Tuesday, February 21st 2012 - 20:34 UTC

Argentine personalities openly support Falklands’ right to self-determination

A group of Argentine writers, historians, constitutional law experts, politicians and journalists will be making a formal presentation in support of the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination. They have also criticized the constant harassment to which Islanders are exposed from the administration of President Cristina Fernandez.

Jorge Lanata, Beatriz Sarlo and Fernando Iglesias among the free thinkers who helped elaborate “Malvinas, an alternative view”

The document, “Malvinas, an alternative view”, to be made public on Wednesday is supported by intellectuals such as Beatriz Sarlo, Juan Jose Sebreli, Santiago Kovadloff, Rafael Filippelli, Emilio de Ipola, Vicente Palermo, Marcos Novaro and Eduardo Antón; journalists Jorge Lanata, Gustavo Noriega and Pepe Eliaschev; historians Luis Alberto Romero and Hilda Sábato; constitutional experts Daniel Sabsay, Roberto Gargarella and José Miguel Onaindia, plus former lawmaker Fernando Iglesias.

“Malvinas, an alternative view”, signed by the above renowned 17 personalities emphasize that respect for the interests and opinions of the Falkland Islanders, ‘under British sovereignty since 1833’ is the backbone of the document’s foundation.

The group was created following on informal contacts among its members after several of them participated in public debates ahead of the thirtieth anniversary of the beginning of the Malvinas conflict (2 April 1982) and openly question the official Argentine government position.

The most controversial opinion was that from historian Luis Romero who published an opinion column in La Nacion under the heading of “Are the Malvinas really ours?”

In the column Romero basically argues there will be no Argentine solution to the Malvinas question until the Islanders want to become Argentines and voluntarily join as citizens of the new State.

The British government historically has supported the Islanders right to self-determination and to remain British as long as they so wish and thus rejects any Argentine suggestion of holding sovereignty talks.

Argentina on the contrary argues that according to the UN Charter the principle of self determination must be applied to an ethnic group over its territory of belonging and not over spaces illegally occupied by a transplanted population.

In support of Argentina’s position the C-24 or UN Decolonization Committee has called on the UK to sit and dialogue on the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty and lately has managed the support from Mercosur and some Caribbean countries which bar Falklands’ flagged vessels from their ports.
 

119 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:44 pm Report abuse
Gosh, these intellectuals are endangering themselves. I'd be worried about a knock on the door from Mao's Red Guards for being so anti-Maoist, sorry, anti-Kerchnerist. Either way, the Kirchner Nationalist Youth isn't going to be happy.

Send the Falkland Islanders to the C24, it's their territory to discuss. If the C24 wants to talk to someone about independence, then talk to them, we're not putting up hurdles.
2 A.J.Rimmer (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:46 pm Report abuse
Nice to see that there are intellectuals in Argentina, and even better, they have something not commonly found over there.

Can anyone guess what that is??

Ans: Independent thought!!!!
3 The Falklands are British (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:47 pm Report abuse
Oh that is just beautiful!

Okay Yuleno, Marcos, Dreyfoss, Flippo, Malen and company. Let's hear from you. Tell us why this group has no credibility. Tell us why this group is wrong. Tell us that this group is actually paid by the UK. LOL! Oh please tell us!

I think even the most fanatical of you will agree that we should dispense with the Spanish proficiency tests this time shall we? That's always your solution previously when someone claiming to be Argentine speaks against the Malvinistas. You ask them to write a few lines of Spanish and when they do you claim their grammar was poor so they are therefore English.

Ha ha ha!
4 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:55 pm Report abuse
I don't think these people actually exist as if they really existed they would have been under house arrest for years and probably locked up in a oubliette under Casa Fanáticos a long time ago.
5 Marcelo Kohen (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:13 pm Report abuse
In Buenos Aires people can openly say and publish that. They were not threaten to dead, like an islander having decided to exercise his Argentine nationality. What a difference! So much for human rights, democracy, etc etc
6 The Falklands are British (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:14 pm Report abuse
4 Greek

Who? Marcos, Dreyfross, Yuleno and company or Jorge, Beatriz, Fernando and company?
7 JustinKuntz (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:28 pm Report abuse
www.lanacion.com.ar/1448512-son-realmente-nuestras-las-malvinas

Read for yourselves.

www.chinatravelarticle.com/traveltips/don039t-mention-war-taboo-topics-that-can-get-you-into-trouble-when-living-abroad.html

For those claiming that you can talk about the Falklands in a mature manner in Argentina.
8 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:35 pm Report abuse
@5 yes you can openly say that in your state owned newspaper which fundamentally provides the state with control of the media. Human rights where you invade someone else's islands 9 times and then create an economic blockade, and also sponsor international terror.

Kind of throwing those stones in your glass house, aren't you chap.
9 briton (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:35 pm Report abuse
and these decent people make her and penn look like jack n jill .
10 Redcoat (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:58 pm Report abuse
@2 A.J.Rimmer
A reasonable opposition in Argentina (intellectuals are often pratts) well that's why Kirchner has got the 'Las Malvinas' issue out of the cupboard, good old nationalistic rhetoric gets them going every time.
11 axel arg (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:04 pm Report abuse
It was so obvious that it was going to be published here, but before you start to make a strong deffence of la nación, you should know what kind of newspaper it is.
La nación has always been the simbol of the most conservative right, it has supported all the dictatorships, and still criticices the trials against the criminals of the last dictaorship who are being judged, that's your so loved from now giornal la nación. It has always been a pro british newspaper, it deffended all the privatizations of the menemism, and it makes such a strong corporative deffence of the most powerful enterprises, because those corporations pay for advertising, and obviously it's histericaly antikirchnerist, beside, it lies very often, i never take it as a serious source. Anyway i must recognize also for being honest that it has a few very good giornalists who dont support the shamefull posture of the newspaper.
Regarding the postures of those so called intelectuals, i only can say that all the opinions are respectable, but as intelectuals, they only criticise the policies of the government that it has for the islands, and never say not even one word regarding the sistematic rejection of the u. k. to resume the negotiations which are signalized by the u. n and most international comunity. That's what shows what kind of intelectuals they are, now you can understand why they write opinions in a giornal like la nación, your so loved from now, diario la nación, i'm sorprised that those so called intelectuals didn't say, god saves the queen, in the end of their opinions.
The posture of la nación doesn't sorprise anyone, we all know what kind of newspaper it is, but what is lamentable is that people who are considered as intelectuals, make such a very partial analysis, just because they are antikirchnerit, that's not the kind of giornalist that i want to be some day, i always take a posture in all the issues, but i also tell the whole history.
12 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:15 pm Report abuse
(1) “La nación has always been the simbol of the most conservative right, it has supported all the dictatorships”, including the current dictatorship?
(2) How dare a paper take the shameful posture of being anti-kirchnerist!?!
(3) How dare the UK refuse to talk with a beligerent quasi-dictatorship that has expansionism enshrined it's constitution.

Are you people stupid? You think negotiation is telling someone your fixed demands before negotiation starts, which is never starts because they know your position is fixed. That's just hilariously imbecilic.

Or you want to tell me that you'll negotiate on your fixed demands?

Morons.
13 Filippo (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:42 pm Report abuse
11 axel arg

A few years ago, during my father and grandfathers time in military intelligence these people would not have right to say these things. Why do we allow them to speak their minds? Why do we give them free speech to betray their country and weaken our claim on these islands occupied by colonial pirates who would be exterminated?

I do not understand it CFK is weak liberal, she is no good. Like our coward military in 82 not strong enough to do what was necessary to rid islands of pirates.

I think these people should be silenced. I do not like anyone of them. They have no right to betray their country. Argentina is not about the people, it is about macho, it is about domination of region, it is not about caring about pirates or traitors who have no rights to anything, not even the air!!!
14 Marcos Alejandro (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:52 pm Report abuse
@3 Las Malvinas son Argentinas

“South America is growing in strength and increasingly united. Britain must wake up to this new reality”

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/britain-asleep-over-falkland-islands

“Ditch the Falklands”
“It makes no economic or political sense to hang on to the Falklands, but no one will face the truth”

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/falklands-economic-crisis-politics-argentina

“The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain's expensive nuisance
”Distant colonies are an anachronism. Britain will have to negotiate with Argentina because the world will insist on it“

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance

”This Falklands sortie is just petty British William-waving“

”Britain's military is depleted by cuts – so childish insults and occasional royal dispatches will have to suffice as foreign policy”
(Ugly British chopper pic)

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/10/falklands-fuss-petty-british-william-waving?intcmp=239
15 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:55 pm Report abuse
@14 Do you have an obsession with the trolling section of the grauniad newspaper?

So, Marcus, you were going to tell us about the negotiation plan of the Argentinians... first, they say their demands are fixed... they get into the negotiation, and say their demands are fixed.. and then what do they expect to happen?? I'd really like to know what you expect to happen after that point.
16 Xect (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:56 pm Report abuse
Ah more Guardian articles but what we lack is people like poster 13 who doesn't believe in free speech and wants everyone who doesn't agree with his point silenced! That actually was very funny and made me laugh.

To be fair Marcos about 95% of all articles will be pro-Falklands but then there will obviously be some who say we shouldn't care but that is only the opinion of a small number, maybe like the above but the only difference is the people in the article above are influential unlike a few sensationalist hacks writing for the guardian in the hope of luring people to the paper.
17 gonzo (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:58 pm Report abuse
@11

You are a typical “kirchnerista” (pro-kirchners), dismissing anyone´s arguments who doe not agree with our current government. I am as argentinian as you are, and I can say that La Nacion is far from perfect and accurate and 100% unbiased, but which argentinian newspaper is? Pagina 12, the pro-government paper??? Come on, get a grip (and a life!!!). Cristina and her cronies, along with all the hard-core Kirchneristas are a bunch of disgraceful liars. Do not dare speak about objectiveness and fairness, when they lie to us on a daily basis . Cristina asking for dialogue with the UK authorities sounds like a complete joke, when she has not shown a sign of dialogue with her political opponents and any sector of our society which seem to disagree with some of her policies, and on the contrary, all she does is declare battles of words within her own country? Pity that she cannot bully the UK in the same way...I (and 46% of the argie population which has voted against her in the last presidential election) have had enough of this corrupt and populist government, and some of their followers like you who cannot accept another argentinian thinks different from you withou calling him/her a traitor... and far from the far-fetched argument that some of us who write here showing respect for the islanders´s self-deterination, soy argentino igual que vos!!! Like it or lump it!!!!
18 anti-fascist2 (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 11:00 pm Report abuse
14 Marcos Alejandro

For Guarianista read Pravda (the 1981 version). It's well know that the only people who work for the paper are pinko Communists eating out of each others backsides and loving the taste.
19 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 11:02 pm Report abuse
@16 I think @13 is being mildly ironic.

