MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina poses no military threat to the Malvinas Islands. So why is the UK ratcheting up tension?
The following column by Alicia Castro (*) was published 02 April by the Independent - On 24 March, the day that a debate was held in Parliament over the increase in defense expenditure for the Malvinas Islands, Argentina was commemorating the anniversary of the 1976 military coup. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe. UK isn't racheting up tensions. Argentina threatens harrasses, and continually denigrates the Falkland Islanders. The UK simply protects them. Castro is a stupid person.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 06:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0No-one starves to death in this country. Can the same be said in Argentina?
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the UK, when someone becomes unemployed they get welfare money with which to buy food but this is not considered shameful - and when people go to business meetings, church or primary school they get free food and this is not considered shameful - so why is it considered shameful to feed your family with free food? Clearly it isn't ideal but while the country grows its way out of the worst recession in 80 years we are not starving to death.
What we spend on the FIs is a tiny fraction of total spending and most of it we would have to spend wherever the troops where.
And as for the ambassador, i realise she thinks its clever denigrating the British over food banks but if the UK ambassador started writing letters in BA pointing out the desperate state of Argentina would that be considered diplomatic or offensive?
What we spend our money on is no concern of Argentina, agreed we have austerity and our economy is turning around, could Argentina say the same don't think so. They stole US70 billion in 2001 and still refuse to pay its debts to bondholders.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Get a grip Argentina sort your own problems before trying to denigrate others.
The only reason Argentina poses no military threat to us is BECAUSE of the military garrison at Mt Pleasant. The military garrison here has little or no capability of attacking the mainland so as long as we all keep to our own sovereign land there'll be nothing to worry about.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is not surprising that the trolly dolly uses The Independent to express her views. NOBODY READS IT! I have NEVER seen it on a newsstand.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0She must realise that nobody in the UK is at all interested in what she has to say!
“It is possible, then, that there are a growing number of British people who reject double standards, hypocrisy and colonialism.”
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yep, and appropriately they support the rights of the legitimate inhabitants of the Falkland Islands to self-determination, and reject Argentina's attempt at forcing a colonial situation.
Your own military essentially admitted previously that the military garrison is the only thing preventing you from another illegal invasion of the Falklands.
If you want to prove there's no threat, it's simple: completely withdraw your fake claims to British territory, or admit you're lying about there being no threat.
Isn't this the representative of a nation that keeps complaining that the UK is ignoring UN Resolutions? Well apparently the UK isn't the only one.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ref.: 2225(XXI)
The General Assembly,
Deeply... ...without distinction of any kind,
Recognizing that full observance of the principle of the non-intervention of States in the internal and external affairs of other States is essential to the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations,
Considering further that direct intervention, subversion and all forms of indirect intervention are contrary to these principles and, consequently, constitute a violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
Mindful that violation of the principle of non-intervention poses a threat to the independence, freedom and normal political, economic, social and cultural development of countries, particularly those which have freed themselves from colonialism, and can pose a serious threat to the maintenance of peace,
1. No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. 4. The strict observance of these obligations is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security.
Do tell, Alicia.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0However it is absolutely none of your business just HOW MUCH money is spent by British governments in BRITISH Territories.
Butt out, madame.
Go do something useful, like polishing the Embassy's silver or something.
@8 Isolde
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0She can't, she's already sold it off down at Portobello Road Market... I saw her there last weekend, hawking her wares... so to speak...
The ramping up involves two transport helicopters and a replacement for a sam system when rapier gets replaced hardly a massive rearmanant
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0So why then is your Argentina government threatening and sanctioning all companies who do business there ?
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry. Not a very convincing argument Sra. Castro. However you will receive a nice pat on the head from your employer for yet another moronic speech.
You can now get hot and in a lather about the latest Snowden utterings, and come up with yet another dumb statement about spying by the UK, disregarding of course the small fact of your previous invasion in 1982.
Alicia. the wolves spokesmen,
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0we are no danger to you,
how many wild animals have said that in the past,
then ate you anyway.
