MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands at C24: ‘Alejandro Betts misrepresents’, says Professor Willets
Mr. Alejandro Betts spoke on 20 June this year at the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation, as a petitioner on the “Falklands (Malvinas) Question.” It has been brought to my attention that his speech included a highly distorted account of my visit to the Islands to observe the referendum on behalf of the South Atlantic Council. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAwaiting with bated breath a response by Mr Betts. How are the trolls going to refute Willetts statement.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0DIVERSION,DIVERSION
Ouch ! The revelation of Mr Betts sexual peccadilloes at the end was enlightening. Kirchner's fascist mouthpieces learnt a long time ago that they can say whatever they like, corrections like this of their lies rarely get reported or the same level of publicity as the original lies.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0OUCH!
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is rare that I see such a public paddy wacking such as this.
The truth my be open to interpretation, but lies will always be refuted.
Mr Betts, not only have you been caught in an open and series of outright lies but worse you claim you are ostracised by your former community simply because you couldn't keep it in your pants.
With your lies at the C24 on record for ever more, history will judge your footnote quite harshly.
The C24 is irrelevant, Betts is irrelevant, Gollum is irrelevant, Argentina is irrelevant, its all irrelevant!
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing that is relevant is British Sovereignty of the Falklands, South Georgia etc and the islanders clearly expressed wish, as confirmed in the referendum to remain as a British Overseas Territory for the time being.
End of....
Propaganda and lies, what else do you expect from Argentina.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0And there was I thinking that Emeritus Professors were semi-senile people who had forgotten they were retired and kept on turning up for work, so universities gave them a room and a title.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clearly plenty of spark left in Prof Willets, although I disagree with his shared sovereignty proposals.
Looking forward to Betts response.
Idiot boy Betts's presentation was so full of lies, untruths and mis-reoresentations that one would wonder where to start to correct them all, but Willetts has made a good start. We all agree (#4) that the C24 is irrelevant and causes sighs and smiles even in the UN, but one does wonder how such a body can allow blatant lying couched as evidence to go unchallenged.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 07:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is amazing that after 200 years Argentina is trying to create completely brand new lies about the situation. You have to applaud their dedication even if it is at the expense of honesty.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is there a transcript of the speech by Betts online?
Jul 30th, 2013 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0That has put Betts in his “dishonest” place!
Jul 30th, 2013 - 07:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Professor Willetts’ disastrous visit to the Falkland Islands for the referendum in March, when he was stripped of his observer status, continues to rankle him. To such an extent, that having discredited himself on the islands, he now tries to discredit Alejandro Betts.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Emeritus Professor of Global Politics was naïve if he thought that he could on the same visit act as an observer, which requires impartiality, and hold a public meeting on the eve of the voting.
The Professor’s frustration is understandable. He – a woolly academic perhaps – does not know what position to take on the vital issue of the sovereignty of the islands and he tries to please all parties while Alejandro Betts has the courage of his convictions and freely expresses them.
Alejandro Betts was one islander who got away and was able, from Argentina, to gain a new perspective on the history of the islands. James Peck was another. If more Falkland Islanders followed their example the blinkered point of view of the islanders would soon change. They might even change their tune on the hackneyed theme of self-determination.
Send more Latin American girls over from the mainland!
@6 Trunce
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's the thing about the Emeritii, generally they've been in academia (a wonderful world where the true meaning of politeness is to have the courtesy to stab you in the front) for a very long time.
They may move a bit slower, and they may occasionally forget that they have technically retired, but generally within their subject they're just as effective (possibly more so, given their position off of the career ladder) as they ever were.
Admittedly his shared soverignty proposals are ideally suited for academia (in the sense that they would be an unworkable unmitigated disaster if they were to be applied practically), but as far as the ability to stick the knife in and give it that little bit of a twist, I'd say that he's just about typical for most of the Emeritus Professors that I know.
@11
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0If more Argenitnes realised that they had stolen Patagonia 5o years after their claimed loss of the Falklands, and rather than a peaceful eviction of 50 murders and rapist who'd been there 2 months, there was a genocidal massacre of the Amerindians..they may even change their tune on their hackneyed theme of 19th century colonialism.
Perhaps not.
11 Devolverislas (#)
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:04 am
As things are at the moment, if you “... Send more Latin American girls over from the mainland...” all you would achieve is to increase the population of the Islands, as any person, male or female, who left any of our mailand countries, except possibly Chile, Peru, Colombia, or Mexico. would just try for FIS!!!!!!!!!
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/06/21/falklands-born-james-peck-has-no-plans-to-give-up-his-british-passport
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0No James Peck took up an Argentine passport, because having a British passport exposed him to “hostility and bureaucratic difficulties”. He lives in Argentina to be close to his children.
Anyone seen a transcript.
@9
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0All I can find is this - on C24 website.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gacol3257.doc.htm
However it paraphrases what was said. I watched events on TV, and an idiot from Bolivia was ranting about the number of resolutions ignored by the UK, and if it had been any other country doing so - a 'no fly' zone would have been imposed : D But no mention of that appeared in the resultant UN statement of events.
So the plastic Spanish bend the truth (when they are not just plain lying).
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0They don't come anymore plastic than 'Alejandro', so well done to him for intergrating.
@7 GALlamosa: “...one does wonder how such a body can allow blatant lying couched as evidence to go unchallenged.”
They don't just not challenge the lies, they actually join in. Either Bolivia or Nicaragua (can't remember which) churned out the old expelled population myth last time. Clearly Timmerman forgot to hand out the new hymn sheet his cronies.
----------
Shame the Argentineans won't come to the table.
Falklanders “So what are you going to do that would be in our interests?'
