UK Falklands military exercises 'provoke' Argentina

originally posted by: RadiationAndCancer

originally posted by: stumason
The BoE is not Privately owner - sorry to rock your world and you ever so warped little paradigm. It is owned by the Treasury. It was nationalise in 1946.

How do you explain that Britain also generates the SELF DEBT ever time the currency is printed for state needs.

YOU DO REALIZE that even the Private US Federal Reserve says they are not a private entity and that everything is fine and dandy.

Back at ya

Well, of course some people will never accept the fact that the Bank of England is privately owned, just as SOME Americans will never admit to the fact that the Federal Reserve is owned by a private group of wealthy power elite, some from America, some from England, and some from France and Germany. Wealthy industrialists who would see outlying territories of other countries (such as the Islas Malvinas and the New England and outlying Northeastern territories of the United States) secured, 'officially' (or unofficially, whichever served best for their diplomatic interests involved therein), under the guise of their empires' overseas territories loyal to the Crown (essentially the frontmen of their elite shadow government) for corporate and monetary expansion via their business interests, regardless of whether the people they had unknowingly enslaved wanted it or not. Despite the anger that sometimes flares up at these peoples' ignorance, I have nothing by sympathy and compassion for them, despite how blindly they may defend the ties that bind them.

originally posted by: Davian
Well, of course some people will never accept the fact that the Bank of England is privately owned, just as SOME Americans will never admit to the fact that the Federal Reserve is owned by a private group of wealthy power elite, some from America, some from England, and some from France and Germany. Wealthy industrialists who would see outlying territories of other countries (such as the Islas Malvinas and the New England and outlying Northeastern territories of the United States) secured, 'officially' (or unofficially, whichever served best for their diplomatic interests involved therein), under the guise of their empires' overseas territories loyal to the Crown (essentially the frontmen of their elite shadow government) for corporate and monetary expansion via their business interests, regardless of whether the people they had unknowingly enslaved wanted it or not. Despite the anger that sometimes flares up at these peoples' ignorance, I have nothing by sympathy and compassion for them, despite how blindly they may defend the ties that bind them.

Exactly

thank god someone here understand what's going on or I would have left ATS long ago

a reply to: Davian

Frothing at the mouth as you type that?

Look we are chest beating but look at those photos they are continuing the situation when the situation ended when we kicked argie arse back into the sea.
THEY invaded us remember and nothing what you say will change the fact of the people who live their and have done so for generations have decided to be British.
What do you want to do? make those people give their homeland to the Argies? and go against all UN charters to do with self determination?.
You are flogging a dead horse because NEVER will the ARGIES have our Falklands.
So go ahead bleat more ill informed nonsense because you are wrong and you prove it time and time again by posting nonsense...like you wanting the ARgies to sle fdetermin rule when none live there....epic fail as a poster said.

originally posted by: RadiationAndCancer
a reply to: Cydonia2012

Of course the British are provoking.

Of course they are trying to maintain their colonialism, British Royal Family and British government are the SCUM of Europe.

Everyone and their grandma knows the crimes of British Royals and colonialism that they never paid.

I see. How very neutral and even-handed of you. Oh wait, not.

originally posted by: Davian

You have also avoided answering the basic question - what about the right to self determination?

Yes, what about the right to self determination? Obviously you can see in my above post that there are quite a few people who disagree with you that Islas Malvinas should be under colonial rule, yes?

And Freeborn, no, they are not biased because they disagree with the majority here in this thread, in short, it is you talking out of your arse, because you have yet to provide A SINGLE SOURCE.

You're rapidly losing credibility and legitimacy to your baseless argument.

???? There have been a number of plebiscites in Gibraltar and of course one in the Falklands. Free votes, organised by the locals. All had the same result - that they want to be British. That enough self-determination for you?

originally posted by: Davian

Islas Malvinas

What are these islas mavinas you speak off? I only know the falkland Islands

a reply to: Davian

Yes, what about the right to self determination?

So you believe that The Right to Self-Determination is irrelevant?

Obviously you can see in my above post that there are quite a few people who disagree with you that Islas Malvinas should be under colonial rule, yes?