@14 Marcos, We're still waiting for you to tell us what happens in an 'Argentinian negotiation' where you apparently start off with fixed demands. What precisely do you expect to happen in the negotiations? Once one party has laid out their rigid and fixed demands, what happens?
20 Marcos Alejandro (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 11:12 pm Report abuse
19 Sorry, I don't debate with a “racist” milk product.
21 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 11:18 pm Report abuse
@20 We not Argentinians were just wondering what happened at one of these 'Argentinian Negotiations' because they seem quite alien to us foreigners. You would really help us if you could tell us what happens at a typical negotiation using the Argentinian method. Apparently the first this you do is before the negotiation you set your demands rigidly so they cannot be changed. Then you tell the other side your fixed demands. Then you sit down to negotiate on your fixed demands which you cannot because they are fixed, and what happens at his point? What happens after this? because it's not very clear. I cannot really understand what happens, and I don't think anyone else knows, except for Argentinians.

Thanks for helping to clarify.
22 gonzo (#) Feb 21st, 2012 - 11:37 pm Report abuse
@21

I get your point, GreekYoghurt, and that type of negotiations that you clearly point out is what happens in almost every “negotiation” Cristina and her representatives hold with any group or individual who does not fully support (or share) her political party, ideology or interests (often controversial by the way)...in my case (living in Buenos Aires) all I can do in this kind of “negotiaton” is take whatever is on offer (often abusive treatment and threats if you stand your ground), along with all the rage and frustation ...in your case, you are luckier and you just tell them to f**k off, which is fair...have a good night!
23 JORGE1982 (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:33 am Report abuse
Oh! Why it doesn't sorprise me at all that MercoPress had published this crap and totally ignored those “The Guardian” articles?
People who don't understand spanish and are not used to our everyday issues cannot understand the context of La Nación editorial and opinions. They are against the government and they are capable of raising a british flag if they need to.
I think that everyone can notice now that those who talk about our democracy all the time pretending to know it and saying that there is no free press here are being now ridiculous!
There is more free press here than in the islands. If you live in the islands and are sincere you would agree with me, but you are not sincere you won't agree with me.

Journalist Lanata is someone who opposses every government and his life goes through denouncing everything everyday.
Ex-lawmaker Iglesias, HAHA, he is the most insulted politician on twitter. Almost nobody wants him. That's why he LOST the last election. he is kind of Lanata, all the f******* day denouncing the government about this, about that, etc.

What some “people” here must understand is that all these clowns do not govern the country. They and their lobby and propaganda things were defeated last October elections. CFK got 54% of votes. That's a record in our democracy since 1983. That ammount of votes should make these clowns to think and act in a different way if they want to win next elections in 2013 and 2015. People don't like this kind of behaviour. They can do it, but cannot expect people to like it.

More than 80% of us won't support that non-existing right of self-determination of that non-people. The other 20% is made up of those who mainly don't care and just a marginal minority of those who support squatters. Let's say 5%-10% and I'm being generous, I think it's less than that.
I think that's the same proportion of those in the islands who think UK should negotiate sovereignty, but for obvious reasons they cannot freely express it.
24 gonzo (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:59 am Report abuse
23 (Jorge1982)
“What some “people” here must understand is that all these clowns do not govern the country. They and their lobby and propaganda things were defeated last October elections. CFK got 54% of votes”

So thinking different or losing an election (or a war, why not!) makes one a clown?? That´s the very essence of “kirchneristas”. Wise words that could well apply to the Falklands issue... we lost a war in 1982, remember? the clowns on this side (Argentina)= Cristina and her supporters, who do not govern the Falklands islands (good for the kelpers!!!), thus should not be able to express their view...let alone make a formal complaint in the UN. Jorge, grow up please!
25 Malvinero1 (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 01:10 am Report abuse
Jorge, Beatriz, Fernando and company?
Well and those guys you mention...Really they are noo body.The books they write no body reads them.lanata,bankrupt his newspaper,did not paid his employes,all the others....well we have hunfred of intelectual,much more qualified than them...that thinks otherwise...I do not mind somebody has a different opinion,but you have to justify that.What they presented,has nothing really......no substance,from any point of view,historical,international law...really,I wish they presented a reasonable substance to their statements..
26 xbarilox (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 01:17 am Report abuse
@ 20 what is your mother f*cking race? ;)

Poor Malvinists, the world is not what they thought. You'll never have the islands, Malvinists.
27 Marcos Alejandro (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 01:32 am Report abuse
Troll from the other side of the Andes

53 xbarilox (#)Nov 14th, 2010 As Marcos Alejandro has stated before, Britain must go, and in the end it will have to go; the issue is one of how and when.
Malvinas Argentinas.

77 xbarilox Brits are so used to steal things from people, that believe they have some kind of authority to tell people what to do, what to think, what to say, what to believe lol

102 xbarilox
Don't get scared people, get the facts, the islandars can't decide anything,

en.mercopress.com/2010/11/12/second-oil-rig-to-join-falklands-oil-exploration-round-next-year
28 xbarilox (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 02:08 am Report abuse
@ 27 troll from all over the world, but the islads are still British ;)
29 JORGE1982 (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 04:20 am Report abuse
@24 Losing a war doesn't mean losing rights. Where did you get that, troll?

And yes, they are clowns. That's why they lost the elections. They were strongly defeated. Do you need an explanation about that?
Kirchners have a lot to be criticized, but they choosed the wrong things and are repeating the same mistakes.
You grow up and low yourself to the queen feet if that what you want.

@25 Creo que la palabra INTELECTUAL está siendo bastardeada en la Argentina. Estos no tienen nada de intelectuales!
30 JuanStanic (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 05:58 am Report abuse
They can say their point of view. But had they made anything good out of it? No.
Because there are things I agree and things that I don't there. But common people have such a low respect for them than they don't care what they say. Really, the only they do is complain. They never ever did something productive. On promises and complains you will get a political career as succesful as Lilita Carrio. People got tired of her at complaining and not doing something to change it. How much votes did she lost between elections? Tons of them.
The day these very people start doing something to help improve what they complain on, then they will get respect and with luck support.
31 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 07:33 am Report abuse
/Arg/fags,

You've failed to explain to us how an 'argentinian negotiation' works. You only use references from trolly-trolly comment is free section of the grauniad, with great topics such as 'i prefer ladyboys to real ladies, discuss'. Like true followers of Mao, you think anyone who disagrees with Kirchnerism is either a clown, a failure or discredited. Then you compare your goebellian state owned press to one that has freedoms. You even like non-intellectuals like sean penn and george galloway more than intellectuals.

Marco or Jorge, can you PLEASE explain to us how an Argentinian Negotiation works? First you tell everyone your fixed demands which cannot be changed. Then you sit down at the negotiation. But what happens after that, because it's very unclear? Thanks.
32 Marcelo Kohen (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:33 am Report abuse
At the negotiation table each side comes with its proposals. Then they try to reach agreement. This means be ready to make concessions on both sides. The temporary provision of the 1994 Argentine Constitution does not prevent any kind of outcome. This is one of the endless excuses the British side uses to maintain status quo. Before 1994 there was no temporary provision and no negotiations either. The situation is very simple: if there are negotiations and the agreement reached require a change on the domestic law of any side (or both), this must be done, otherwise there is no agreement that will enter into force. The British side is simply using its position of force, as it has done it since 1833.
33 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:43 am Report abuse
@32, you claim to be a lawyer Marcelo, so let's test what you just said, and look at what an 'Argentinian Negotiation' is.

“At the negotiation table each side comes with its proposals.” >> No, in an Argentinian Negotiation, one side comes with strict unchangeable demands.

“Then they try to reach agreement.” >> you mean one side agrees to the other's strict unchangeable demands.

“ This means be ready to make concessions on both sides.” >> this cannot happen because the demands are unchangeable, i.e. enshrined in constitution

“The temporary provision of the 1994 Argentine Constitution does not prevent any kind of outcome.” >> Do you know what a constitution is, Mr Lawyer? It cannot be negotiated, even by presidential decree.

“This is one of the endless excuses the British side uses to maintain status quo. Before 1994 there was no temporary provision and no negotiations either.” >> How does one negotiate in an 'Argentinian Negotiation' is what we've been asking you for about 500 threads, and you have successfully failed to explain it.

”The situation is very simple: if there are negotiations and the agreement reached require a change on the domestic law of any side (or both), this must be done, otherwise there is no agreement that will enter into force.“ >> The Kerchnerists adherence to the Malvinas issue has already said that the demands are fixed on the side of the Argfags.

”The British side is simply using its position of force, as it has done it since 1833.” >> We're just maintaining the status-quo, since 1982 and your naval exploits, it's hardly surprising.

So, you're a lawyer and you cannot explain an 'Argentinian Negotiation' successfully? I'm really really upset, because I don't think anyone in the UK or abroad knows how one works.