Westminster: ”You run your own affairs, we can give you defence and access to EU markets. Sound good?“
Argentina: ”We can introduce an alien culture and take control of all you resources. If that is not good enough, we can lock you all in a hall with a few bags of crisps and can even arrange for a few soldiers to take a dump in the post office. Of course, ideally, it would be in your interests for the English to forcibly evict you all“
Falklanders: ”Tough choice...I wonder what an independent panel would see as our interests between you two?“
-----------
@11 Devolverislas: ”Alejandro Betts has the courage of his convictions and freely expresses them.“
Bit like Hitler then
@11 Devolverislas: ”a new perspective on the history”
hahahahahahahahahaha
You're a funny guy (and a bit deperate).
Betts was just another Little Eichmann from the Dirty War, dropping dimes on people for the Junta.. I thought Malvanistas thought that such people belonged in jail. More proof of the lie that is their miserable fascist propaganda spewing life.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, the cancellation of my credentials was not a unilateral act by the “Attorney- General. I was given the choice of remaining an official observer, if I postponed my public meeting until the day after the referendum count. It was my own decision that I wished to go ahead with the meeting at the arranged time, two days before the voting started”.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0@11
“Report abuseProfessor Willetts’ disastrous visit to the Falkland Islands for the referendum in March, when he was stripped of his observer status, continues to rankle him.”
The above statement by Willetts suggests that he was not rankled in the slightest. In fact quite the opposite. His analytical approach differs from the Argentine approach which regards lying and the misrepresentation of history (ie 1833),a must.
Professor Willetts may have views that the Islanders oppose, but he is not seemingly discourteous to those views, even if they don't tally with his own.
At least the professor had the guts to go to the Falklands and argue his case for shared sovereignty (even though I do not believe in it for many very good reasons).
Note the might of CFK, Timmerturd, et al are so unsure of their claim for the Islands that they did not even have the guts to sent in Tango 1 and at least put their views to the islanders.
The truth is Argentina knows she is wrong, and has not the guts to confront the islanders and give them valid reasons why joining Argentina would be mutually beneficial to all, because simply, the Argentines cannot offer the Falklands anything more substantial than they already have.
The Argentines have shut the door after the horse has bolted which occurred after 1982.
“On 18 May 1978, Mr Betts sent a letter to a local mimeographed news sheet, the Falkland Islands Times, strongly protesting at what he saw as a weak and ineffective response by the British government to the establishment of a small Argentine base on Thule.”
How does Betts qualify this to his fascist paymasters @11 Devolverislas?
C24 , CFK, Gollum and servants, Devolv.., Think, Voice and all the other RG turnips completely irrelevant.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Links with UK, local democracy, peace, freedom from crime and violence, beautiful surroundings, lack of corruption, growing wealth, good healthcare and schooling are the important things.
...and, just reflect on how that would deteriorate if the Falkland Islands were ruled by Argentina. Some tinpot little Latino laying down the law and attempting to impose an alien culture. Maximos thugs strutting about beating up old ladies, everything rusting and breaking down, cartoneros on the streets at night.
Lovely jubbly
@15 JustinKuntz:
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not a transcript, but straight from the donkey's mouth...
http://webtv.un.org/search/8th-meeting-resumed-session-of-the-special-committee-on-the-situation-with-regard-to-the-implementationof-the-declaration-on-the-granting-of-independence-to-colonialcountries-and-peoples/2498511759001?term=falklands&sort=date
Alex, or Alejandra, or whatever it likes to be called now is between 31mins and 55mins, but I would recommend watching the whole thing, as it is an utter joke when taken next to the c24 mission.
@13 not gonna happen. Argentina will never forgive you for the eviction, however justified or peaceful it was.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0@22 MagnusMaster:
Jul 30th, 2013 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody wants forgiveness from Argentina. Malvinistas are scum.
@11 Alejandro Betts is an arse. As are you if you believe him. But you don't, do you? He's just one of your little group of tossers that you think the C-24 will listen to. Much like the Vernet woman. Last time I listened to her, she droned away reading a diary. No-one disputes that Luis Vernet went to the Falklands. He had British permission. When the “argie government” proclaimed him to be “civil and military commander”, Britain objected. But we had other matters on our minds. One has only to look at Betts' gabble. And his “qualifications” are what exactly? One doesn't have to “try” to discredit Betts. He does that every time he opens his mouth. Just look at his description of the Falkland Islands Government. And then compare it to the reality. Betts LIES! But he would, wouldn't he? He's an argie politician. Betts only has the courage of how much CFK pays him! Wonder why argieland wastes money on these “people”? C-24 has no mandate to consider sovereignty. Typical argie stupidity!
Jul 30th, 2013 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@15 It may be this. http://enaun.mrecic.gov.ar/en/node/6604 Wonder why they don't date things? Still, he probably says much the same thing every year. Script written for him. Return trip to New York plus accommodation plus expenses every year. Nice little jolly.
@21
Jul 30th, 2013 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the link. I enjoyed listening again to the Bolivian rep prattling about 'no fly” zones at 2:19 LOL.
International law beIng on Argies side came up a lot.
Does anyone know where you go to clarify International Law? ; )
@22
Jul 30th, 2013 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0What eviction Magnus? You never owned the islands for gods sake! How many times do you lot have to be shown the historical facts regarding the islands?!?!?
The commentos os Mr. Peter Willets are not very honourable from his side. It's not respectful to the privacy of other people's airing private affairs and link it to a political issue.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0There are many Britons living in Argentina and they are either married or in a relationship with Argentine people. There are Argentines living in the islands married to islanders.
Would it not be proper and quite ethical not involving personal matters in the sovereignty issue?
On the other hand, regarding the comments that “Argentina stole the Patagonia” it would be very interesting to clarify that it never existed a unified people that had claimed the sovereignty over it.
I invite you to read the book about Thomas Bridges (nice book written in English).