Of course Argentina is not going to start another war because this time round Britain has used logic and kept very firmly ahead of any potential threat that may be tried.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Islands and Britain learned a great deal how to best protect themselves and their assets after the 1982 war. Britain was caught napping back then and Argentina saw it and so invaded because they truly believed that Britain so far away was never going to come all that way to kick them out. They were so mistaken because Britain was both furious to have been caught unawares and more furious that her British subjects had been invaded. That will not happen again and Madam Castro also knows that . We as a people are going forward with our future while Argentine is still living in the past.
Two shags Prescott needs euthanizing to put him out of our misery listening to the crap he trots out through his backside.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Given his role in “New Labour” (same as old labour but with the Blair rictus grin) he would be right at home in TDC with all the lies and throwing money around to all his cronies as if it grew on trees.
Viejita, locita idiota….!!
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just shut up and you will get on so much better...
The only reason Argentina will not go to war, is that she is in no position to go to war,
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0she has not the means or the military to go to war,
she only wants peace, she said so,
the moment the british were to withdraw from the falklands on that very pretence,
Argentina would invade and take the islands,
does anyone disagree,
she is a liar, full stop.
Agreed.... Pant's on fire ... the knickers are scorched!!
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I say let them try another round.... This time fight back and take Argentina... I don't imagine it would be too difficult though not necessarily politically correct... I would imagine most Argentines would welcome the change to British Islander rule... 8 )
17 Mick23 sounds like a good plan. I am sure with our knowledge of the southern life we could make the old Argentina ( obviously need to rename to Falkland Land) a very profitable place for people to live and work in perfect safety with full constitutional rights as we enjoy. That sounds like a very good plan.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do tell us, Castro, why argieland is planning to 'acquire' Chinese J-10 and JF-17 military combat aircraft? And the threat to your 'country' comes from where? Isn't every SoAm country on your side?
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pity that China Military Online says that the J-10 doesn't have the range to reach OUR British Falkland Islands, but why would you want to go there? In a combat aircraft?
What's this 'Malvinas Question'? There is no such thing in the United Kingdom. As Chris says, Prescott is just a pillock. I can see how he would appeal though. Bit of corruption, confused speech (probably drunk), physical violence. He'd fit right in in argieland. As for the others, they are, like Prescott, no-hopers.
You british must be kidding. Still presenting us as a military threat?. Our planes can not even fly without mention they are the same old planes we had in 1982. Our military doctrine do not consider the islands as a military hypothesis. We have a defensive doctrine. And we have in our constitution a prohibition to use force to recover the islands. So it cant be more laughable the idea of your politicians that we are a threat to the colony of the islands.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But to implant that idea you need two things. One a politic that lies to rise the thatcherism in an electoral campaing, and a very stupid people that have mental orgasm with wars that believes them, without taking the time to read argentine news to find out the truth.
Your constitution has never stopped military juntas.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Stop worrying about what other countries are doing. The UK will do what it wants within its territories.
@20: “And we have in our constitution a prohibition to use force to recover the islands.”
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that you have your false claim anywhere in your constitution is proof that you're not interested in reasonable negotiations.
There are five ways to end the dispute: Negotiate in good faith, go to the ICJ, allow the legitimate inhabitants to exercise their right of self-determination, Argentina could 'fess up and admit it's claim is fake, or Argentina can try to invade for a third time.
It's been said in the past that your government would only negotiate when the outcome is them getting sovereignty (for the first time), regardless of any actual proof. That's not good faith negotiation.
Timerman himself withdrew from a meeting when the interests of the legitimate inhabitants of the Falklands - which the UN Resolutions calling for dialogue *insist* be considered - would be represented in the best way, by the Islanders themselves. That is not good faith negotiation.
The so-called “colonial situation” ended with the Islander's vote on self-determination and the subsequent decolonisation. That should have ended the dispute, but Argentina prevented the C24 from acknowledging the vote.
Argentina has refused ICJ arbitration every time the subject has been brought up.
So you won't go to the ICJ, you refuse to accept self-determination, you refuse to negotiate in good faith, what else can you do?
The Malvinas islands are not british territory. They are a colony, a non self governing territory which sovereignty is in dispute between the uk and Argentina. You just need to go to the UN webpage and investigate what is the legal and international status of the islands.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But you prefer to eat the crap your polititians throughs at you, and thats why you think the british liberate Iraq or Afghanistan, or the Malvinas.