Can an Argfag please explain how an 'Argentinian Negotiation' works, it's apparently not like a normal negotiation, because one side has a set of demands that cannot be compromised. what are the mechanics of this?
34 Marcelo Kohen (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 09:16 am Report abuse
“GreekYoghurt”, I've never said here that I'm a lawyer, although you know that I am. I do not conceal under a nickname. I answer you this time because you don't insult me like in previous postings, calling me SS or nazi. This attitude speaks volumes about you. I was shocked and outraged by your insults. Coming back to your points, by not accepting negotiations, it is clear that the one who is not willing to change anything in its position is the British side. Even a Constitution can be changed, of course, using constitutional means. You are frighten of any change in the current situation. You prefer to leave to your children and grandchildren a problem, living in a region in which all States, without exception, consider that you live on Argentine territory.
35 Lump (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 09:33 am Report abuse
Slightly off topic here but as the subject was raised earlier about Argentina's Human rights record, is it safe for British people to travel to Argentina at the moment?

I and 14 other Englishmen are travelling to Buenos Aires next month for a cricket tour and some of the team are now starting to worry about how we will be treated.

We had all been told of the fantastically warm and welcoming Argentine people and up to about a month ago were all really looking forward to Steak, Red wine, Tango and watching Boca Juniors play football.

Now, a few of us, worry about lynch mobs.
36 LegionNi (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 10:22 am Report abuse
#11 Axel Arg
“Regarding the postures of those so called intelectuals, i only can say that all the opinions are respectable, but as intelectuals, they only criticise the policies of the government that it has for the islands, and never say not even one word regarding the sistematic rejection of the u. k. to resume the negotiations which are signalized by the u. n and most international comunity. That's what shows what kind of intelectuals they are, now you can understand why they write opinions in a giornal like la nación, your so loved from now, diario la nación, i'm sorprised that those so called intelectuals didn't say, god saves the queen, in the end of their opinions.”

So because you do not agree with their position regards the Falklands you reject them as intellectuals, you reject their comments and you reject their position?

So just how unbiased was this extensive study you carried out and just how much material did you reject becuase it was to pro the British position?
37 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 10:42 am Report abuse
@34 As an academic you shouldn't be offended by objective facts, that are specifically aimed at yourself. As a strict adherent to Peronism in it's Kirchnerist manifestation, you should also be aware of it's roots in 1930s authoritarian nationalistic socialism based on the cult of personality, where the quasi-dictator rules by decree through state propaganda channels. This by definition is Nazism. If you as an academic do not have the ability to see this objectively, then that really isn't my problem.

Secondly, as a lawyer you seem utterly blinded to the fact that some legal documents, signed in history cannot be discredited based upon your personal legal opinion. They need a judgement, from a judge. Maybe, a judge from the ICJ perhaps.

Lastly, I cannot believe that you cannot see the utter futility in negotiating using the 'Argentinian Method'. This method was also, predictably used by your friends in North Korea recently, when their set of rigid demands included a questionnaire asking for South Korea to admit that North Korea didn't sink their military vessel. Like the Argentinians, this futile method of negotiation simply doesn't work, and as a supposed man of the law I cannot imagine how you cannot see this.

I do not judge you, I just cannot understand you.
38 Redcoat (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 11:23 am Report abuse
@13 Filippo
“I think these people should be silenced. I do not like anyone of them. They have no right to betray their country. Argentina is not about the people, it is about macho, it is about domination of region, it is not about caring about pirates or traitors who have no rights to anything, not even the air!!!”

Thanks for that, you have SO comprehensively condemned yourself and all Argentinians that have been brainwashed from birth into believing the islands are theirs and shown the world you have no illegitimacy what so ever.

@34 Marcelo Kohen - “I do not conceal under a nickname”
A lawyer touting for business are you? and it seems your idea of negotiation is, give us the islands or you will go on and on and on till you are blue in face and you can insult others but others can’t insult you????

@35 Lump – “fantastically warm and welcoming Argentine people”
Normally maybe, because they want your money, but now Kirchner has played the nationalist card and Union Flag burning fanatics are roaming the streets, cancel or be very very careful
39 Idlehands (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:12 pm Report abuse
Wear an “I Love Maggie T” T-shirt and a tin hat and you'll be fine.
40 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:27 pm Report abuse
Guys, I was sort of half wrong. I was just reading 'Brennan, J. P., Peronism and Argentina. 1998 (SR Books)' and he suggests that the accusation of Peronism being based on Nazism is the 'Pathological' view of Peronism. The alternative trotsky-style view is that Peronism is Bonapartism. This ideology promotes a strong heavily centralised state, high levels of nationalism, and all surrounding a 'Caudillo'. Definitions of Caudillo range from nationalist charismatic strongman through to dictator. These approaches are all very common in south america and are as a result of the fall of colonialism.

At least we have a name for F.cK now, which is a 'Caudillo', hence the cult of personality that Mao and Kim Il-sung used effectively.
41 axel arg (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:33 pm Report abuse
GREEK YOGHURT. GONZO. LEGION NI.
GREEK: You didn't understand anything of what i said, as usall. It's not shamefull to be antikirchnerist, what is shamefull is to make so partial analysis, like those so called intelectuals do, i was clear enough when i said that all the opinions are respectable, but what i criticise is the so partial information that they express. On the other hand, if you call c. f. k's governement as quasi dictatorship, that shows how ignorant you are, you have no idea about what you are saying, as usuall, you are just functional to the so partial information that is published in the media, and dont take into account sources with diferent thoughts like i do, you dont interpret, you just understand what you want.
GONZO: I agree when you criticise the fact that c. f. k doesn't talk to the oponents, i have always criticised that also. On the other hand, i dont reject the antikirchnerist, just because they are antik, i was clear enough when i said that all the opinions are respectable, but what i criticise is the so partial analysis that they do, this is evident that you understood just what you want. I never believed in objetivity, nor in the periodistic independence, everybody has an ideology, and they have right to express it, no matter if they officialist or oponent, but it doesn't mean that they have to tell only the half of the history, i always take a side in all the issues, but i also tell the whole history. Beside, you can like or not página12, but nobody can say that it lies very often like the most important newspapers do.
LEGION: I dont reject them just because they dont think like me, i was clear enough when i said that all the opinions are respectable, but what i will always criticise are the so partial analysis that they, and the thinkers of many newspapers do, this is evdient that you are just another who understood just what you want.
42 Idlehands (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:36 pm Report abuse
13 Filippo (#)
Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:42 pm

That is the best post I've seen on here in a long while. So lacking in self awareness that it's hard not to laugh - and if it weren't a reference to Argentina we'd all cry.

I really hope you do live long enough to get to live in the type of country you espouse. You deserve it.
43 lsolde (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:48 pm Report abuse
@34MarcelKohen,
Well you are wrong. We do NOT live on Argentine territory.
lf, & l'm only saying “lf” we did decide to “negotiate” with you & (betray)sell our country down the river, what would you give us in return?
No bullshit implying that you are “recovering” the Falklands & that we should be grateful for any concession that you might make.
We don't agree that this is your land & are not under any obligations at all.
l just want to see what you are willing to give us in return for sovereignty over the Falklands.
Santa Cruz & Chubut provinces maybe?
Seems a fair trade to me.
You want OUR land so desperately, you're going to have to pay through the nose for it.
Oh and give us TDF & we'll throw in the SS lslands too.
But not South Georgia, that remains ours.!
This is just a suggestion.
Of course you squatters will have to vacate those provinces to make way for us. Never fear, no doubt cfk will find a slum somewhere for you.
44 ChrisR (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 01:07 pm Report abuse
35 Lump

I am a retired Brit living in Uruguay and my Argentinian neighbours, their family and friends come here for the summer. They are lovely people but have warned me about going to certain areas of B.A. , I do not know about other areas of the country.

I have never met an Argie of the likes you read on MercoPress. To me they are the typical coward, all mouth and no backbone. You will need to execise caution if you walk alone even in seemingly 'good' areas. A French guy was stabbed six times and robbed of his camera whilst photographing the National Malvinas Monument very recently. His death did not seem to shock any of the Argies even though there are 'guards' in funny 'uniforms' holding what appear to be old rifles (probably do not work) posted at the very spot he was killed.

And I would keep away from the Policia. Some are very good but there is a significant number who are not and cannot be trusted.

As long as you go around in a crowd with at least one fluent spanish speaker you should be alright.

If ever you are in a situation where several thugs demand your money, etc. GIVE IT TO THEM, DO NOT LOOK THEM IN THE EYES AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. They will probably think your are Americans (they don't think much of them either).

Other than that, have a good time. :o)
45 Artillero 601 (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 02:15 pm Report abuse
“Argentine personalities ......”

For the record, those people consult with me all the time. I have a direct line with Lanata and we discuss this issue frequently :-)))) (I have a feeling my countrymen are going to kill me )

Viva la Patria carajo !!!
46 Redcoat (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 02:25 pm Report abuse
@44 ChrisR – I do hope Lump reads your excellent post, he needs to, maybe he should consider going to Uruguay
47 egarcia1970 (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 02:26 pm Report abuse
#44: ”His death did not seem to shock any of the Argies even though there are 'guards' in funny 'uniforms' holding what appear to be old rifles (probably do not work) posted at the very spot he was killed.”


These guards are from the Patricios infantry regiment, wearing early XIXth Century vintage uniforms. Oddly enough, their weapons are totally anachronistic Remington rifles model 1865. The original Patricios were armed with smothbore flintlock muskets of several models, among them the British Brown Bess.


Cheers.
48 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 02:33 pm Report abuse
@43 I wouldn't bother trying to get him to understand. The guy supposedly teaches law (GCSE Law?) and yet doesn't know the first thing about the mechanics of 'normal' negotiation. He doesn't know how his political ideology was formed. All he knows is that 'argentinian negotiation' is where whichever side isn't argentina immediately gives in to the rigid demands of argentina and remains happy having done so.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
49 laceja (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 03:38 pm Report abuse
I've been reading these many posts about Argentina's “claim” on the Malvinas. Frankly, after reading most of the Argies have to say here, I can't imagine Argentina will ever be much more than a third world country. Incredibly belligerent and almost no logic or substance to back it up. Wow!

BTW, I'm a gringo, retired and living in Colombia. My neighbors just returned from a “vacation” to BA and their descriptions were anything but flattering for the place. The word that kept coming up was dirty (sucio)! Everywhere trash. Now, Colombia doesn't exactly have the best reputation on the planet, so when Colombianos choose to describe BA as “sucio”, that's saying something.