The first claims of sovereignty in Patagonia came from Chile and Argentina.
Then a French adventurer appeared in the Patagonia twice, with political and material support of French Government, and claimed that the Patagonia was part of a fictitious Kingdom of Araucania.
A Welsh colony asked to British Crown be a protectorate but changed its mind and voluntarily accepted the Government of Argentina after a meeting with President Julio Argentino Roca who travelled there to personally solve the matter.
The Mapuche people claim on Patagonia (the east part of the Andes) is based on the recognition of the Kingdom of Araucania so they have no historical, legal or moral basis. This claim is so exotic and outrageous that also includes the claim for the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands by the Mapuche ethnic group (Another that wants to join the party?).
Pagerman
Jul 30th, 2013 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Claiming Patagonia wasn't stolen because it wasn't a unified entity :
That's like saying I can steal every house in a street and claim the street as mine because the street as a whole wasn't a unified entity.
The genocidal Argentine military invaded territories owned by others and slaughtered those who wouldn't cowtow to their authority. puts the peaceful eviction of 50 rapists and murderers in the shade.
Great job Mr. Alejandro!
Jul 30th, 2013 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great job being shown up as a liar?
Jul 30th, 2013 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0He may be an odious little sweaty liar, but the ladies can't get enough of him.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@27
Jul 30th, 2013 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It's not respectful to the privacy of other people's airing private affairs and link it to a political issue.”
It's not a matter of being respectful. If Betts bailed out to Argieland for personal reasons, rather than matters of principal - then the information is relevant.
This is important also, when set against the further information outlined by Prof Willets, pertaining to the claims and actions of Betts relative to his studying of history, and the letter sent to the Falkland Islands Times.
If true it demonstrates that Betts is without integrity or honesty.
You refer to 'linking to a political issue.' Sovereignty title is a legal, not political matter.
Argieland is a dichotomy - in that it bullies, whilst at the same time claims to be victimised. The problem with this is that - if you strut with one leg whilst limping with the other - the inevitable result is that you tend to go in circles.
I ask you - why doesn't Argentina take this matter to the one place that can definitively pronounce title - the ICJ?
27 pgerman
Jul 30th, 2013 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chile and Argentina were only the first nations to claim Patagonia if you ignore the existence of aboriginal nations.
The Mapuche were a nation by any reasonable definition and as you well know, had established their control over much of Patagonia prior to European expansion. The herds of wild horse an cattle (that didn't exist before the Spanish arrived) in Patagonia became the base of the Mapuche economy. As a result the Cacique Calfucurá established Salinas Grande as the new centre of the “Confederación Araucana”. In other word, Araucania extended far into modern day Argentina.
Why does the Mapuche nation have “no historical, legal or moral basis”?
@32 “Argieland is a dichotomy” I wouldn't waste $5 (or £5 or 28 ARS and rising) words what's nothing more than classic textbook schoolyard bullying (which ironically probably nickels and dimes us to a rather large bill if you charge by the word ;-).
Jul 30th, 2013 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Step one, identify and isolate older (and preferably much bigger than you) kid's younger (and much smaller than you) sibling on playground. Make sure that the teacher doesn't see THIS bit. You can physically hit the kid (but since your such a coward, this is your gonna be your only shot) so long as you are a direct threat to them this will being your ~real~ target into range.
Step two, wait for older (and suddenly MUCH bigger than you remember) older sibling to come to younger sibling's aid. Have your toady get the teacher at this point.
Step three, cry “bully” when s/he stands between you and the younger sibling. Avenging any previous violence you inflicted in the younger one is a feature, not a bug.
Step four, enjoy you new status among your fellow sniveling cowardly weasels as the school teacher comes to “break it up” and you are now elevated among your poor excuse for peers for having taken on the Big Man/Gal on campus and “won.”
The kindergartners and 10-year-olds will see you and your fan base for what you all are but who cares. You. are. AWESOME. (At least until recess is over.!
Any equivalent to the ICJ in the context of a schoolyard policy of “zero tolerance” makes any such conflict resolution moot. But in the adult world? Well we know why they prefer to press their case among fellow weasels only.
@25 Trunce!: “Thanks for the link.”
Jul 30th, 2013 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No problem, I just wish these 'diplomats' could be brought to justice for conducting what is effectively a hate campaign: the lies are there in the footage. If a private citizen went on like that against an ethnic minority in the UK, they would be open to some sort of legal sanction.
@25 Trunce!: ”Does anyone know where you go to clarify International Law? ; )”
The ICJ would be nice, but the UN library of international law comes in handy. Our Malvinista posters like to speak about how they inherited South America from their Spanish fathers (like inheriting money from a bank with the aid of a gun). I wonder who the Spanish inherited it from?
Anywhoo...the malvinistas like to talk about their inheritance and nasty kelper pirates stealing their oil, so you would think it an ideal topic but suddenly it does not get a mention...
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ls/Kohen_BD_video_1.html
I wonder why???
Dear Mr. Trunce,
Jul 30th, 2013 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know nothing about Mr. Betts and his life but, if he left the FI following a woman the same moment Argentina was defeated I woudn't call his issue just a “sexual affair”. Most probably he was facing quite an internal dilema. Who likes to follow the losers? Anyway it's up to him. We wouldn't be discussing about other's people personal life in this media. Don't you think so?
Dear Condorito, it's my understanding that we discussed this issue before but you hit the spot.
I am happy that you have mentioned the issue of Calfucura since it implies that we need not discuss its origin, nature and actions.
Either the Confederacion Ranquelina or the Reino de Araucania were both “political” entities (let's call them this way) created later than both Argentina and Chile.
Mapuches were not a nation, the were an etnia, linked by cultural bonds that invaded the East side of the Andes killing and subjecting the people that were living there.
