MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
London Marathon is on next Sunday: 36.000 runners including UK Olympic champion
The London Marathon will go ahead as planned in the British capital this Sunday despite the bomb attack on the Boston race which killed three people and wounded more than 100, police and officials said. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOur British police and armed services are only too familiar with mindless acts of cowardly terrorism. I'm sure they will do the fantastic job they have always done in protecting us.
Apr 18th, 2013 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0What gets me is why, when these terrorist activities take place, they always target civilians. If the problem is with politicians or the armed forces, why not target them? I know events targeting them have happened in the past but they seem to be the exception. I'd add I'm in no way encouraging attacks on anyone.
Apr 18th, 2013 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2
Apr 18th, 2013 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately, when the terrorist bombs took place in Madrid, Spain pulled their troops out of Afghanistan, hailing a success for the terrorists. They know full well when they do the same in Britain they would never get the same reaction, we would also relentlessly hunt them down.
Although I strongly disagree with targeting civilians, I must say that the question that #2 raises, has a very logical explanaition.
Apr 18th, 2013 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The reason is that when you lot choose to invade sovereign states, you always target their civilians...
@4
Apr 18th, 2013 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0YAWN!
5
Apr 18th, 2013 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0I understand that the death of the poor “tercermundistas” is of little interest to you, but a mother loosing her child suffers no matter where she was born.
Stop invading sovereign nations and you'll stop terrorism, imigration (emigration really) and the “islam threat” altogether...
Or you mean that you can bomb countries at will under the flag of democracy while any attack against your country is classified as terrorism?
Do you even believe that yourself?
You do, don't you...
@6
Apr 18th, 2013 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmm, yes I see.
Do you not think Mr Mujica needs a bath?
@6 ANYONE who attacks Britain, by word or deed, is automatically an enemy. Enemies only have themselves to blame for what happens to them. In the case of a “country”, every member of the enemy country's population is an enemy. If you don't want to be an enemy, say nothing and do nothing. Got it?
Apr 18th, 2013 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good luck with those bombs!
Apr 18th, 2013 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@6
Apr 18th, 2013 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What utter utter utter shit....there is some much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to start.
Firstly, when it comes to “invading” other people's countries, you conquistadors are the past masters, of course you ensured no “terrorist reprisals” but wiping the indigenous population of the face of the planet. Then you try and take the moral high ground concerning the Middle East...yet more Latino hypocrisy.
Secondly, “invading” sovereign nations is sometimes necessary. That's what the UN security council was set up for. Perhaps you enjoy watching the Kurds being gassed, or the genocide in Kosovo and think those who could stop it shouldn't...fortunately it's not your call.
The Iraq war was started due to the invasion of a sovereign state...Kuwait...perhaps the international community should have stood by and watched. If all you do is reclaim stolen territories without retribution or regime change..the enemy just waits for his next chance (look at Argentina)...
However, as you have taken it upon yourself to replace the UN Security Council..what's next? There must be some Carribean territories you Latinos have your eyes on? How about reclaiming Texas?
Perhaps someone should arm the ethnic Amerindians and encourage them to “reclaim” their stolen territories...after all, you don't support invasions sovereign territories do you Stevie.
Try sticking to present history, Monkey. If you wish to talk about the past, you'll loose there you, you little slavetrader you. You know everything about genocide of ethnic groups and stolen territories, dont you?
Apr 18th, 2013 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Iraq attacked Kuwait in the eatly 90's, you lot invaded Iraq under the lies of weapons of mass destruction in early 2000. And without a UN resolution.
@11 Stevie
Apr 18th, 2013 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Present history?????? History is by definition 'in the past'.
You mean recent history, but how recent is recent? Humans have been around for about 20,000 years, so anything that has occurred in the last few hundred years could be considered 'recent'.
Let's go back to the 80's, 2 April 1982 to be exact. Argentina invaded sovereign British territory (without a UN mandate), threatened to murder the entire population (which is against international law), ignored a legally binding UN Security Council resolution (502) and then were soundly beaten by the British who used Article 15 of the UN Charter (legal military action) to reclaim the British territory.
I just like the way that you Malvinista's and La Campora trolls only like looking at parts of history that 'support' your suppposed point of view - which appears to be supporting terrorists.