Maybe Argies should begin having some respect for their own country, before they start trying to take over another. From the first hand descriptions I heard from my neighbors, I can't imagine anyone, with a free will to decide their fate, would choose to attach themselves to Argentina.

From reading all these posts, I think Argentina needs an army of psychiatrists.
50 Conqueror (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 03:40 pm Report abuse
@11 You know, I thought you were supposed to be a teacher. In “civilised” countries, teachers also learn. How do you manage 23 spelling errors? How's life in your villa miseria?
@13 Keep it up, nazi. Every word justifies your obliteration. Your ancestors were a combination of the SS and the Gestapo. How proud you must be! What does it take to become a murdering, psychopathic, anally-retentive, dysfunctional, immature, mendacious, scatological, vicious homo?
@14 Desperate!
@20 But you're a racist, imperialist colonialist!
@23 “The Guardian”. Possibly the most unread “news” paper in Britain. A haven for extremist political activists and incompetent “journalists”. “Self-determination”? Just a constituent part of the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Both signed and ratified by argieland. Ooops. Has argieland ever heard of complying with laws? Has argieland ever heard of morals? Has argieland ever heard of honesty? Has argieland ever heard of principles? That's 4 “NO's.
@25 Have you not yet learned to construct a grammatical comment?
@29 Have you considered learning to become intelligent? Actually, have you considered learning to be human?
@30 Poor standard of gibberish.
@32 So repeal the first of the ”Temporary Provisions“. Go on. Dare you!
@34 What's this, you were ”shocked and outraged“? Getting a clue how Falklanders feel?
@41 Of course no-one understood what you said. You write gibberish. I thought ”teachers” were supposed to be intelligent.

C'mon argies, make your move. Give us a reason. Tell you what. If you don't have the guts to stand up against an ordinary British citizen, you should shut up. That takes care of Twinky, Margot Alexandria, Flippo, Dany the Burger, nitsjohn, alec_sick and SOOO many others. Life's great partnerships, an argie and a Gurkha with a kukri. Bouncy, bouncy. Can we all celebrate the next great argie victory? Only 38 million dead and 2 million wounded. Memorial made of irradiated bones.
51 Southern Star (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 04:00 pm Report abuse
Most uruguayans support Falkland right to self determination. Unfortunately our puor old terrorist president and his wife have been seduced by CFK. But in a short time things will change and we'll help. Be patient!
52 LegionNi (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 04:36 pm Report abuse
# 41 axel arg
“LEGION: I dont reject them just because they dont think like me, i was clear enough when i said that all the opinions are respectable, but what i will always criticise are the so partial analysis that they, and the thinkers of many newspapers do, this is evdient that you are just another who understood just what you want.”

Have you actually spoken to these people?
Do you know what research into this subject they have done?
OR
Are you just assuming that they haven't done extensive research into this subject, that they haven't perhaps done for more research than you yourself have, or the same level of research?

Who is pre-judging who? Perhaps you should look in a mirror before you accuse others just understanding what they want.

You say you respect their opinions but then go onto completely reject them without giving any kind of valid reason. How does the fact they don't mention the UK's refusal to negotitate invalidate there opinion in anyway?
53 Redcoat (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 04:42 pm Report abuse
@51 Southern Star
“our poor old terrorist president and wife have been seduced by CFK ” I take it that's José Mujica, but isn't it more like blackmailed, as Argentina is giving Uruguay all sorts of problems at the moment?

“ But in a short time things will change and we'll help. Be patient!”
******* You intrigue me tell me more !!!!!

@50 Conqueror I'm on your side, but it seems a bit unfair criticising their spelling, it's their bigotry we should aim at.
54 Idlehands (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 04:43 pm Report abuse
The Guardian website is a beacon of free speech that was sadly diminished by the demise of Guardian User Talk about a year ago due to litigation. However Comment Is Free has thrived since then and I've now been a member for over a decade.

Many of the articles linked are from guest writers. You notice malvinistas don't tend to provide links to Guardian articles where the author thinks Argentina should forget about the FI.
55 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 05:18 pm Report abuse
@49 Although Colombia has its issues, you are correct it does not generally get perceived to be a place crammed full of whackos like Argentina. Mussolini was supposed to recreate the glory of the days when Rome was a huge power, that was the promise that he gave to the people. Hitler's promise was equally as erotic and enticing for the Germans. When they both failed to deliver the people's of italy and germany were forced into exile and allowed to fester under the aligned ideology of peronism, where it lay bubbling away, keeping true to its ideals. This is the Argentina of today, just a horrid rotting bin of ex-nazi ideas and beliefs, poisoning all it touches.

Until Peronism is gone into history, this expansionist victimised vitriol spewing out of argentina's spores is just going to keep going on and on. Better someone puts a tent over the lame horse that is argentina and puts it out of its misery, sooner rather than later.
56 werowe (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 05:47 pm Report abuse
That is a reasonable idea. Beyond that this article sounds like it was translated from another source and the translation is a little clumsly. This sentence I still don't understand:

“Argentina on the contrary argues that according to the UN Charter the principle of self determination must be applied to an ethnic group over its territory of belonging and not over spaces illegally occupied by a transplanted population.”
57 laceja (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 06:12 pm Report abuse
56 werowe, yea, it didn't make must sense to me either. But, I just considered the source. Not much from the UN does make much sense.
58 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 06:27 pm Report abuse
@56 They're basically saying that Argentina is arguing that the Argentinian population, being a transplanted population who performed genocide and illegally occupies Argentina shouldn't be there and have no rights, especially not in the UN.

It's only the Argentinians that would argue this point in a loud festival of idiocy.
59 JORGE1982 (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:34 pm Report abuse
@31. You have to sit to negotiate. Saying that you don't do it because of our constitution is just a poor excuse. Our constitution has Malvinas cuestion on it since 1994. There wasn't any mention to Malvinas cuestion before 1994 and you didn't do anything regarding sovereignty cuestion before that.

Negotiation means to talk, to propose, to discuss and eventualy reaching an agreement. You cannot reach an agreement or solve anything if you don't sit to negoatiate first. Especulating about the outcome when you don't even recognize the problem won't solve anything.
You just can ignore us, but that won't lead you anywhere. The problem exist, that's why we are commenting here, that's why this webpage exist, so the sooner you accept the situation the better.

Cheers.
60 Lump (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:44 pm Report abuse
I thought I'd sent this already so apologies if it should be repeated.

ChrisR, thank you for your response, I've sent it on to our captain who's being typically stoical about it all.

What worries me though is that there hasn't been one Argentine voice on here saying that, as tourists, we will be fine in BA and that there is nothing to fear.
Come and enjoy our steak, wine, tango and hospitality.

I had hoped to hear this.

Where I live, in the south of England there is a small Argentine community that work and play for the Polo clubs. They have made friends here and are often seen in the local pubs with never a sign of hostility shown towards them. They seem like nice people.

The rhetoric I read on here though seems a little scary.
61 briton (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:57 pm Report abuse
Calm down boys,
The British government has stated that it has no intentions or ratching this up, it has no need to, the British government can and will defend the Falklands, alone if necessary,
Argentina is well aware the basic power of the UK government,
And we of them, governments may be corrupt and incompetent, but they are not stupid,
The facts remain, as log as the UN and all its signatories agree to freedom , and self determination, as is democracy, the UN or anyone else, cannot, and will not give a free democracy to a dictatorship, and that is a fact, if you believe in anything else, then one is totally brainwashed, and not worth the effort,.

.
62 Argie (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 09:10 pm Report abuse
FINALLY! A bunch of other Argentine people that believe the same as I do and have been supporting here and at other websites for years before now.
We self-determined our freedom from Spain in 1810. Spain had usurped these territories in 1580 and left here an 'introduced population' of which many of us descend in direct male or female lines. The original peoples (ab origines) were pushed out by the Spaniards and after that by Governor Rosas (very cunningly by the way) and later on by General Julio Roca in was was then called the Conquest of the Desert. If General Roca had not conquered the Patagonia, the Chileans would have occupied it, the same as they invaded all the mapuches' lands at their side of the Andes, forcing them to emigrate to this side.
When we decided to break off our Spanish dominators and - using our right for self-determination - declare independence from Spain, they brought their armies here and fought us, but in a few years they were defeated.
When an Argentine drunkard decided to invade the South Atlantic islands, he and his armies were repelled no matter how brave our troops fought, and after a couple of months an unshaven officer (who should have been shot for treason according to Argentine Military Code) signed OUR unconditional surrender to the British officers.
Are we Argentines in a very different position in comparison to that of the kelpers?
We are not, exception made that we displaced other people: the indians, and they found the islands empty except for a few gauchos.
We'd never surrender our territory to the descendants of the aboriginal tribes.
Neither would the USA to the red indians.
Nor the Falkland/Malvinas to their neighbours.
So what is this all about? Negotiation?
There's nothing to negotiate.
These people want to be free and independent from ALL other nations, and they should ask no one about it.
They only have to ask the Governor to leave Government House and move to a house of his own if he wants to stay.
Cheers!
63 axel arg (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 09:11 pm Report abuse
LEGION NI.
I know those people much more than you, i know how they think, and i respect their opinions beyond that i dont agree with them, but what is lamentable are the so partial analysis that they do, i am not invalidating nobody's opinion, i'm just criticising the serious omitions that the do, i have right to do it, like absolutly anyone. Anyway i realise that i didn't express my self corretly in my others comments, i used the wrong verb, i should have said reject, i only should have criticised the serious omitions that they do.
64 JuanStanic (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 09:26 pm Report abuse
@58
Up to 1/4 of the population have some degree of Amerindian blood. Therefore, they could be called Natives. Ask them if they are okay or not with the other 3/4.
I, being one of those in the 1/4 think they should stay and that they are as Argentine as any other.
65 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 09:27 pm Report abuse
@62 Argie, if you are who you claim to be then you restore my faith in Argentinians.
66 Redcoat (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 09:30 pm Report abuse
@56 werowe
This what it’s saying:
Argentina is arguing that according to the UN Charter the principle of self-determination only applies to an ethnic group over its own territory and not over an area illegally occupied by a transplanted population.