You mentioned that Calfucura established himself (with his own people) in Salinas Grandes. You might know the way he got control of Salinas Grandes through “Salinas Grandes Battle” held between Mapuches and Boroganos.
Mapuche's poeple economy had never been cattle until the arrival of the Europeans. SO, you know perfectly well the meaning of “malones” and you know that this strategy can be (whithout any doubt) be consider a genocide.
The Reino de Araucania was a political entity that cannot be taken seriously since it was leaded by a French agent with the direct assitance of the French Government. All the “official” documents are in French...even the coat of arms.
Why are we dwelling on anything connected to the C24. We all know its a skewed pack of British haters. I think our response should be to withdraw any aid going to these countries, stop Gap year projects to these countries, and warn British tourists not to go to these countries. The committee are guilty of racism pure and simple. Please shun them together withthe RGs and their hangers on.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'On the other hand, regarding the comments that “Argentina stole the Patagonia” it would be very interesting to clarify that it never existed a unified people that had claimed the sovereignty over it.'
Jul 30th, 2013 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 027 pgerman
Right, there were the Mapuche and several indigenous nations, each with a ruler who exercised sovereignty over his territory. Argentina didn't steal the sovereignty from one; it stole the sovereignty from several.
@36 pgerman: “Mapuches were not a nation, the were an etnia, linked by cultural bonds that invaded the East side of the Andes killing and subjecting the people that were living there.”
Jul 30th, 2013 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wow, so the indians are the invaders now...I knew some people post on here that Argentineans are always the victim, but I thought they were joking.
Poor innocent Plastic Spanish...why don't people just let you conquer the world without putting up a fight?
@38 at the time both Argentina and Chile declared the independence and claimed for territories, that sometimes were the same ones, not any nation were claiming sovereignty over them.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mapuches, Shelkham, Boroganos, Comechingones, etc. were not nations were human groups (tribes) that, provided they accepted the law and order, were accepted by the Argentine Nation. Again, I strongly invite you to read Thomas Bridges (a British pioneer) books. They are the best ones about the first times of the southermost part of the World.
If Argentina stole the Patagonia and, as a result, it has no rights over it, Chile has no rigths over its current own territory. And countries such as Uruguay, Brazil, Australia, Canada or USA are in the very same situation.
36 pgerman
Jul 30th, 2013 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you re the Reino de Araucania, but i strongly disagree that the Mapuche were not a nation. Being an ethnic group does not exclude being a nation. If the Mapuche were not a nation then the Spanish were not a nation.
The extent of the Mapuche nation is a different argument. The Mapuche established themselves on the east of the Andes at least 2 hundred years before Calfucurá.
Calfucurá moved the administrative centre of his nation from the west to the east to consolidate power over the economic resources of the nation. The fact this occurred after independence of Chile/Argentina does not mean that the Mapuche did not exist as a nation prior to this.
40 pgerman
Jul 30th, 2013 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Back then, on most of planet earth sovereignty was exercised by individual rulers over their peoples and territories, not by the juridical entity called the state. It did not matter whether those rulers exercised sovereignty over empires made up of many nations and tribes, over a single country made up of one nation, or over a single tribe in a small territory.
When the tribes refused to accept Argentine authority, Argentina established sovereignty over them by force. ie by conquest. Conquest was legal way of establishing sovereignty but doesn't alter the fact that prior to the conquest sovereignty over Patagonia was exercised by other rulers, not by Argentina.
@41
Jul 30th, 2013 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So we reach the conclusion that we must check the definition of “nation” to accept the Mapuches were a nation or not. But it is 100% sure is that they had not a political organization, not a Goverment and not a political union.
The moment the Mapuches established themselves in the East side of the Andes is not known but it is know that they took control of Salinas Grandes (located in the current province of La Pampa) after wiping out the Boroganos who were living there. In addition, the Boroganos accepted them in Salinas Grandes because Calfucura had mentioned they wanted to trade. These are historical facts. Boroganos were not Mapuches at all !!!
Calfucura was not the leader of any Mapuche tribe in the chilean territory. Every time he needed additional Mapuche warriors he had to “hire” or convince ones from the West side of the Andes.
Did you read “Excursion a los Indios Ranqueles”? Lucio Mansilla was received by Calfucura and both held plenty of meetings. I suggest you to read it. It is another very nice book.
The Confederacion Ranquelina cannot be considered a political union since it was formed by several tribes Calfucura led every time he needed to fight against the Argentine Nation.
In addition, Do you know that Calfucura declared officially the war to the Argentine Nation? The original document is still in the Archivo General de La Nacion in Buenos Aires (it was written in Spanish).
Again, if you stand that Argentina has no rights over the Patagonia the very same must be applied to Chile over its territory for the very same reasons.
Interesting article, the Professor is clearly not a full shilling.....travels all the way to the Falklands to be an observer at his own expense......with the real intention of spouting to the Islanders his own opinions of what they should do.......before the referendum. Insists on going ahead, even when told he will be disqualified from being an impartial observer!
Jul 30th, 2013 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He clearly like the attention and is back in the limelight again of his own accord!
What I find unusual is that none of the “Islanders” that post here have mentioned Betts little indiscretion before, on here........Small place everyone knows everyones business etc.....??
Also the public meeting that was held......did none of the “Islanders” on here attend it.......Must have been an unusual event.....doesn't occur every day......not much else to do there for entertainment! Where are all the first hand reports from the “Island Posters” on here?
Where are all the......Oh yeah, I was there he was talking a load of crap etc”?
@36
Jul 30th, 2013 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We wouldn't be discussing about other's people personal life in this media. Don't you think so?”
Other peoples lives are not connected with the topic of this thread - as is your somewhat lengthy response to Conderito on an unconnected matter.