23 Liberato Respectfully they are not Argentine territory either and they are not a colony . If they are then so is Argentina because they colonised the Land they stole from an indigenous people. We are a people in our own right who happen to have lived on these islands for 250 years who never took a land away from any indigenous people . It has never belonged to Argentina it is claimed by them because they believe Spain gave them to them. Reality is that the French settled these islands after Britain Discovered them so they actually had no right to them either. Today we live in the 21st century where mankind has supposed to have matured . This is something the Falkland islanders have done and as most civilised Countries in the world agree recognise that this stupid act of who owns what is no longer applicable because when a people settle a land for several hundreds of years they are deemed the rightful owners of that land in the modern world. Unfortunately Argentina is still living in the eighteenth century and until they start to grow up a little who on this earth would want them owning more land given that they have failed miserably to develop what they already have. No the one reason they want our Country is not based on a Colony or Squatters or even implantation or continental shelf but on the very fact we are surrounded by mans most important world asset OIL. If there was no oil there would be no claim because it would not interest them. Come on Argentina publically state what you found in the late sixties. Tell the world just what you were doing back then when you were drilling for oil right on the Falkland islands door step. Be a real people and stand up and admit it . That is why you are spitting out the dummy today. Our people have discovered what you already knew existed.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alicia Castro is right, much to the displeasure of war mongers.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Probably what most scares them is Argentina's proclaimed goal of pursuing exclusively peaceful means to recover the Malvinas. Negotiations must take into account the islanders' interests.
It's just a matter of time.
#22: There are 40 UN resolutions that do not include islanders in the negotiation table to negotiate sovereignty with Argentina. Ergo what the british demand is that we ask the british colonizers if they want to remain being the british colonizers. Its absurd, like if we ask people in Usuahia if they want to belong to the chilean republic. In any case the islanders can talk with Timmerman as representants of the UK, and not representants of a country that do not exist as such. There is not a self determined and self governed people in the islands. For the UN and Argentina there is a colony there. So grow up and start comply with UN. Islanders do not represent a legitimate government, in any case they can represent the UK, which they form part as british citizens.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#24: There was no nation stablished here before the colonization by Spain. There were communities of aboriginals that became to form part of our nation. Just like in North America, with the exception that in the north they were completely exterminated. Nevertheless, we did not expanded, The spanish colony independized from the motherland. All nation recognized that independence including the uk.
The british did not discovered the islands and nobody except you, give credit to that theorie. Without mention that even if we give credit to that theorie, in the time it was not valid to claim sovereignty of a territory just with a claim of discovery.
The british certainly were not the first to discover the islands, not the first to claim the islands, and not the first to settle the islands. So, not even in the most remote oportunity you get a chance to have a legitimate claim.
Most civilized countries gather in the UN. The UN is the body that represent the world community and international law. They thinks the islands are not a selfgoverned people, they think they are a colony and that sovereignty is in dispute.
Argentina claims the islands since they were taken in 1833, not since the british discovered oil.
@ 26 Liberato
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Given the nature of your posts, your tag name seems to be an oxymoron, but in your case I think moron is closer to it.
26 Liberato So lets say you take the Falklands and given that you remove the people and replace with Argentines . Would you then be declaring that you colonised them because as we are separated by a large span of ocean we are not actually a part of Argentina. To be a part of Argentina means we must be attached. Before you go of on one ranting about the continental shelf you had better take a good look at the modern day world map because you will see that there are many continental shelves around the world does that mean that many other Countries have the same right. Remember Chile is attached to Argentina but it is a Country all by it's self. How then is it possible for Argentina to colonise us without being challenged by the decolonisation committee of this fact. So you see we are in fact better off as a small Country in the eyes of the modern world would you not agree. But alas we both know what your game plan really is and that is the black gold beneath us. Everywhere in the world we see war and it is usually over one of two things Oil or religion. We both know that religion is not the issue here so it is logic it is OIL. Well no matter the rubbish you put on here or how you try to twist Historical facts you are not getting your hands on our Country ever again and by keeping up this attack on us we are never likely to start warming to you any time soon. You are a looser and cant accept it.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 026 Liberato “There is not a self determined ...in the islands. For the UN ...there is a colony there.”
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong, as to the Referendum the UN has stated nothing, and “silence in law is consent”, therefore the UN has given legal approval of the referendum.