I think the key word here is transplanted, because if a formally transplanted people declare independence from the transplanting nation, somehow that’s then OK and the people that were there before no longer count.

Using this reasoning it raises a few questions:
The British transplanted people to the Falklands 180 years ago and have been there continuously since
How long do a transplanted people have to be in an area for it to be their own territory?
Argentina transplanted a few people there for 9 years but as they didn’t declare independence from Argentina and they were the people there before, this dictate means they don’t count.

This is not correct, how come the UN applied that ruling in Kosovo, where Albanians that had been moved into that part of Serbia were granted self-determination after only being there for few decades?
67 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 10:22 pm Report abuse
@66 I think the key term is 'illegally occupied'. Who is to say if something was legally or illegally occupied. The Pope? A judge? The UN? What legal framework is being used to judge legality, because there are several. South Americans like Uti possidetis juris, there is papal bull, establishment of colony or just first finding. (UK could technically claim Uti possidetis from 1982.)

Unless the Argentinians get an objective ruling on whether the original migrants were illegal, then it's all just noise. Therefore they need to go to the ICJ and get a ruling on this point. So if the ICJ rules they were illegally implanted then, which is unlikely, they still need a ruling about the people now. If it's anything like British Common Law, the precedent is already set based upon cases like Kosova Albanians, so they know to avoid the ICJ and try to make noise in the GA.

Marcelo Kohen is the Argentinian in-house ICJ lawyer and he knows all this. I think he worked on sovereignty of Kosovan Albanians that's why he dislikes talking about taking the Falklands issue to the ICJ, because he knows they would lose.
68 Millet (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 11:10 pm Report abuse
Geeeeees, surprise there really are some Argentinians that have both a heart and a BRAIN. I had given up all hope of an actual live breathing Argentinian who viewed the world as it really is. There might actually be some hope for poor old Argentina. Now all they have to accomplish is get a president that is worth a damn. - Millet USA
69 JuanStanic (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 11:11 pm Report abuse
@62
A lot I agree to. You may also know that if the Islands were independent and the Islanders had their own citizenship, no British base was there and the British flag wasn't as used if not more than their own one, then 90% of Argentines would be all happy and would support any other effort against the Islands. The problem is not with the Islanders, it's with the UK.
70 Marcelo Kohen (#) Feb 22nd, 2012 - 11:21 pm Report abuse
67 GreekYoghurt (I would like to know you real name, in the same manner you know mine...): please, go to the ICJ website and make a research about “uti possidetis iuris”. You make a big confusion on this. I am happy to see that you become interested in international law. For your reflection, the following quote from the ICJ: “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, is not affected by the fact that in certain cases the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of consulting the inhabitants of a given territory. Those instances were based either on the consideration that a certain population did not constitute a ‘people’ entitled to self-determination or on the conviction that a consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of special circumstances”. Guess how are the examples in which the General assembly considered ”that a certain population did not constitute a 'people' entitled to self-determination? I have always been favorable to go to the ICJ, but this cannot be a sole Argentine decision: the UK made a reservation excluding from its acceptance all disputes that arose before 1974! Can you please confirm that the UK would agree to submit the dispute to the ICJ? This requires an agreement. This can be discussed...in the negotiations you obstinately refuse. With regard to the Kosovo Albanians, the ICJ in its advisory opinion did not recognise their purported right to self-determination at all.
71 Braedon (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 01:01 am Report abuse
@70

so how exactly does the principle of uti possidetis juris apply here? argentina did not even gain recognition from Spain until after 1833, and Spain was never in clear possession of the Falklands due to the still upheld and stated claim by Britain at the same time.

All of this belies an even more pressing issue. Before, during and after 1833 argentina forcibly conquered vast tracts of land from Chile, Brazil Uruguay and especially the aboriginal tribes inhabiting what is now Patagonia. it acted with zero legality in doing so, and committed mass exterminations on any native tribes who resisted this so called “civilization”.

as argentina still holds the land it stole at this point, it's whining about the Falklands is both utterly without merit and sickeningly hypocritical

the concept of universal self determination is legally upheld in

The UN charter Chapter 1
www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

and Chapter 11
www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml

and ICJ precedents
in Westen Sahara www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=69&case=61&code=sa&p3=0

in Kosovo www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&code=kos&case=141&k=21

in East Timor www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=430&code=pa&p1=3&p2=3&case=84&k=66&p3=5

and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

as well as in the history of multiple nations, including argentina.

as for the accusation that the islanders were “implanted”, explain how the population of argentina stands at about 96% primarily european descended, and tell me how argentina's former policy of mass settling European immigrants on the land stolen from natives can be considered anything but implantation?

in short why the hell should the islanders not be given the basic human rights that argentines like yourself demand?
72 JuanStanic (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 01:44 am Report abuse
@96
Argentina didn't conquer vast track of lands neither from, Brasil, Uruguay or Chile. In Brasil's case, we LOST territory, the Misiones Orientales. We lost Uruguay too, and almost got it back, when Rivadavia called for peace and it was agreed it would be independent. In Uruguay's case, it shows you don't even know the history or even the geography of Uruguay. In Chile's case, the Patagonia was contested by both. Both claimed all of it. At the end, one of the most realistics approachs was followed, and almost all of the borders settled.
The Natives in Patagonia and the Pampas weren't either some angels. Search what a malon was. Besides, it wasn't a matter of conquering them or not. It was making sure it was ours before any other country decided it should be theirs.
In fact, we have settled our borders with all our legitimate neighbours.

And not. 85% of the population of Argentina is primarely European descended. But of also, 25% is descended from Natives. It wasn't implantation. It was a need. 2,5 million square kilometres of territory and only 2 million people. Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile and Brazil all had more population than us. It was a matter of economics and making sure they wouldn't be able to just steal it and populate with their people(reminds me of some Islands and 1833 at the same time).
73 Tim (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 02:08 am Report abuse
60 Lump (#). Don't worry, wherever you are staying should be OK. Contact Pepe Parsons, (pepspost@hotmail.com), mad keen cricketer who no doubt will be hosting you at some time and he can give you reassurance.
74 Braedon (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 02:53 am Report abuse
@72

yet you still conquered vast tracts of land from all of these nations, in particular you forcibly annexed huge ammounts of land from Paraguay after the genocidal war of the triple alliance.

and seeing how the Falklands was contested by both britain and spain during the time you claim it was “unquestionably spain's”, you whining that patagonia was “contested by both” is utterly meaningless.

moreso as it, as with every territory your nation forcibly annexed (ie stole) was already inhabited by aboriginal tribes, whom had infinitely more right to the land and resources than argentina. what right did you have to take this land? how were they “illegitimate”?

the fact you claim the atrocities you committed against the inhabitants of the land you stole was a good thing because of “economics” and that you compare it to Britain's bloodless and utterly legal retaking the Falklands shows how detestably contemptuous you are of the basic humanity of the native argentines. and your claim that your genocidal campaigns against them was even more “justified” as these tribes dared to resist your nation's attempt to steal their territory is sickening, and highlights just how pathetically hypocritical your country's delusional obsession with the Falklands truly is.

also as for your demographics

www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html

argentina is overwhelmingly white, with genuinely mixed heritage peoples (ie significant native ancestry) less than 5%, and actual native inhabitants barely 1%. this of course was the intended result of both argentina's exterminations against the native inhabitants (and against the formerly significant afro argentine population) and of argentina's policy of mass implantation of white settlers on land stolen from the now dead natives. the fact 1 in four argentines claims barely a trace of native ancestry is utterly meaningless
75 lsolde (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 07:15 am Report abuse
@74 Braedon,
When you put it on them about the genocide of native peoples, or the fact that they are squatters or implanted, then suddenly...............ta da!
They've all got Amerindian blood! Yeah right!
@69JuanStanic,
We don't care what you'd be happy with or not happy with.
This is our land & we'll do what we like here & its got absolutely nothing to do with you or Argentina.
Anyway the British need a base to be able to exploit Antarctica & again thats none of your business.
76 Marcelo Kohen (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 09:23 am Report abuse
@ 71. To answer all your inaccuracies would take me the whole morning. I am ready to discuss with a British professor of international law all the matter you wish, in the islands. It is not enough to mention general comments on self-determination: everybody (at least today, this was not the case of the UK until recently) agrees that it is a fundamental principle of international law. The question is whether it is applicable to any human group or not. In the case of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), there is no single UN resolution recognising this.
77 Redcoat (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 09:37 am Report abuse
@66 Recoat – an afterthought
That’s probably why Kirchner has a problem with the Falkland Islands Flag, i.e. It’s a sign of the Islanders self-determination that will negate Argentina’s claim to the islands

@65GreekYoghurt - “ if you are who you claim to be then you restore my faith in Argentinians.”
Careful before lavishing praise, there seems to be a string in Argie’s tail by writing
“These people want to be free and independent from ALL other nations, and they should ask no one about it.
They only have to ask the Governor to leave Government House and move to a house of his own if he wants to stay.”
He’s meaning that is the Islanders should be completely separate from and independent of Britain so they can invade

@60 Lump - “I've sent it on to our captain who's being typically stoical about it all.”
Stoical is admiral if you shouldn’t shirk the risk, stoical is stupid if you are walking into trap.
Percival was stoical before the fall of Singapore.
78 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 09:53 am Report abuse
@70,76 (Referencing 72) Prof Kohen, I understand your and Sr. Timermans frustrations at trying to be opportunistic at being of an ethnic group that was cleansed by the same ODESSA groups that now run your country, Nesto & Kircho (Both of Herrenvolk Germanic Stock), and I understand your cognitive dissonance at trying to hide the fact your homeland systematically exterminated all but a tiny fraction of it's native population. I can see how you would think the reaching out to the UN in order to get them to change their charter to not include self-determination, would help you to get in with the Herrenvolk who so rudely exterminated so many of you people. This I can see, and I think we all understand that it's called minority influence.