Should you care to view the link kindly provided by screenname @21, you will see at around 32 mins Betts talks about his indisputable research - the Islanders only permitted to access distorted information relating to sovereignty of the the Falklands, and the UK's unsustainable title.
Again, I ask you to address the question. If the UK's assertion to sovereign title is unsustainable - why not take the matter to the ICJ?
@42 dab14763
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you mentioned is partially true. Most of the indians, native people, aborigins (or what ever you like to call them all around the Wordl) had not concept of sovereignty. For cultural reasons but also (or because of them) they didn't excersice it.
The Treaty of Waitangi is a excellent example of this cultural clash.
At the same time it's quite interesting is that UK (that was the first european country to legally recognize Argentina) and other European countries recognized the Argentine Nation but they have never recognized the Mapuche as a Nation with sovereignty. Otherwise the UK will add another “contender” over FI sovereignty.
@45 Trunce!.
I took part of this discussion and it led us to discuss about Argentine rights over its current own territory. We had a long discussion abotu some topics with my friend Condorito.
Why not take the matter to the ICJ? I don't know. Countries tend to bring negotiations and claims to organisms and intitutions they believe would favor them.
The UK ignored several resolutions of the UN about FI and about Chagos Island so I wouldn't be surprised if Argentina don't want to discuss the matter in the ICJ. Both of them must be speculating about the best place to settle their differences.
#44 Nobody has mentioned Betts's lies about his personal life because he is not very important, why would you bother.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lots of people went to Willets's meeting and it was well reported. Guess you missed it.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@44 Think
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He's published it as a letter in Penguin News. So if there's any falsehoods in it then the islanders will have every opportunity to refute them. Why don't we give them a week until the next edition.
@47
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guess I did miss it.....why not provide a link!........Gossip is gossip no matter where you are and the Falklands is a very small place.
If the Nutty Prof knew......you can guarantee everyone there knew!
The “Island Posters” on here would have been falling over themselves to discredit Betts with that little gem........if there was any!
#50 Think, what do you know about the Falklands when you have never been there?
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@44 You do gabble a load of shite, don't you? Desperate to support your little ignorant “devolved” pal. Got any FACTS. WE know enough to identify Betts and the Vernet woman as argie shills. YOU have NOTHING. As for Betts' “little indiscretion”, perhaps Islanders have been considerate. Perhaps, now that they know that he is a traitor and implacable enemy, there will be more information. But, just consider, do YOU go digging up 31 year old shit?
Jul 30th, 2013 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@46 You don't have a clue, do you? How many times has the UK offered to go to the ICJ. And what were the argie responses? 1947 - argieland declines. 1948 - argieland declines again. 1955 - UK unilaterally refers dispute to the ICJ. Argieland indicates that it will not accept any judgement.
Notice that last one. Argieland indicates it will not accept ANY judgement. Are you capable of using any logic? Suppose the ICJ had considered the matter and ruled that the Islands belonged to argieland? Suppose it's a 50/50 matter? Why wouldn't argieland take the chance? Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Apply it. The simplest answer is that the Court would have ruled the Islands to be British. A ruling that would have to be taken into account by the UN and any of its “bodies”. And would have ended argie claims forever. Mind you, there is no need to go to the ICJ anymore. Do you understand “uti possidetis”? It IS a principle of international law. Confirmed by the ICJ itself in 1986. Isn't it strange how argieland never quotes recognised principles of international law? Or precedents? Just non-binding UNGA resolutions.
Are you so wedded to argie lies that you cannot use logic, reason, intelligence? If you can't bring those attributes, not to mention honesty, to bear, you aren't worth talking to!
Aaah thanks for the clarification pgerman.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The savages weren't civilised enough to have sovereignty. Wow talk about arrogance. If only they had developed like Europeans they could have been treated as equals.
It is amazing how people justify ethnic cleansing. Please don't compare Australia to Argentina. We now accept we stole the land and are trying to rectify it if possible.
We don't stand around telling the Aboriginals that they weren't political enough or economical active enough or hadn't lived there long enough or were advanced enough. That is what we USED to do.
Hard to believe in 2013 that that is what you STILL do.
@51 Faz
Jul 30th, 2013 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A_Voice knows everything. He is an expert on the ICJ/UN, an expert on International Relations, an economist, an expert on DNA, an expert on UK history. Oh and also a t***er. All from sitting in front of a screen.
@46
Jul 30th, 2013 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The UK ignored several resolutions of the UN about FI and about Chagos Island so I wouldn't be surprised if Argentina don't want to discuss the matter in the ICJ. Both of them must be speculating about the best place to settle their differences.
The UN resolutions are non binding - advisory, and Banki Moon has confirmed UK is not in breach. The Argentine usage of the word dialogue is disingenuous because nothing other than transference of Sovereignty is acceptable.
UK has de facto sovereign possession of the Falklands- so,does not need to speculate ”the best place to settle differences.”
As with any dispute concerning ownership - settlement is resolved in a court of law involving adjudication of presentations made by plaintiff and defendant. In this matter the plaintiff (complainant) would be Argentina, and it is their prerogative to initiate proceedings.
That they do not seek this option negates their claim.
The campaign they presently indulge in, is therefore simply meaningless noise.
@26 I was talking about the eviction Monkeymagic was referring to. But you can put all the historical facts you want, nobody (except a few traitors) in Argentina will forgive you for kicking out a few people from there in 1833.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Correa attacks the “neo” and calls for regional unit to combat ~ ...The president, who called it “atrocity” the recent incident experienced by the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, whose plane was prevented from entering the airspace of European countries, mentioned as an example of the need to strengthen the unity of the refusal of United Latin American UK to dialogue with Argentina over the Falkland Islands...'