But you yourself are advocating neo-colonialism.
The Falkland Islands are populated by people who have democratically stated their desire to remain an Overseas Territory of The United Kingdom.
Argentina has at no time had anything that could even remotely be described as a permanent settlement on the islands.
The Falkland Islands lie well outside Argentinian territorial waters.
As such Argentina has no historical or legal claim to the islands.
Yet you support their annexation of the islands, contrary to the islanders democratically expressed wish. You support their imposition of their ownership, control and government of the islands despite those democratically expressed wishes of the islanders who have lived there for generations.
That seems like colonialism to me - but I guess it doesn't fit in with your anti-British bigoted world viewpoint.

And Freeborn, no, they are not biased because they disagree with the majority here in this thread,

Well they appear biased and bigoted. You seem to express a very one sided and anti-UK opinion at every opportunity - that's pretty much the definition of biased and bigoted - to the point of mentioning anything and everything anti-UK no matter how unrelated, all in an effort to justify your anti-UK bigotry.
Everything you have posted reflects this attitude. You seem reluctant, even unwilling, to even consider any alternative perspective or opinion and you seem to completely dismiss anything that either disproves or questions your stated opinion.

in short, it is you talking out of your arse, because you have yet to provide A SINGLE SOURCE.

Do I really need to provide a source that shows that Argentina has never had anything remotely like a permanent settlement on the islands that may help to begin to justify their claims to the islands, especially considering that other posters have done so?

Do I really have to provide a source to prove that Argentina illegally invaded the islands using military force in 1982 in an effort to impose their will and control over the islands and islanders who posed absolutely no threat whatsoever either militarily or economically to Argentina.

Do I really have to provide a source that shows that a referendum was held on the islands in 2013 that showed that 99.8% of the population want to remain a self-governed Overseas Territory of The United Kingdom?

Do I really need to provide a source that shows that The Right to Self-Determination is one of the most basic principles that underpins The United Nations and is actually expressed as such in its Charter?

You're rapidly losing credibility and legitimacy to your baseless argument.

I'd like to think that after over nearly 7 years membership here I have at least a small amount of credibility and even an amount of integrity.
Hopefully in a few years time you'll be able to say the same - your attempts to label anyone who disagrees with you 'a shill' certainly won't help you in that. If anything it suggests that you are completely unwilling to consider any opinion other than your own and is just the sort of mentality that is contrary to the very ethos and spirit of ATS.

And whether you agree with my stated viewpoint or not it could never be described as 'baseless' because quite clearly there are grounds to support it.

politics never seems to be honest...its always about some monied hose head spending some lives
i wonder if someone like Soros is behind the "Argies"....

The World's 15 Biggest Landowners

www.businessinsider.com...
well, who knows who's in the top 100

#3 the pope
#2 King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
#1 Queen Elizabeth II

the way the Quesn owns britian canada auz...etc

originally posted by: Danbones
politics never seems to be honest...its always about some monied hose head spending some lives
i wonder if someone like Soros is behind the "Argies"....

The World's 15 Biggest Landowners

www.businessinsider.com...
well, who knows who's in the top 100

#3 the pope
#2 King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
#1 Queen Elizabeth II

the way the Quesn owns britian canada auz...etc

??? She's the head of the Commonwealth. She doesn't actually get any rent back from very much of the land that she 'owns'. That's the silliest article I've seen for some time.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Also crown land is for the people of that country it is like protected.

a reply to: Danbones

Dan, we've done this a million times - when will you learn?

Crown Land doesn't belong to the Queen. In the UK, it is land owned by the Crown Estate, which is actually owned buy the Treasury. The Monarchy transferred ownership of the Crown Estate at the end of the 18th Century to the Government.

In other Countries, such as Canada, it is Federally owned land - in other words, land that belongs to the State. For example, if Canada should become a Republic, that land will not still be "owned" by the Queen. It is only called Crown Land because the Queen is the Head of State and therefore representative of Canada in person.

>sigh< How many times must we do this dance of idiocy?

Well they appear biased and bigoted. You seem to express a very one sided and anti-UK opinion at every opportunity - that's pretty much the definition of biased and bigoted - to the point of mentioning anything and everything anti-UK no matter how unrelated, all in an effort to justify your anti-UK bigotry.