All my knowledge on Uti possidetis comes from a book (Lalonde, S., Determining boundaries in a conflicted world: the role of uti possidetis. 2002 (McGill-Queen's University Press)) If you have any problems with my understanding of this legal concept, then I suggest you take it up with the author.

P.52 ”With respect to the arbitration of Latin American boundary disputes, Kohen (You) is even more categorical: “finally, with respect to judicial prevedents, it can be noted that in every territorial arbitration in Latin America, the uti possidetis principle was invoked, save and exceptiing arbitral awards concerning the interpretation of a treaty or another arbitral award ”

So here, you're saying uti possidetis is how South Americans resolve boundary disputes. Burkina-Faso v Mali “[Uti possidetis] is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of obtaining independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the changing of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power.”

In 1982 we had a war with argentina and won. Principle of uti possidetis prevails!
79 Redcoat (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 10:13 am Report abuse
@78 GreekYoghurt
I admire your patience replying to Mr self-promotion i.e. Marcelo Kohen as it seems to me he’s a lawyer that is just twisting words to suit his bigotry. Anyway you certainly have the better on him.

60 Lump “ Don't worry, wherever you are staying should be OK. Contact Pepe Parsons, mad keen cricketer who no doubt will be hosting you at some time and he can give you reassurance”
I key word here is MAD
80 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 10:39 am Report abuse
@79 Thanks. What is so frustrating for these Argentinians is that they don't really understand what “negotiating” is. They think they can turn up to a negotiation with absolutely nothing but a set of demands, and then get everything they want at the end of it, and walk away with everything. It's just utter nonsense, that even an argentinian professor of law signs up to.

The second part of their frustration is that they refuse to get a legal ruling on anything. They claim that the UK refuses to consider “all disputes that arose before 1974”. The Argentinian need to anchor itself in some momentous historical event blinds them from the fact that the world has moved on. Israel was accepted the UN in 1947, under the claims that it was a 'people' of jewish ancestry. Falkland Islanders are a 'people' of mainly british ancestry, however they are still a people. It is ludicrous that the same UN that accepts Israel as a modern reality should also accept the Falklands as one, and this is where the argentinian legal perspective fails.

Basically, there is a stench of hypocrisy around the 'Israelis' being considered a people, but not the 'Islanders'.
81 Argie (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 02:26 pm Report abuse
@65 GreekYoghourt. Not many Argentines feel the same that I do, so don't burn your fingers. In my case, it is only a matter of fair play duly learnt at home, polished in school (Irish Christian Brothers) and finally lived in an England which, by the way, has changed much since.

Enter the Falklands Information Web Portal and search for “Elegy”. You might find something there.

And beware of this sentence: ... Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

Cheers!
82 Braedon (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 03:05 pm Report abuse
@76 Marcelo Kohen

what inaccuracies do you speak of? there were less than half a dozen points to my comment. which of theses do you think is “inaccurate”?

- the fact you conquered vast tracts of land from neighboring nations under far less legal circumstances than the UK asserting an already existing claim on the Falklands?

- the fact that your nation committed what can only be described as genocides and mass land thefts against the native argentine population?

- the fact that whining about the islanders being “implanted” and “non original” is sickeningly hypocritical given argentina's current demographics and the history of intentional settling of white immigrants onto land stolen from neighbours/natives?

- the fact that the right to self determination for all peoples is legally enshrined multiple times in the UN charter and ICJ precedent?

- the fact that given argentina's history as noted above, how could the islanders not have the same right to self determination?

oh but of course you demand to speak to only a “professor”, reinforcing my hypothesis that argentine perpetrators of the “malvinas” delusion are identical to creationists in their attempts to wriggle out of an argument.

also as for your attempt to say that the islanders are not people because no UN resolution says so (and you will have to provide the UN law which states this rule to exist) , may I remind you of what you posted above from an ICJ judgement

“The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, is not affected by the fact that in certain cases the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of consulting the inhabitants of a given territory”

also point to me the part of the UN charter or ICJ precedent which states that groups like the falkland islanders, who have just as much historical, legal and moral right to the land they inhabit as does argentina, have no right to self determination.
83 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 03:30 pm Report abuse
@81 It's a poem befitting of the circumstances. I always remember what Churchill said about appeasement of the Nazis before WW2, “England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame and will get war.” If you choose war, you get war; and likewise if you choose shame, you get war.

K.fc wants the UK to react to the battle drums, and the baiting; Just patiently watching it is the best option in this case. Better that we all focus on Syria, which is a real conflict... rather than focus on K.fc trying to manipulate situations.

@82 I'd give up. He cannot give his country it's dignity back because we dismiss anything before 1974. This effectively paralyses their wish to question the legalities of things that happened 200 years ago. I really don't see what legal options they have left, and Prof. M. Kohen knows this too.

However, it is clear that the one thing Argentina don't like is the principle of self determination; Israel are unlikely to like it either because of Palestine, and therein lies the big game of the UN, navigating the hypocrisy.
84 Redcoat (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 04:48 pm Report abuse
@81 Argie - ” fair play duly learnt at home, polished in school (Irish Christian Brothers)“
That explains you thinking the Islanders should be independent and free of the UK, but as they keep telling you and us, they want to remain British


”And beware of this sentence: ... Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Why beware of it? - you can forgive those who trespass against us, but don't forget and don't let it happen again
85 porteño55 (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 05:35 pm Report abuse
A.J.Rimmer

Surprised about Argentina having intellectuals?
I think it would be very instructive for you to open up your mind a bit and try to learn something, it's easy now that information is at everyone's fingertips. Or if you don't trust Argentine books or media, you can read the corresponding article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica about Argentine Literature and Arts.

GreekYoghurt

These people do exist, and they are not in jail. They are each very respected in their fields. There are no intellectuals in jail for saying their opinions, or anyone else, for that matter. That doesn't mean the Government wouldn't like them to be. They have a policy to put pressure on the media as much as they can, and create new Government-addicted media. But we still have a Congress that fights for freedom of the press, and I, who am against the government, read and see criticism against them all the time. Besides, to go to jail you need to undergo trial, and Freedom of Expression is in the Constitution. It's very hard to restrict it, but they will go as far as they can, as is the Government's style. And we citizens, together with honest legislators, judges and prosecutors (which fortunately still exist), and journalists, will do all in our reach to prevent it.
I think these intellectuals think what many citizens think and don't say out of fear to appear as less patriotic. Patriotism is an important value but so are others, as good neighborhood and human rights. And considering these values doesn't mean to abandon our country's interests. Diplomacy is complex and I trust that experienced and imaginative diplomats and good-willed politicians will one day find a solution. The goal must be to end the conflict. I'm glad that this group expressed what I think.
86 briton (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 06:23 pm Report abuse
Without self determination, Argentina would not exist today,
You cannot claim one thing, and then deny it to others,
The Falklands are British, whenever you like it or not,
So why not just Soddy of and stop trying to steal from others,
.
87 Argie (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 06:42 pm Report abuse
@77 . Redcoat: You must be joking or you don't read the newspapers! Where would Argentina get a force to invade from? I said what I said and there are no hidden intentions. Invading?

@& 84 That sentence means that you ask to your Lord the same treatment you give to others. I did not invade and, as a matter of fact, had never been to the islands. However, I enjoy the good friendship of more than one person there, being them of 6th and 7th Falklands generation which means their families had been on the islands since the very beggining of British settlement in 1833. Some fools here say the British expelled the Argentines to occupy their place, which is not true. It was an American pirate by the name of USN Captain Silas Duncan that did it at the end of 1832 by cannonfire of USN Frigate Lexington, under his command, as reprisal to the measures taken by the German-Argentine Governor Vernet against a couple of American-flag whalers and seal catchers whose captains and sailors were killing more animals than they could carry, just for the pleasure of killing them. Duncan took aboard all the Argentines as prisoners after tricking them into coming to talk about the whales and seals, and subsequently destroyed all installations and a few small sailboats anchored nearby. Only a handful of gauchos escaped and wandered around, until the British landed four months later. Then they joined the immigrants. William Powell Dale, depicted two of those gauchos sipping 'mate' in 1850 at what is called now 'Hope Place'. The artist's descendants still live in the islands and hold , as far as I know, all the oil paintings of their ancestor which show, as a unique 100% local testimony, how the life was in those times.

By the way, redcoats savagely invaded a host of coutries, kiling and maimimg whoever opposed them, although I know of a few problems they had, especially the ones that were inflicted to them by the American patriots when they fought for their self-determination.

Be good!
88 JuanStanic (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 07:02 pm Report abuse
@74
Please name what we took from Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Bolivia. Enlighten me.
In Paraguay's case it's not something we are proud of. In any case, the land tooking was for two reasons. The war(which Paraguay started) costed a lot. Could the pay in reparations? No, they were capable. So we took land instead( Just half of our Formosa Province anyway). Also, Brazil was taking land, and not doing so would shown weakness.

Yes, because the British were claiming something they gave up during Nookta conference. Until we put a feet there you couldn't claim them. We claimed them because as Spanish they were, they were part of the ex-Viceroralty of Rio de la Plata, which became independent as several countries. Having Argentina control over the Buenos Aires Intendency, settling the Islands and putting a garrison there was a rightful as doing so in Carmen de Patagones.

Again, pre-1860 most of the people was Mestizo. That means some amount of Amerindian blood. Besides, you should judge the past by past laws. At that time there was consensus and the belief it was right to put the Natives under “civilization”. It was morally right.
And then, don't change my words. Good thing is not there. It was a realpolitik neccesity. Then again, genocide was not commited. Proove it. Give me sources. I can give you sources that proove my point.

BTW, you show you really don't know about our history. I recommend you Argentina, 1516-1987 by David Rock.

Your demographics are wrong.
edant.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm
If you can't read Spanish give your mail so I translate it to you.
89 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 07:32 pm Report abuse
@88 “because the British were claiming something they gave up during Nookta conference” >> as you know from Gibraltar the Spanish don't actually ever follow their agreements. You didn't mention the Lack of payment of the Manila Ransom in 1763 for £4 Million. There are lots of things you chose not to mention... well done Mr. Selective History.