The British and US in Iraq followed the Geneva Conventions of the Laws of Armed Conflict, that state that it is illegal to deliberately kill unarmed civilians. The terminology here is 'deliberate'. Terrorists (that you seem so eager to support Stevie - I really wonder why) DELIBERATELY target civilians.
That is the difference Stevie - INTENT. That's a legal definition. You should try looking it up.
With present history I meant the one that is currently being written.
Apr 18th, 2013 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can post you tons of evidence of British and US troops killing, torturing and doing lots of atrocities against their victims. And yes, you are correct. By definition, the Brits and the US ar terrorist states.
Sorry Stevie....I don't think “us lot” do lose.
Apr 18th, 2013 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where I live is a country that has belong to my people for millennia, certainly there is no historical record of it being stolen, nor a systematic genocide in order to keep it.
Whereas you continue to live in a country which your ancestors systematically annihilated the population, genocidally murdered an entire continent and still continue to steal the resources belonging to the handful the survived.
So, no I don't think I do “lose”.
But you only want to talk about recent history...ok, fine by me.
In living memory Britain and her allies fought fascism and aggression across Europe, Africa and Asia, delivering freedom to numerous countries at great loss.
LATAM offered to host the fleeing Nazis and ensure their safety from justice.
in living memory Britian has returned 1/3 of the surface of the planet to self determination or indigenous population predominantly peacefully, and the vast majority are contented members of the Commonwealth.
In living memory, LATAM has given up zero of the lands they stole through genocide and annihilation and coveted land that isn't theirs.
in living memory, Britain has volunteered forces to numerous UN Security council actions, delivering peace, democracy and freedom around the globe.
LATAM has done fuck all.
You want to talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, both were military states,..both are now democracies. the rights of the majority of the people have improved and with continue to do so. was the price too high? Probably on all sides.
You can't have 'present' history, it's a contradiction in terms.
Apr 18th, 2013 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the 'tons of evidence' there isn't actually that much. Yes both British and US troops were caught doing illegal acts. They have been arrested and gone or are going through due process.
Please don't do a Tobias/TTT/Nostril and post a link to 'that' militant site which is about as accurate as an INDEC statistic. The majority of the so-called cases on there are made up, and the 'evidence' is actually from stock photographs, some of them from the Bosnian and Kosovan conflicts.
Plus you can't judge a people on the actions of a few who were acting outside of the law. Or can you? By that extension every single Argentine is responsible for the actions of the Junta.
I know you are desperately (very desperately from your post quality) trying to make it look as if the British and US had a deliberate (if you don't understand this word then look it up in a dictionary) policy of killing civilians; but all of the incidents (of which I assume you are referring to) were done by individuals or small groups (pack mentality), and were NOT officially sanctioned by either the US Military, the UK military or their governments.
Unlike Argentine policy in the 70's and 80's were the killing of civilians WAS officially sanctions by the Argentine government.
So all your arguments (?!?) are in fact you desperately (there's that word again) trying to justify your support for terrorists. What a damaged soul you must have to support such people.
LEP
Apr 18th, 2013 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you trying to tell me that one shouldn't generalise when pointing pointy fingers? That the responsable for inhumane acts are inhumane people and not inhumane countries?
Are you to blame for Blair's atrocities? Not more than a vote, surely.
Am I responsable for Borbaberry's junta? Not even a vote.
Are the Argentines to blame for Galtieri's actions?
You have this habit of talking about us as countries while trying to explain to us that you are individuals.
We know that already, but either we refer to eachother as countries, or individuals. You choose.
Are the Argentines to blame for Galtieri's actions?
Apr 18th, 2013 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Galtieri ovacionado en Plaza de Mayo el 2 de Abril de 1982
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xqwNsmzCbM
17
Apr 18th, 2013 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentines didn't choose Galtieri, you lot chose Blair.
Are you responsable for the atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I wont even bother posting links...
The Argentines didn't choose Galtieri
Apr 18th, 2013 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But you got to admit he was well liked in that video clip
19
Apr 18th, 2013 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He was?
Are you telling me that video represents whole of Argentina?
Are they celebrating Galtieri, or the islands being Argentine?
And if the people liked him so much, why wasn't he elected?
Blair sent your boys to war based on a lie. To steal. To rob a country from its natural resources. Democratically, even though the UN was against such an action.
Are you responsable?
@20
Apr 18th, 2013 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were the crowd happy with Galtieri ? did you see thousands of Brits crowding outside downing street cheering Blair?