And yet you ABSOLUTELY express one-sided and anti-Argentinian opinion at every turn. PRETTY MUCH THE DEFINITION OF BIASED AND BIGOTED. Yes? You keep pointing out anti-Argentinian sentiment... AT LEAST I'M PROVIDING SOURCES. And once again, point out where I said ONCE that I am anti-British. I've never said this, you're just grasping at straws and continuing to inflate your ad hominem logical fallacy that is just absolutely gaping in your argument.

Everything you have posted reflects this attitude. You seem reluctant, even unwilling, to even consider any alternative perspective or opinion and you seem to completely dismiss anything that either disproves or questions your stated opinion.

The SAME could be said about YOU. Still not done calling the kettle black eh? YOU are unwilling to even consider any alternative perspective or opinion and YOU seem to completely dismiss anything that either disproves or questions your stated opinion. YES?

And NO, you do not have greater credibility here, because unlike you, I'VE PROVIDED SOURCES.

How many times must we do this dance of idiocy?

Until both parties can agree to disagree!

originally posted by: Davian
Until both parties can agree to disagree!

In the case of the Crown Land argument, there is no "agree to disagree".

One party is simply wrong, namely Dan's side - it is down to a piss poor understanding of what Crown Land means and refusing to either educate themselves on it or otherwise learn.

a reply to: Davian

Also, like Freeborn has said, there is simply no need to provide sources to what are very well known, public facts.

1. The islands were colonised by the UK prior to the Argentina even existing
   
2. Spain ceded their claim to the UK prior to Argentina existing - removing any possible "inherited" claim from Spain
   
3. Argentina invaded the islands in the early 80's totally unprovoked and were soundly tossed back to patagonia with their tails between their legs
   
4. The UK offered to share the mineral wealth with the Argentines 50/50, which they tore up later on
   
5. The population of the islands voted 99.8% in favour of remaining a UK territory - end of as far as the UN is concerned
   

There is no need for sources to these facts - it is a matter of public record.

originally posted by: Davian
Well, of course some people will never accept the fact that the Bank of England is privately owned

What do you mean "some people"? As the Bank of England is NOT privately owned, who thinks it is? What is their evidence backing that silly claim up?

a reply to: hellobruce

People who think evil banking cabals run by reptilian Aliens are controlling the world, I assume! The type who ignore evidence presented and instead rely on dubious websites run by equally crazy folk instead.

a reply to: stumason

If I were you, i'd get my facts Right and carry out a careful sense of deep research into what it was that caused the so called un-employment strife. i - now a retired 68 year old - who worked in Stone Masonry could give you 127 books to read on such.

a reply to: steaming

Er, ok....

Not sure what that has to do with anything with regards to the Falklands or my post which was in response to another poster asking what do we get out the Falklands. What are you on about?

a reply to: Xcathdra

they scare the ever loving crap out of every one they have ever fought

www.badassoftheweek.com... Bishnu Shrestha 40vs 1 with a knife on a train stopping the gang rape of a 18 year old in front of her parents

www.badassoftheweek.com... Lachhiman Gurung small unit vs 200ish japanese infantry

Half-dead, bloody, and badly wounded, Gurung drew his kukri knife – the ultimate symbol of Gurkha badassitude – jammed it point-first into the ground before him, and defiantly yelled into the darkness, "No one will pass here today!" Then he grabbed his rifle, chambered a round, and shouted, "Now come and fight a Gurkha!"

hes also responsible for stopping some anti gurka legislation in the uk to try to ban them from serving

www.badassoftheweek.com... Dipprasad Pun 1v 15-30 and when his machine gun jammed he beat one of the last men standing to death with the tripod while having an ak-47 pointed at him messing with the Gurkha is a pretty easy step to failure so hearing the Argentinians are scared of them makes sense.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Indeed - fearless soldiers them lot and they have a great deal of respect in the UK (although not always from the Politicians)

Interesting story - When the British were in India, before the Gurkha's joined our side, we fought against them. A British contingent of no more than a couple of thousand accompanied by tens of thousands of Sepoy soldiers (Normal Indians) confronted an enemy army with Gurkha's in their ranks.

The Sepoys fled the field, while the small (and now heavily outnumbered) British brigade held the line (tally ho, pip pip, die in style sort of thing) and the Gurkha's after that had finally met someone they could consider their equal on the field.

From then on, they fought for us.