No, it seems you're claiming something you gave up in 1850 during the signing of the agreement to settle all differences between Argentina and Britain.

1850 was more recent, overruling everything you just said. Thanks.
90 JuanStanic (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 07:37 pm Report abuse
@89

I posted several time why the 1850 peace treaty does not include the Islands. Should I do again?
91 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 07:52 pm Report abuse
@90 We know you posted why you think it should not be included. But that's just your opinion and not a judicial decision. I thought you'd know the difference, but you don't.

Being Argentinian you'd love for it not to be relevant, but sadly for you it is. Get back to being butthurt.
92 JuanStanic (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 07:58 pm Report abuse
@
Okay, you are right, it's an opinion. I would take it to a lawyer friend who is an expert in old documents and I will you what he says.

And before supposing what I believe, try asking what I believe. I would get you a more realistic answer. Also, being butthurt goes to you.
93 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 08:05 pm Report abuse
@92 I'm not butthurt. We're not the ones jumping about trying to tell everyone that will listen how upset you are that someone won't give you their land and how you lost all your dignity in a war leading to your quasi-legal economic barricade . That would be you folks.
94 JuanStanic (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 08:15 pm Report abuse
@
Speak for yourself. Some are upset. Some other like me think patience is the only need. And dignity can't be lost. It's an inalienable human right. At the most you can not respect a right, but that doesn't dissapear it.
95 JORGE1982 (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 08:27 pm Report abuse
The treaty of 1850 has nothing to do with the islands. It was a treaty signed after one of the several british agressions against Argentina and the “differences” it addressed are related to those existing at the moment and in the context of the conflict.
96 Redcoat (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 08:29 pm Report abuse
@87 Argie
I am well aware of Argentina’s current economic predicament, you must be getting pretty desperate and I know you didn’t mention invasion, just a reference of independence from the UK, which would play into the hands of the many bullies in Argentina.

I’m not saying you invaded! and its irrelevant whether you have been to the islands or not, but the Lexington destroyed the sealers settlement and tricked most of them into being deported in 1831, leaving the islands in anarchy, which the British had to restore when they returned in 1832) I do know that history

As for my nom da plume, I’ve used it for many years and your pathetic sarcasm about it, unmasks your real feelings, prejudice and ignorance of history as I suspected.
FYI the redcoat was introduced for British Soldiers that had to fight off the many attempted invasions of Britain, including Napoleon and was used abroad in order to stop other European powers dominating the world, of course it’s now disliked by the losers.
And as with most people, you have been completely taken by American propaganda about redcoat atrocities during their war of independence. The truth is that smugglers of French goods (working against the interests of most colonists) and land grabbers (from fellow American born colonists as well as the Indians) used lawless frontier lowlife to hijacked the colonies.
The redcoats were nearly always outnumbered during that war and actual atrocities were committed by rebels on their fellow countrymen who were only saved at the end of the war by the redcoats, so that over 100,000 Americans were able to escape the carnage (50% going to Canada).
This all must have a familiar ring to you, with the Spanish massacring the indigenous population in what is now Argentina
97 Braedon (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 08:56 pm Report abuse
@88

Ok then here is a list of the areas argentina stole from various parties. Keep in mind the land stolen from natives was universally accompanied by mass exterminations and ethnic cleansing

Rio negro – Natives
Salta – Natives
San Juan – Natives
San Luis – Natives
Santa Cruz – Natives
Santa Fe – Natives
Santiago del estro – Natives
Tierra del Fuego – Natives/Chile
Tucuman – Natives
Buenos Aires – Natives
Catamarca – Natives
Chago – Natives
Chubut – Chile/Natives
La Pampa – Natives
La Rioja – Natives
Mendoza – Natives
Neuquen – Natives
Misiones – Natives/Brazil
Entre Rios – Natives
Corrientes – Natives

All of which was done with infinitely more illegal and immoral measures than were used by Britain to retake control of the Falklands in 1833.

Now kindly tell me your legal reasons for keeping hold of each territory?

Also here is what you stole from Paraguay

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Historia_de_la_frontera_Paraguaya.JPG

the fact you claim that it was your theft of paraguay’s land you are “not proud of” is sickening considering both your continued attempt to do the same to the Falklands, and your infinitely worse actions against native argentines.

And kindly state with evidence how the source I am using for demographics is flawed? Using argentine tabloids is hardly admissible evidence.

The fact that before 1860 you claim there was more Amerindian blood is utterly meaningless due to the engineered mass immigration from Europe to settle and “civilise” the stolen territories, which have ensured that over 90% of your population remains overwhelmingly European, with barely 1% actual native.

As for the NS treaty, not only had britain already claimed and continued to claim the Falklands, the treaty only covered Islands adjacent to the Spanish empire at the time, which did not include Patagonia where the Falklands are adjacent to. Therefore any validity the treaty may have had, would have never applied to the Falklands anyway.
98 Millet (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 09:03 pm Report abuse
Tell me, is it worthwhile arguing with the Argentinians about the Falkland Islands? There is no way they will EVER get the islands back again. Why waste your time with them? Argentina is totally incapable of doing anything about it. Their just another third world country without any ability to accomplish anything on a level that the world would ever notice. My advise is find something else constructive to do with your life. Argentina is simply not worth the effort. - Millet USA
99 Redcoat (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 09:08 pm Report abuse
@94 JuanStanic – “Some other like me think patience is the only need.”

You just delude yourself thinking you can use bogus legality or bore everybody into submission or imagine it only requires patience, you will just grow old and die waiting, how forlorn is that.
Instead you should be worrying about your current inflation of 26% is set to increase, your shambolic public transport that has just doubled its fares and the price of utilities (electricity water etc.) going to rise four-fold, your rubbish isn’t getting collected, your roads are falling to pieces, you already have squalid ghettoes and insanitary shanty towns which are set to get very much worse, you’re got more important problems than waiting around for something that ain’t gonna happen.

p.s. Well done Braedon and GreekYoghurt, you're doing really well.
100 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 09:49 pm Report abuse
@97 Keep up the good work. I'd like them to answer, especially that lawyer dude who only responds with the same thing over and over.
101 Braedon (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 10:27 pm Report abuse
@99 and 100

thank ye for the support, you are both doing extremely well yourself.

the truly sad thing is that the various little factoids we have been putting forward over the past few days, gathered from a few minutes of internet research and looking through the relevent historical documents, still utterly torpedoes all that the nation of argentina has managed to come up with over the past 200 years.

amazing what the internet can do :D
102 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 23rd, 2012 - 11:23 pm Report abuse
@101,99 I don't think Argentinians like objective historical facts, they make them sad and they need a massive build up to a joint statement in order to get over the sadness that they just don't own the falklands.

Pretty pathetic really.
103 JuanStanic (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 12:11 am Report abuse
No. Argentina was by far one the countries with less outright Natives killing. Most died from disease. They were mostly nomads. Cities were built, they moved. If they attacked colonists defended. There are a few cases of cities, but that is in Norhwest, in the ex Inca empire.

Rio negro – Disputed and solved with Chile. Today is home to a big Mapuche comunity. They hardly believe they masacrated and own more land per capita tan most people.
Salta – Already colonized when we got independence.
San Juan – Already colonized when we got independence.
San Luis –Already colonized when we got independence.
Santa Cruz – Disputed and solved with Chile. Few natives. Most were just relocated.
Santa Fe – Partly colonized when we got independence.
Santiago del estro – Already colonized when we got independence.
Tierra del Fuego – Disputed and solved with Chile. Here Yamanas died of disease and Onas were murdered by European gold hunters.
Tucuman – Already colonized when we got independence.
Buenos Aires – Partly colonized when we got independence.
Catamarca – Already colonized when we got independence.
Chaco – Almost no killings. Most were nomadic and relocated.
Chubut – Disputed and solved with Chile. Today is home to a big Mapuche comunity. They hardly believe they masacrated and own more land per capita tan most people. Welsh people were the first colonists there and had quite good relations with Natives.
La Pampa – Natives moved south after Conquest of the desert.
La Rioja – Already colonized when we got independence.
Mendoza – Party colonized when we got independence.
Neuquen – Disputed and solved with Chile. Today is home to a big Mapuche comunity. They hardly believe they masacrated and own more land per capita tan most people.
Misiones – Already controlled when we got independence.
Entre Rios – Already colonized when we got independence.
Corrientes – Already colonized when we got independence.

The questions back then was not if we got their lands. It was Chile or us.
104 briton (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 12:21 am Report abuse
the question is,
will you return them.
105 Braedon (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 12:57 am Report abuse
@Juanstanic

Rio negro, Chubut, Neuquen – what the hell gave you the right to take the land in the first place? Also seeing how the mapuche nation complains right here that they lack the basic right over their land you have yet to say how you taking this land was more legal and moral than Britain taking the Falklands

www.mapuche-nation.org/english/main/feature/m_nation.htm

Salta, San Juan, San Luis, Tucuman, Catamarca, La Rioja, Misiones, Corrientes, Santiago del estro, Entre Rios – what right did your ancestors have to take these lands and near totally cleanse them of native inhabitants? The colony under Spanish control had enough autonomy to not commit mass land theft and exterminations, and yet it chose to do so anyway.

Santa Fe, Buenos Aires, Mendoza – again what gave you the right to take this land and murder/ethnically cleanse the native inhabitants? And this reinforces the above point that your nation was acting fully of its own volition when it committed these atrocities against those who already inhabited the land.

Tierra del Fuego – The dispute with Britain and the Falklands was solved in 1850 yet you still claim you own the islands. What gives you that right when you deny it to chile? and stating the argentines who murdered the natives were “European gold hunters” shows just how in denial you are about your actions there, especially considering that decades before you perpetuated another extermination campaign against them for resisting and interfering with your attempts to steal their land.