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.americaeconomia.com/node/97770
'Include maritime theme summit agenda ~ ...Rada explained that the meeting will be worked in five tables, the third called Territorial Sovereignty debate will be proposed in addition to the maritime theme, the Falklands conflict and Guantanamo and others...'
http://www.americaeconomia.com/node/97770
'Rivers of Rubbish: on the Reputation on the Left of AWL's predcesser, Socialist Organiser [1991] ~ ...Or take the Falklands war. We opposed that war. But we did not, like the “anti-imperialist” left (and much of the Labour left), support Argentina; nor did we dismiss the claimed rights to self-determination of the British population of the Falkland Islands, 400 miles from Argentina. The fascistic self-aggrandising military junta which then held Argentina in a murderous stranglehold invaded the islands in a search for chauvenist prestige at home.
Since the Falklanders oppressed no-one, the islands were not a British base for oppressing anyone, and the British had been there 150 years, long before the modern Argentinian state existed, we saw no reason to back Argentina's claim to the islands...'
http://www.americaeconomia.com/node/97770
@62 the Conk
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0how to make a fool of yourself in two lines.......line one......Do you dig up 31 year shit!
Line two.......digs up 60 odd year old shit!.......
“But, just consider, do YOU go digging up 31 year old shit?
@46 You don't have a clue, do you? How many times has the UK offered to go to the ICJ. And what were the argie responses? 1947 - argieland declines. 1948 - argieland declines again. 1955 -”
The Armchair General.......what can I say.........GET TO THE CHOPPER!
@54
Alan are you stalking me?........I don't really know how to tell you this......but I'll forge ahead......You are a little bit “Touched”......I once remember you claiming you were from the Carvetii tribe in a reply to someone.......how was is it again?......regards from the Carvetii tribe.
You are English.......live with it......get a girlfriend or something instead of wistfully dreaming you are something that died out a thousand or more years ago...
........after all the term “Celt” is a cultural term and not a genetic one.........it does not refer to a race or necessarily to a genetic ethnicity
Nothing wrong with being English......be proud of it!......
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise;
This fortress, built by nature for herself,
Against infection, and the hand of war;
This happy breed of men, this little world;
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands;
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
@56
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is complete bull sir! That Penal colony was set up illegally and removed after those so called innocent Argies (Argentina didn't even exist) had just about murdered and raped there way through their time spent there. Learn a bit oh history because Argentinas education system is a jock for teaching their historically inaccurate crap!
@58 A_Voice
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Problem is you don't read the posts. I like the English - I am partly English. But what are you?
@60
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Me.....I'm a bunch of pixels on an X/Y axis precisely placed at a resolution of 96dpi!
Bet you were born in England.
@61 A_voice
Jul 30th, 2013 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is why my screen portrays an 'a*se'.
@56
Jul 30th, 2013 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”nobody (except a few traitors) in Argentina will forgive you for kicking out a few people from there in 1833.”
Even though some of them were tried, found guilty of murdering Mestevier, by a Buenos Aires court and were shot by firing squad?
In that case if Argentines support criminals (ie murderers and rapists),I couldn't give a toss whether they like 1833 or not.
Also something Argentina will never admit is most of Pinedo's sailors were British and although superior in numbers, refused to fight their own countrymen-so it might have been a good idea for the UP forces and settlers to have come entirely from South American born stock instead of transplanted Europeans (including British people, both UP sailors and civilian settlers).
This makes a mockery of the claim that only 'Argentines' were evicted, when the majority of civilians that were allowed to stay were from South America.
62alan
Jul 30th, 2013 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”A_Voice (Thinky) is very interested in knowing everyone else's identity, ethnicity/race, origins, place of birth etc.
It gives him a lever to argue, discredit, distract, manipulate etc.
Note that he pulled out your background info from his Troll Database.
At the same time, he steadfastly reveals nothing of himself, for the same reasons.
Harder for us to question his motivations and we can't challenge him to show the courage of his convictions, or identify contradictions, if he never states what they are, if any.
Cowardly yes, but the “A_Voice” persona ( “The Boring Identity” I call it), is nothing but the tool of a professional deflector, diverter, or “Detractor” as the Trolls call them.
So you see, not really worth demanding responses from 'it'. Engaging in discussions of ethics too, is a complete waste of your time.
@64 Troy
Jul 30th, 2013 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There's another new poster that follows the exact same formula. Another Aussie it would seem. Try reading from post 70 and enjoy.
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/07/23/falklands-send-message-of-congratulations-to-the-royal-family
@64/65
Jul 30th, 2013 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One other point to make chaps is the Think/ Dover what ever the hell its called has an interest in Germanic Europe including the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain, Think gave me a lecture on the Danes heading over to Britain and how the local women “submitted” to them. The A-voice character then committed himself with a spot on similarity to Think in the other article regarding the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain. Its clearly obvious that they are one in the same. Another example if no one has noticed, is the relationship between the characters were Think himself comes along miraculously to defend his other characters when they get easily pinned down in debate.
Dear Anglotino,
Jul 30th, 2013 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Taking into account your comment @ 53 it seems that Australians are going to give back the land of their country to the aboriginal people and dissapear as a nation. This would be fair. So New Zealand, Canada, USA, Chile, Uguguay will follow australians and will do the same pretty soon since all of them are countries born based on piracy, invasion and genocide.
Are they going to disapear? Really? Would they give the land back to the primitive owners? Or your reasoning is only is applicable to Argentina because it has a dispute against the UK over FI?
As Mr. Pete Bog mentioned in his comment 63 most of Pinedo's crew were Uk borned and they refused to fight against thier feloow countrymen. Something quite sensible taking into account that they could perfectly well be judged and executed by betrayal to thier own Crown. But this kind of situations were quite common at that time since Latam countries were in formation so they hired crew members among European sailors.