Argentines cannot accuse britain and other of invading anyone==
Apr 18th, 2013 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0considering that argentina its self also invaded others,
two wrongs do not make a right,
and hypocracy makes no sense..
Oh dear Stevie
Apr 19th, 2013 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0more shit from you....what natural resources in Afghenistan?
What natural resources from Iraq?
All Iraqi resources belong to the NEW DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Iraqi government.
Just because you want to make shit up...doesn't make it true.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz
Apr 19th, 2013 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Monkey, you must think we swallow anyhting...
Yes, you invaded a sovereign nation to STEAL their natural reaources. And you are STEALING it to this day.
Stevie
Apr 19th, 2013 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where is the oil in Bosnia, where is the oil in Afghanistan? You're talking bollocks mate. American and British companies work all round the world including South America to develop oil resources and pay all the necessary duties and taxes to democratically elected governments “how is that stealing?”
However, south American resources STOLEN by you is undeniable...and you are still doing it...but to ensure no taxes and duties were payable you slaughtered and annihilated an entire continents inhabitants....
Interesting that you are too stupid to see your own hypocrisy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ai2RXfGm2.EU
Apr 19th, 2013 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Common criminals.
Thieves.
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/09/23/uruguay-s-second-oil-licensing-round-triggers-greater-expressions-of-interest
Apr 19th, 2013 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So these companies are stealing Uruguain resources as well...and your government is inviting them to do it. feck me you are retarded.
why is the west so intend in trying to establish western democracy values in islamic countries??? IT DOES NOT WORK....
Apr 20th, 2013 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 028
Apr 20th, 2013 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's because the whole damn thing is contradictious.
“Western democracy values” translates into “Steal natural resources”, and as soon as the locals get the hang of the language, they all go upset...
There Stevie goes again...oil companies responding to exploration and production licences given by democratically elected governments...equals ....stealing natural resources.
Apr 20th, 2013 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear..Uruguay are screwed then...as above.
Nobody invaded Uruguay. Every country is free to trade their natural resources.
Apr 21st, 2013 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0But invading a nation and giving the contracts to yourself isn't quite the same.
You guys take free trade into new dimensions...
I see Stevie, so your own links are bullshit then.
Apr 21st, 2013 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0It clearly states that the Democratically elected government (something that they could only dream of before the liberating forces arrived) awarded the oil contracts.
P.s. “Nobody invaded Uruguay”? Stevie, that is a very selective memory....Your ancestors invaded Uruguay and committed genocide to steal all the resources. They didn't remove the violent dictator and provide democracy to the Amerindians who were having chemical weapons used against them.
They didn't then ask the newly democratic Amerindian leadership for contracts to develop their resources...they slaughtered them to almost the last one.
Yes indeed Stevie...I can see you have the moral high ground...LOL....
32
Apr 21st, 2013 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to wish to discuss happenings back in the 19th century to defend your actions around the world today. Please feel free to explore that little labyrinth all by yourself.
“Democratically elected government”. Sure, you lot present the options and the Iraqis choose democratically. Not even you believe it yourselves.
Stick to the 21th century, I'm not calling you a slave trader here..
So you think the Iraqi government isn't democratically elected then Stevie?
Apr 21st, 2013 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's nice to know...it's funny really, because on another thread you were extolling the virtues of those who died to bring “democracy” to Latam from the military Junta...as heroes...LOL...even if the “democracies” in LATAM are actually corrupt jokes for the most part...and then you have the audacity to critique a government that thousands of Iraqis died to deliver.
Your hypocrisy is, as ever, gobsmacking. Clearly you'd rather Saddam Hussein was still their using chemical weapons against his own people, embezzling their wealth (note by your own link GDP per capita is higher now than under Saddam...despite the so called theft, ...seems the thieves are making the people richer....some thieves...!!) or perhaps you'd prefer them to be invading Kuwait again, and setting fire to oil fields rather than investing in them....or maybe another war with Iran cost over 1 million lives.
Clearly your trolling abuse of their democracy, their right to award contracts to international oil companies (just as Uruguay does), and their improved economic situation isn't what you support.
34
Apr 21st, 2013 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, I prefer the people gaining from the oil revenues.
Not Saddam Hussein,
not Bush,
not Blair,
not Exxon,
not BP
Seems everybody gets to choose except the Iraqis.
Dictatorship in Uruguay ended in 1985.