Santa Cruz, Chaco, La Pampa – ah yes, claiming the natives “relocated” which under modern international law comes under the term ETHNIC CLEANSING which is considered a crime against humanity. Also you claim they “relocated” after the conquest of the desert, which was nothing but a violent extermination campaign waged against them, and those few who “relocated” constituted the sole survivors of the genocides you committed to steal their land.
106 Malvinero1 (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 02:06 am Report abuse
Tierra del Fuego – The dispute with Britain and the Falklands was solved in 1850 yet you still claim you own the islands. What gives you that right when you deny it to chile? and stating the argentines who murdered the natives were “European gold hunters” shows just how in denial you are about your actions there, especially considering that decades before you perpetuated another extermination campaign against them for resisting and interfering with your attempts to steal their land.

No it was not ,braedon.
Please refer of the topic,brougth up by your body david.After the leson in law given by Dr Shadow,he disappeared.
Dwww.topix.com/forum/world/falkland-islands/TR0KI67QOU0O96MB3/p4avid pulled this topic:
By law Argentina relinquished...
107 JuanStanic (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 03:00 am Report abuse
@104
I lived near Mapuches's and met some of them while living in 2002-3 in Bariloche. Very kind, respectful, working and life loving people that not only you but us too should really learn from. They said they weren't mad at us. Some where, but as a comunity they weren't. They believe both their ancestors and us did terrible things. Both the Malones and the Conquista were bad. They claim that they were proud to be Argentines, and wouldn't change that for nothing in the world. But they claim they are also Mapuche, and they want to selfdeterminate inside their territories, while still being Argentines. They believe the country is heading towards a future where this will happen and in a peaceful way.
To sum up, everything is negotiable, except the Argentine flag.

@105
The same one who let you claim 1/4 of the world at the same time. I repeat, you can't judge past events by todays laws. You can label them, but not judge them. It's like blaming nowday Mongols for what Genghis Khan did.
Besides, that page is both old and not informing on any soverignity abuse on them. If you find a proof of mistreatment it's welcome so can be denounced.

Of colonial era, I will say it was more intermixing than ethnic cleasing. A history book will be fine for you.
Of the later, you should now Malones was the way of surviving and trading for tribes. At a point we had Zanja de Alsino to stop them. Then people believed that bringing them under control would solutionate this problem.
Tierra del Fuego I could write a book. Give me your mail if you want to know my point.
The rest, I repeat my above statement on past events and I notice you that your knowledge on Guerra del Desierto is poor. I can recomend you books(by foreigners and in English if you wish so)
108 Braedon (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 03:27 am Report abuse
@106

then explain the Selkham Genocide and the sickening policies undertaken by the argentines Julias Popper and Ramon List which involved mass exterminations of the (now extinct) Selkham people and the despicable murder of men, women and children for body parts in order to claim bounties on them. all of which was done to help cement your nation's claim to tierra del fuego.

@107

so the fact the ones you met did not personally blame you for what your nation did to them COMPLETELY absolves argentina of it's land theft, subjugation, disenfranchisement, ethnic cleansing and massacres perpetrated against them?

and even then you refuse them any permission to even try to peacefully secede from argentina.

also for the record here are some sites which note the continued poverty, repression and subjugation they suffer

www.international.ucla.edu/asia/news/article.asp?parentid=57901
www.unpo.org/members/7895

As for you whining that their attempts to fight back against your theft of their land was unjust, may i remind you that their attacks on argentina occurred only after you had forcibly annexed vast tracts of their land, slaughtered or ethnically cleansed the inhabitants and moved white settlers onto it.

you had no business there in the first place, and your attempt to equate their attempts to resist subjugation with your country's wholesale genocide against them and other natives is sickening, especially when you still whine that Britain preventing argentina doing the same to the Falklands is an “injustice”, especially when you still cling to that land you stole in such despicable circumstances. the fact that the population of argentina remains so overwhelmingly white, with barely a trace of native blood in a fraction of the population reveals that intermixing was rare

and of course you whine that argentines should not be judged on the history of how they got their land, but you demand this happen to the Falkland Islanders.
109 brit abroad (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 06:24 am Report abuse
1771 Spain (RG cousins) AGREES to cede The Falklands to Britain.

Simple fact that before RG's existed as a nation, we owned the falklands, with thanks to their cousins!

1833 Britain again reaffirms sovereignty over The Islands after a lttile jumped-up GERMAN (who asked Britain, and Argentina whether he could set-up a settlement) called Vernet starts some Piracy. For some reason the then baby RG nation seemed it fit to give him some governor type title, to which they had NO authority to do., and so there you have their only claim to the falklands. They adopted a German who achieved more than they had!

Little add-on fact: The same year Britain abolished slavery and started to force the rest of the world to do likewise.

The Falkland Islanders do not claim sovereignty over Argentina. So how in God's name do these Argentinian people believe they can claim the British Falkland Islands.

Out of interest do you RG's also agree with the Moroccan stance over the Canary Islands?
110 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 10:00 am Report abuse
“To sum up, everything is negotiable, except the Argentine flag.”

This is precisely what I mean about an Iberian-negotiation. The thing they want to negotiate isn't negotiable to them. They bring nothing to the table.

Iberian Negotiation
-----------------------
UK+FI: “So what are you hoping to negotiate?”
Argentina: “Everything is negotiable except the Argentine Flag”
UK+FI: “It's not Argentine, it has a Falklands flag”
Argentina: 'That's not negotiable“
UK+FI: ”Of course it's not negotiable, it's not even reality“
Argentina: *silence*
UK+FI: ”Are you always this deep in faggotry?”
111 lsolde (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 10:27 am Report abuse
@108Braedon,
Extremely well put.
l raised similar points(although not as in depth as your research)with Arch-Squatter Think.
He fed me the usual evasions & lies, then tried to fob me off.
These stupid malvinistas think that we don't know about their sordid past.
Juan Stanic says he has Amerindian blood & l guess he thinks that he is entitled to live(squat)on native land.
Think, baby, has already admitted that he is a Scandinavian or l'd lay money on it, he'd be claiming native blood as well. Stuffed up there, didn't you dear Think?
Yet they have the face to call us squatters. They are the biggest squatters & descendents of murderers or receivers of stolen goods.
l'd love to see the Amerindians take their cases to the UN & ICJ!
@110GreekYoghurt,
l was broght up to call a bundle of firewood, a faggot!
l couldn't understand why my kids were laughing, years ago, when l read them a bedtime story which had the following passage:-
“the men were pulling the faggots out of the hedges & burning them”
Can't remember the book.
112 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 10:51 am Report abuse
@111 “the men were pulling the faggots out of the hedges & burning them”

Hahah, I think it's in the Fellowship of the ring where they have to carry a faggot each, up the mountain.

No offense to gay folks of course.
113 JuanStanic (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 11:13 am Report abuse
@108
Popper=Romanian.
Lista=His expedition cruelly murdered 29. Known fact. Don't know of other Argentines. The important murderings are two, of 300 and 500, done by European gold hunters. Poisoned whale was one.
And the borders were fixed in 1881.

Mapuches don't want to secede. Fact. And they want and have a rural life in peace. Fact. Hardly subjugation.

Malon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal%C3%B3n
And Mapuches are not Native to Pampas. They got after the Spanish.

On genetics, read the article. And remember, looking White doesn't mean you can't have other heritages.

We don't claim that. We claim that past events be judged on past laws. Seeing past laws, you stole us.

@109
1771 completely wrong. The rest is wrongly interpretated from the previous mistake.
We abolished it like 20 years before you.
I would research on the Canary islands.

@110
Oh, I forgot. Anglo-saxon way of doing stuff is always better. Don't be xenophobic. Different cultures act different, you can't complain on that.

@111
Did you remember my 25% I told you?
Good news for you. It's not 25%. It's 56%!
edant.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm

But you are right, we, that 56% percent are under so much subjugation. We will take it to ICJ and UN. And claim the country from the others 44%(who BTW were invited by our own ancestors). But who cares. America for those with Native blood.
114 Redcoat (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 01:19 pm Report abuse
@113 JuanStanic
“ Don't be xenophobic ”

It's funny how those most guilty of something always accuse others of it
115 GreekYoghurt (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 02:31 pm Report abuse
@114 It's a technique they learned from the Spanish.

Iberian: “gibraltar is ours!”
Normal Human: “What about all the islands you own off africa?”
Iberian: *silence*

Iberian: “Las Malvinas is ours, you colonisers!”
Normal human: “Your entire country was a colony, and you are trying to colonise islands you've never owned like antarctica and South Georgia”
Iberian: *silence*

Their memory is so selective, that I personally have problems talking to them and would certainly never want one near my house.
116 briton (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 05:14 pm Report abuse
JuanStanic
To sum up, everything is negotiable, except the Argentine flag.
The islanders,,
To sum up, most is negotiable, except sovereignty .
117 Tim (#) Feb 24th, 2012 - 07:00 pm Report abuse
108 Braedon (#) Had to check up on the Selk'nam people as I have only known them as Onas and Yaghanes. Lucas Bridges book is still available on Amazon and well worth while reading. Good photographs also. There you will learn that Ushuaia (as it is known today) was set up by SAMS (South American Missionary Society). The missionaries came across from the Falklands.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Bridges
118 brit abroad (#) Feb 25th, 2012 - 03:35 am Report abuse
RG's please stop wasting your time on these forums (althouhg some of your ideology is funny as F@#%).

For those who are good at footy, get your boots on and get down the park and do what you are good at. The rest of you, time to play with the worms in the garden.

leave your politics to Sean Penn and the other Monkeys
119 Argie (#) Feb 28th, 2012 - 08:35 pm Report abuse
96 har, har, har. Red was too visible and that made your redcoats change to a shade of brown that would also hide any marks appearing in the down parts of your troops' breeches.

Britain is now praising self determination of a land that has no other choice that being her ally and would, perhaps, help her with her energy and food problems, while 50 years ago Londinium wouldn't have dreamt of it.

In other words, Britain was never so intensely engaged in self determination rights of other peoples, as history shows.

So please forget the Spaniards, Americans, Russians or Chinese. Just look into your own history and stop, at least with me, your hypocritical comments.

Cheers!

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!

Advertisement