The fact that most of Pinedo's crew were British doesn't change anything the historical facts.
It also doesn't change anything the fact that some of the people living in the FI were allowed to keep on with their lives.
What was under dispute (and still is) was the sovereignty over the islands not matter the nacionality of the poeple that were living there. Will any Londoner neighborhood change its sovereignty because most its neigbours are inmigrants and were borned abroad?
Dear Trunce: ”UK has de facto sovereign possession of the Falklands- so,does not need to speculate ”the best place to settle differences.”.
The fact is that in the recent past (30 years time) both countries held meeting to discuss about sovereignty. Plenty of official documents from the Foreign Office were released about this topic. So the dispute is there.
HAHAHAHAHAH Brits speaking about distort!!!Here only true is you are usurper and thieves.Britas kings of double word!!
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conqueror sucks!!! :)
pgerman
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Distoring my post doesn't make you less racist just makes you appear even more stupid!
Dear Anglotino,
Jul 30th, 2013 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm really sorry if I offended you. I had not any intention to do so, but I just followed your reasoning and concepts.
Anything applicable in Argentine history about the relationship of the Country and the people living before the arrival of the Europeans can perfectly well be applicable to all the “new” countries suc as New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Chile, Uruguay, etc. There is not any important difference their histories that followed more or less the same path.
In addition, I have never mentioned any superiority of my race over others.
pgerman
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Squirm away. You continue to misread my comments which only shows a severe lack in your abilities. Isn't that how you describe the savages that didn't have sovereignty over their land.
The ideas you espouse have been discredited by 2013, you are a product of past time when the natives were treated as savages who hadn't attained the trappings of civilisation.
WE DID WRONG IN AUSTRALIA. You are obviously too stupid to realise that I have admitted this so there it is in capitals for you. However you still think the Argentina did no wrong.
We admit we stole the land and are trying to rectify WHERE WE CAN (capitals again for your limited cognitive ability).
Argentina stole land and you make excuses because the inhabitants didn't exercise sovereignty according to euro-centric guidelines.
You are racist because you believe that the original inhabitants that preceding the Argentine invasion did not fulfil certain criteria and by doing such they had less rights. Therefore your system was obviously (in your eyes) superior to that which existed and needed to replace it.
You are decades behind the rest of the planet in your thought processes.
Patagonia was not terra nullius but in your eyes it was because the people living there did not have sovereignty over their own lands. You trot this line out every couple of months and twist the facts to suit your beliefs. That is fine by me because it just shows how backwards your county has become if ideas like that still percolate through it.
About 20% of Australia now has some form of native title or aboriginal rights over the land. And this is growing every year. Using your criteria that figure should be 0%.
@59 Argentina doesn't care about whether the penal colony was illegal or not, Argentinians still won't forgive you for intervening and keeping the islands. And if you want to teach history, go to an Argentinian website, but I doubt they'll believe you even with evidence.
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Anglotino,
Jul 30th, 2013 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't know me, we have never met each other so I find it hard to understand that you can call me idiot simply because I think differently from you.
I live in Canada and I had the luck of visiting almost the main former British colonies so I'm far from hating the UK or the British culture. TG I visited Australia twice because a very good friend of mine lives there and I have always been well trated in your alleged country.
So, the first time in my life an australian insulted me I was not in Australia and I was not discussing about any Australian issues. Quite ironic. Isn't it?
At this point I will stop this discussion with you becuase I like to be respected and I will prefer to keep on thinking about Australians as friendly and nice people.
Have a nice day.
Are there any indigenous reservations in Patagonia where the aboriginals exercise some level of sovereignty within the borders of that reservation?
Jul 30th, 2013 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pgerman
Jul 31st, 2013 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct. Argentinas theft of its country from the indigenous people is the same as the rest of the Americas and Australia and many other places. The solution devised in 1945 is that territories can only be “owned” by the people who live there....self determination. One way or another, going back far enough we are all “implanted populations”.
It is hilarious to read Magnus saying that Argentina “cannot forgive” Britain for a non-event in 1833. What a wonderful world it would be if every country was that pathetic.
Look at the terrible wrongs countries have done to each other in history, and today live pretty harmoniously...cannot forgive the eviction of 50 or so rapists and murders who'd been on the islands a matter of days....pathetic.
Look at what the world has “forgiven” Germany or Japan, Look what the world has forgiven Russia or Britain or USA.
Britain would even “forgive” Arjuntina for 1982 if it just grew up and dropped this fascist obsession with the Falklands.
The notion that you are traitor if you can't forgive a 200 year old non-event is pathetic and childish...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Doctor Whippets again, he forgot sth more to say??zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Jul 31st, 2013 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where is the photo of Dr. Whippets?? I see only the photo of Betts.
@75 “It is hilarious to read Magnus saying that Argentina “cannot forgive” Britain for a non-event in 1833.”
Jul 31st, 2013 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, it's the truth. Argentina won't forgive the UK in my lifetime. And yes, if you are an Argentinian and you forgive the UK you will be regarded as a traitor, you will be disowned by your family and friends. Even in democracy there are some things you're not allowed to think.
MagnusMaster is absolutely right when s/he says that an Argentine who “forgives” the British for 1833 is considered a traitor, but there are more and more of us who just don't believe the peronist myth that was created to make us believe that the British were our enemies and thus make us look the other way while Perón and Eva stole our birthright from under our noses and which the peronists have been doing ever since, with the odd military government doing the same thing!!!!!!!!!!
Jul 31st, 2013 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately the majority of Argentines believe, with almost religious faith, in the “Malvinas Myth”, and the aproximate 30% who do not are looked on as “cipayos” and “vendepatrias”. This makes it very easy for the populist demagogues to rule over these poor benighted people!!!!!!!!