The grip of the oligarchy ended in 2002.
Saddam Hussein tyrani ended in 2003.
It is difficult to say when the oligarchy will loosen its grip on the country now.
As it is, they are gathering like vultures.
Stevie
Apr 21st, 2013 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your own links show that oil production is less than 15 years ago, but GDP per capita is higher. not much of a troll are you...your own link says that the people are benefitting....and more than they ever were in the past when the “state” was running the show.
As far as the oil companies not benifitting from oil production...why the fuck do you think they are responding to Uruguays licences, why are they in the Falklands or the North Sea...charity?? Again, another ridiculous comment.
Blair benefitting from the Iraq liberation... Hardly? Probably cost him personally.
Oh dear Stevie, you make this too easy..every comment you make is laughably easy to disprove.
GDP per capita in Iraq is kind of pointless really.
Apr 22nd, 2013 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You lot decrease the capitas every single day thus playing with the numbers.
Kill them all and see what that does to your GDP “per capita”...
And what does the production matter when the profit ends in the pockets of your invaders?
Stevie
Apr 22nd, 2013 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is clear, the situation that you support,
-use of chemical weapons to slaughter their own people
-wars with neighbours causing the death of millions
-military dictatorships where oil proceeds were embezzled by the gold toilet brigade
-mass poverty
The situation I support
- democratically elected government
- improved rights for women and minorities
- increased international investment to develop resources
- increased standard of living and GDP per capital
- increasing transfer of security to fully trained home-based security forces.
Monkey
Apr 22nd, 2013 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Make it
The situation I support;
-natural resources to the people
-rights for the people to practise any democratic ideology of their choice
-prosperity of life and values
-local production
You support
-invasions of sovereign nations
-sacking of natural resources
-increase of revenues to the big companies at the expense of the people
-puppet master choosing the electables
And if you really cared about the women, you should shout louder at your own government for cooperating with Saudi Arabia instead of bombing them...
So Stevie,
Apr 23rd, 2013 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0You believe that Saddam Hussein (who would still be there) was promoting
-natural resources to the people
-democratic ideology supported by the people
-prosperity of life and values-pmsl
-local production (whatever that means)
Fucking hell Stevie...you need help!
Monkey
Apr 23rd, 2013 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, I don't think Saddam was promoting anything of the sort.
But my enemy's enemy isn't necessarily my friend.
And for the Iraqi people, it's like choosing between pest or colera.
You have NO rights to invade a nation and steal its resources based on the argument that the local governor is a murderous bastard.
Especially not when you put him there yourself (USA). And given him the weapons to commit his atrocities with (France).
Stevie
Apr 23rd, 2013 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have already established that the oil majors are no more “stealing” natural resources from Iraq, than they are from Uruguay, the North Sea or any where else on the planet.
They are responding to exploration and production licensing from the democratically elected Iraqi government.
We have also established that more of the oil wealth is being returned to the Iraqi people than under Saddam (as per your link).
So, your wish list of:
Natural resources for the people
Democratic ly elected government
Prosperity for the people
Is far more prevalent today, thanks to the US/UK than it ever was under Saddam.
Implanted democracy is not democracy.
Apr 23rd, 2013 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exxon and BP are STEALING oil in Iraq, together with others.
But those two got the best deals for being representants of the main invading forces.
Monkey, it's quite simple. No dictator or any irregularity across the world gives you lot the right to invade and steal.
That is being a common criminal. A reo.
That's it, a reo. That's the word I was looking for.
Reo.
Congratulations...you've invented a ridiculous term for your paranoia...“implanted democracy”...pmsl.
Apr 23rd, 2013 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thousands of Iraqs died, and millions queued to vote, many for the first time in their lives, so that some jumped up pillock from Uruguay could dismiss it as an “implanted democracy”
Well, that implanted democracy, which incidently isn't using chemical weapons on its own people, which incidently hasn't invaded neighbouring sovereign states and committed economic terrorism by setting fire to oil fields, which incidently hasn't started a war costing over a million lives....that “implanted democracy”, voted for by the people...
That “implanted democracy”, which you equate to being as bad as Saddam Hussein, has awarded the major oil companies exploration and production licences, and as a result the Iraqi people have a higher GDP per capita than when they were being gassed by Hussein.
In fact, I am far more comfortable with the Iraqi “implanted democracy”, than with the pariah state behaviour of some of Latin America...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!