, but not reciprocally. You are no longer simply providing the "passive facilitating of posts" as I pointed out in the Iran thread where 2 Moderators were advocating murder with no personal message disclaimers - this means what they were saying were in fact the opinion of the website. Anyway I'm done with it, Good night Vienna.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by morf991
 


Yes I agree and also England is the biggest mass murderer in history.USA can invoke the monroe doctrine to free falklands from brit oppression.


Then why didn't they do it back in 1833 when Great Britain re-established rule, or in 1982.
Or, now they've found oil there, the USA will probably invade next week, claiming that the residents of the Falklands and South Georgia are harbouring Al Qaeda suspects disguised as sheep.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


Highly strung much??

Now you sound pathetic.

I actually enjoyed some of your posts. But seriously, stu is up no-ones ass! He is very learned in British history/politics and will frustrate the living hell out of you if you get your facts wrong..

I personally have learnt a lot of Stu..

However, you need to get a thicker skin



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pr0t0
reply to post by stumason
 


If the mod's are willing to pick and choose who gets to be civil and who doesn't then forget it. I'll leave you here, full of mental self-masturbation, yet no capacity to think for yourself just spouting parroted pro-government propaganda. I've suspected you had your tongue firmly inserted in the staffs jacksy's for quite some time now.

STAFF

Thank you for confirming that your version of 'civility and decorum' is slanted in favour of allowing arseholes like Stu here to swear, rant and advocate murder, but not reciprocally. You are no longer simply providing the "passive facilitating of posts" as I pointed out in the Iran thread where 2 Moderators were advocating murder with no personal message disclaimers - this means what they were saying were in fact the opinion of the website. Anyway I'm done with it, Good night Vienna.


Im sure that Freud would have a fun time diagnosing Proto.
I have yet to see any "parroted pro-government propaganda" from StuMason, he's actually very critical of some of the UK's act, like Iraq..which is hardly towing the government line now...is it ??

The same crowd of nonsensical idiots that always inhabit these threads about the UK and the Falklands always come out with the same diatribe and verbal diahorrhea, and always in bad English.

When they've spouted their tired and boring rhetoric about the UK being guilty of world genocide, to which they NEVER PRODUCE ANY PROOF, (because there is'nt any) they have nothing left to offer by the way of an articulate debate filled answer. It's just about then when the world class tosser they have inside raises its ugly head and they state they want to join any country thats at or wants war with the UK.

They cant handle any fact based post that contradicts what they've read in Wikipedia..its just too much for them.
They can't, or wont, accept that the UK is simply defending a dependancy that has voted to maintain itselfs under the control of the UK.

The only reason that Argentina is sabre rattling again is because of the oil business. The Argentine government does'nt give a tuppeny toss for the Falkland's or the islander's. It's oil they want.



edit on 5-2-2012 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join