Sad isn't it!!!!!
@78, it's like ringing the bell for Pavlov's dog. Just cry “Malvinas” and the people they've indoctrinated on the big lie will drool instinctively, taking the eyes off the true prize, their own future and prosperity. Argentina as a lot going for it with respect to natural resources (not counting the pipe-dreams of the Falklands and Antarctica), and untapped (but distracted) human capital. Argentina was once unquestionably prosperous and envied (without, mind you, its mythical Sudetenland and Poland) could be again -- but that would make it harder for the leadership to stay on their corrupt gravy train.
Jul 31st, 2013 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 079 GFace (#)
Jul 31st, 2013 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jul 31st, 2013 - 12:01 pm
You hit the nail right on the head (perhaps one of Think's coffin nails?). For the peronist plague to keep its power base they must have a huge sector living in abject poverty!!!!!!
These are the ones that sell heir votes for tuppence to the kirchnerite mafia!!!!!!
Pgerman
Jul 31st, 2013 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The way I interpret what Dr Willet is saying re Betts running off, is that Betts would have us believe that the FI and UK expelled him and were vindictive towards him, that's why he left his family to go to Argentina.
Doubtless, there would have been ill-feeling towards him, but were the islanders aware of his duplicity at the time?
Surely, his girlfriend an Argentinian, working for the Argentine airline would no longer be allowed to stay. If Betts wished to continue that relationship, he would have to leave too.
Betts covered the reason for his departure by saying it was against his will to abandon his family and leave, he took the opportunity to leave and falsely discredit the Islanders at the same time.
Therefore, Dr. Willet's statement is pertinent and appropriate in this context. It gives further insight into Bett's veracity, moral character, and his willingness to misrepresent events.
Congratulations Mr. Betts. You are a very brave man. It has some giant balls.
Jul 31st, 2013 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can not return to their land by defend their ideas and convictions. Thanks You Alejandro.
Professor Willets: Mix the personal lives of people with politics demonstrates his inability to discuss ideas.
German: I congratulate you for the explanation of the story to our British friends and their education
@77
Jul 31st, 2013 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't doubt it's the truth, it doesn't stop it being pathetic.
For the most part Germany and Japan have been “forgiven” for WWII
For the most part the Vietnamese have “forgiven” the US
For the most part the Commonwealth has “forgiven” Britain
Yet a pathetic corrupt fascist state like Argentina, has to imagine events that never happened 200 years ago to try and steal land it never owned from an enemy they invented....Otherwise you are a traitor!!
laugh my arse off...pathetic, about time they grew up!
In 1833 nobody died, in 1833 nobody was evicted from their homes (they'd only been there 2 months and most still resided on the Sarandi), in 1833 Britain reclaimed the islands from a new country with no historical right to be there.
In 1982 nearly 1000 people died, people were evicted from their homes and held at gunpoint, people who could trace their families back 150 years on the islands.
Remind me, who shouldn't forgive whom?
Time to grow up and move on, and realise how pathetic the Malvinista cause is.
@58 Better than you. You managed it in one! Or did you not notice mine was @52? What is it? Stupid or pie-eyed?
Jul 31st, 2013 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I forgot, you go digging up 180 year old lying shit.
“And what were the argie responses? 1947 - argieland declines. 1948 - argieland declines again. 1955 -”
The Armchair General.......what can I say.........GET TO THE CHOPPER!”
See you didn't dare complete the “extract”. But I have the CHOPPER to hand. Stick something out and I'll CHOP it off!
@67 You must do better if your going to pretend that you can speak English. ”The fact is that in the recent past (30 years time) both countries held meeting to discuss about sovereignty. Plenty of official documents from the Foreign Office were released about this topic. So the dispute is there.“ What does that have to do with anything? The Foreign Office is forever talking about all sorts of things. It has to be kicked occasionally to remind it that giving foreigners what they want is not the right thing to do. Work on the basis that everything the FCO says is a mistake!
@68 Are you going to ”say” anything of interest or intelligence in the next 100 years?
@72 Then argieland can suck it up!
Betts, like the Argentine claims of sovereignty, have been exposed as fraudulent. End.
Aug 01st, 2013 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@67
Aug 02nd, 2013 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pgerman
”The fact that most of Pinedo's crew were British doesn't change anything the historical facts.
It also doesn't change anything the fact that some of the people living in the FI were allowed to keep on with their lives.
What was under dispute (and still is) was the sovereignty over the islands not matter the nacionality of the poeple that were living there. ”
In which case why do the Argentines continue to claim some of their people/population were dismissed from the FIs in 1833 enhances their claim ?
The nationality of the people there in 1833 is very important to this case.
12 settlers (the majority nationality at Port Louis in 1833) were from the BA area, 4 more were from Uruguay.
Given that there were (at that time-Brisbane and Helsby were not at Port Louis) only 2 British nationals (none English by the way), in January 1833, it has to be asked, why did the 12 from BA and 4 from Uruguay agree to stay under British nationality?
To say this has no relevance is like saying the British claim on the Islands since 1690 and from 1765(occupation) has no relevance.
It does because there was a claim-the British did NOT first claim the Islands from 1833.
If following your logic we forget conveniently that most of Pinedo's sailors who were British born were evicted (by the British by the way) and most of the South American originated settlers were asked to stay-(the British Government insisted, as Vernet had asked permission for his settlement from the British, that the original settlers not the 3 month militia comprised mainly of released convicts, were not to be prevented from staying): then the sovereignty claim is stronger from the British side.
When the UPs tried to usurp the British claim in the 1820s, the British had not abandoned the claim.
Geographically in 1833, the Falkland Islands were nowhere near the River Plate, yet the United Provinces (not of Patagonia or Tierra del Fuego) but of the River Plate loosely claimed the FIs.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!