”Customary international law; Silence as consent;
Generally, sovereign nations must consent in order to be bound by a particular treaty or legal norm. However, international customary laws are norms that have become pervasive enough internationally that countries need not consent in order to be bound. In these cases, all that is needed is that the state has not objected to the law....“
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_intern...”;
Why didn't Argentina who had the greatest stake in the issue challenge the legitimacy of the referendum at the ICJ? Argentine subsequent acquiescence therefore endorses the Referendum.
The Islanders are fully entitled to to “self-determination to wit:
”International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976,
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”
#25
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina can not recover the Falklands as they were never ever Argentine.
What you mean is Argentinas goal is to steal/colonise the Falklands.
Enrique Massot you sly conquistador.
“might I remind them that we spend £65mn a year helping another group of British islanders. Except they live on the Falklands, were granted a referendum and they’re white. In total, since 1982 we’ll have spent more than £1bn maintaining those 2,000 islanders, £500,000 each.”
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and so says John “ 2 jags” Presscot!!! £500,000 each huh? tells “John” how much was your “expenses” claim for 2008 - 2009???
Its noteworthy that which Ambassador Castro reports & transcript differ:
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150324/debtext/150324-0001.htm#15032449000001
Both sides of the House support the measures announced in the statement. It strikes me that the FIG lobby had done a good job as the question of modernization of Mare harbor was implicitly seen as the first priority & confirmed so. Clearly its deep water capability shall contribute as much to the Falkland Islanders security and future development through its economic and international trading function, as the modest, yet well-balanced defense forces.
The British MPs state this minimum Falklands Islands defense force is necessary to act as a credible, yet proportionate deterrent:
1. To the current & any future Argentine government, its political & military supporters
2. To any other external aggressors
I suspect the British military force size & equipment mix is just enough to ensure that Argentina has troubling doubts that another illegal invasion is politically & militarily unwinnable
Clearly, this current British Executive recalls the token forces its predecessor stationed in the Falklands in 1982 which directly contributed to the Argentine government's determination that an illegal unprovoked attack on British people & their homes was its best political option to advance Argentine pretensions
Thus British continue to make the odds unfavourable for Argentines to make a successful surprise attack & subjugate Falklanders under Argentine rule by violent force
Fallon states quite clearly: “... such a degree of commitment and deployment of troops & aircraft would not be necessary if we did not have this continuing intimidation from Argentina. If the Argentine Government were able to accept the democratic wishes of the islanders to remain British, none of this would be necessary”
Argentine wannabe colonizers must gnash teeth indefinitely or abandon Argentine meritless pretenses
Liberato,
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can rant & rave & argue just as much as you like BUT, these lslands are NOT yours & have NEVER been yours.
They are OURS & we can prove it.
lf you really believe that they are yours, then present your evidence to the ICJ.
If you are not willing to do that, then shut up.
You only have 3 options.
1) Go to the ICJ.
2) Convince us to want to join Argentina.
3) Sucessfully invade us again.
**************************************************************
1a) You won't go to the ICJ because you know that your claim is false & would not stand scrutiny.
2a) Doubt that you could EVER convince us to want to join you as your corrupt country is a shambles. A nightmare which we decline to live.
3a) You cannot invade us as you are incapable of any military action BECAUSE your trainwreck of a country is such a mess(see point #2).
And also because we are well defended this time.
*******************************************************************
So really you have no hope of ever conquering us & it must gnaw at your very vitals.
Tough bananas,
Enjoy(l know that l enjoy your frustrations!).
#28: We better lets not say..... Becouse Argentina never said nothing of removing the islanders from the islands nor about recolonizing the islands, at all.
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#29:The UN did not recognized that referendum. It is known that the UN make public support of referendum when they consider the territory meets the conditions to it. They did not supported Gibraltar referendum and they did not supported the Malvinas referendum. What does that tells you?
The islanders do not constitute a people. And let me remind you that it was Argentina the only one to suggest arbitration on the subject. Being the sugestion refused by britain.
#33: First, the uk have refused Arbitration with Argentina in the past. Secondly, they refused to recognize the ICJ on cases older than 1970's.
The fact is you british are monkeys with money. Thats why you have to suffer terrorism, becouse you do terrorism. Unfortunatelly, innocent people have to pay the price of your governments piracy thief.
34 Liberato
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Liar, already posted the following at #33
Wrong, as to the Referendum the UN has stated nothing, and “silence in law is consent”, therefore the UN has given legal approval of the referendum.
The legal effect of silence on international organizations and nations is as following:
“Customary international law; Silence as consent;
Generally, sovereign nations must consent in order to be bound by a particular treaty or legal norm. However, international customary laws are norms that have become pervasive enough internationally that
countries need not consent in order to be bound. In these cases, all that is needed is that the state has not objected to the law....”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law
“the islanders do not constitute a people”. Wrong and here's the proof:
he Islanders are fully entitled to to “self-determination to wit:
”International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)
of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976,
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”
So above is the view of accepted and cited international law. You have no proof or support for your uninformed personal opinions.
Argentine neo-fascists are very upset that their strategy to return to their old 1960s/1970s policy of political intimidation & coercion of Falkland Islanders with an indifferent British government, Foreign Office & British Public has utterly failed
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina abandoned peaceful negotiations under UN Resolution 2065 & attempted to settle the Question of the Falkland Islands by illegal force!
The UN Charter legal requirement for Self-Governance of the Falkland Islands is a separate legal obligation of Great Britain to the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands & is independent of the Argentine Republic's pretensions of sovereignty against Great Britain
The entire purpose of Great Britain's listing of the Falkland Islands as a Non-Self-Governing-Territory under UN Charter Article 73 in October 1946 was to declare that Great Britain must free the Falkland Islands people from the politically oppressive “Crown Colony” form of government they were subjected to, which became illegal after the UN Treaty came into legal effect in October 1945
The reason an imposed “Crown Colony” government by a British Metropole was illegal was because it denied self-government in accordance with the UN Charter Article 1 respect for self-determination of peoples
The UN formally determined the Falkland Islands to be a Non-Self-Governing Territory in its UN GA Resolution 66(1)
UN Charter Article 73 explicitly grants the right to self-determination for any Non-Self-Governing-Territory and UN GA Resolution 2065 explicitly confirms that resolution 1514(XV) Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries & Peoples covers the case of the Falkland Islands & reaffirmed that any settlement of the sovereignty dispute between Argentine Republic & Great Britain must respect the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination under:
a. Provisions & objectives of the Charter of the United Nations
b. Resolution 1514 (XV)
In 2013 the UK accepted the self-determination of the Islanders
35
Apr 03rd, 2015 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”However, international customary laws are norms that have become pervasive enough internationally that countries need not consent in order to be bound. In these cases, all that is needed is that the state has not objected to the law....”
...the UN is not a country or State....
...did any countries object to it...
...and are those countries that did object, members of the UN...?
It is not for you to pick random points of Customary Law and claim this is an irrefutable maxim of UN policy...
Show me a link from the UN that states that this is their policy....
...You have no proof or support for your uninformed personal opinions....
37 Voice
Apr 04th, 2015 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh! I see, who died and made you God. I am perfectly entitled to refute any statement that is known be a lie. Especially when I can show that it's considered a norm of international law. Doesn't matter that the UN is not a country it is not exempt from international law. “those countries that did object, members of the UN”. Yes! but they only speak for themselves, and their opinions carry no legal weight, they are just the “peanut-gallery”. Besides, those countries have already legally recognized UK sovereignty by their initial “silences” of 1833, and have already “consented”. Just as you have legally acquiesced by not refuting my earlier statement “Argentine subsequent acquiescence endorses my assertion, and that the Referendum's legitimacy was further supported by UN “silence”, i.e. “silence in law is consent”
”It is not for you to pick random points of Customary Law and claim this is an irrefutable maxim of UN policy...“. It's not your preserve to censor any poster here. I have never stated what is the maxim of UN policy, what I do claim is that the UN is bound by international law. ”Show me a link from the UN that states that this is their policy.” It's you who is claiming the UN isn't bound by international law, so show us where the UN deviates from following international law. You are a liar I have clearly posted proof at #35 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law.
38
Apr 04th, 2015 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lets look at this “UN” link...Oh no it's not a UN link...it's Wiki....
Anyone can write Wiki...you probably wrote it....
Wait a minute...what is Customary Law...let's see...
Customary international law are those aspects of international law that derive from custom.
Examples include various international crimes; a state which carries out or permits slavery, torture, genocide, war of aggression, or crimes against humanity is always violating customary international law.
This also includes referendums...Oh no it doesn't...;-)
SHOW ME THE UN LINK....
Argh..here it is at UN.org...
“The UN has official adopted Customary International law to apply official consent to the result of Referendums by officially not saying anything, we do of course realise that this normally applies to Natural Law Principles, but we think that for the benefit of Terry Hill it should apply to everything. So...if we say nothing about everything that happens in the world...it officially means we support it”[citation needed]
...You have no proof or support for your uninformed personal opinions...
39 Voice
Apr 04th, 2015 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmm this will be a total of four sources that all assert that legally “silence is consent. You hold a contrary opinion, but seem to be finding difficulty in discovering one iota of international law that supports your pretension that the legal effect of ”silence“ it is not binding on the UN.
”..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....“
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
'In establishing whether a state has recognized a particular norm of international law, the issue of the ”silence“ of a state......As I. Brownlie correctly points out, ”silence may signify either tacit consent or or absence of interest in a particular matter.“'14
14. Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
Overview of International Law and Institutions
Sources of International Law
”Nations that remain silent, however, may become bound by the rule, even if they did not expressly support it. Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.”
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cybersecurity/Ov...
So why didn't Argentina who had the greatest stake in the issue challenge the legitimacy of the referendum at the ICJ? Argentine subsequent acquiescence therefore legally endorses also the Referendum.
You have never seen me proffer my personal opinion, as that would make as stupid as you. I have simply followed the evidence as presented by those that have prerequisite expertise in these matters, and
Continue please
Apr 04th, 2015 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 040 continued
Apr 04th, 2015 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Troy
let you to flail around with only your sophisms.
13 kelperabout
Apr 04th, 2015 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Absolutely Top Comment.
==
In general, I could add to many of the comments above, but there is no real need.
The Falkland Islanders will decide their own future, and there is nothing, NOTHING, that Argentina can do to change that.
Liberato has no idea what he is talking about.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentinean education most likely.
#35: Terrence, what you sugest as consent by silence on the british referendum is the most ridiculous argument ive heard. The islands are a colony, and no matter if the british in charge of that colony claims independence or claim respect for a referendum they made becouse what ever that regime says it has no value at all. Imagine if the UN chief has to deny the islands being selfgoverned or self determined every single day the islanders claim so in order to not consent a different status that the islanders propose?.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The islands are a colony, and after the “referendum” they continued to be listed as a colony. And the british continued to cry to the UN becouse the UN did not recognized their “referendum”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html
FACT is: The british did not discovered the islands. They were not the first to settle the islands nor the first to claim the islands. So what the hell has the british claim other than what they claim they have a permanent population?. Of course a permanent population with a continual control of inmigration, education, judiciary, etc.
#43: The status quo of the islands is mantained by the use of force and military threats, not by law. Not even the USA (your biggest ally) recognize a legitimate british government. Cant that be more clear?. Do you know what the UN thinks about the islands?. Of course you give a damn about the UN or Argentina or international law. You invaded two nations pissing on the international law.
It's funny to watch these argentines trot out the doctrine of their government backed indoctrination policies and revisionist history.... Totally incapable of seeing the massive hypocrisy of a bunch of Spanish squatters claiming that they aren't colonisers and DO have the right to a bunch of islands they have never owned, and have only ever been used for their internal propaganda purposes.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The facts are that the UNITED is all about the right of self determination and there isn't a single argentine who can point to any UN resolution that states that the islander do NOT have this right.
Meanwhile they happily trot out defunct prior resolutionASKING the uk to sit down and negotiate with Argentina.... Yet the reality is that such negotiation is pointless without the islanders being present.... And it is NOT some pre ordained fact that if the uk sits down with Argentina that the islands will magically become argentine territory....
REALITY Is different... The islands are not argentine, but even if they had been as some point in the past - which they haven't - the harsh reality is that the almost 200 years of living in the islands has made them THEIRS.... And the UN supports that position.
Every minute that passes secures their RIGHTS to determine their own future... And the intransigence of arg nine politics furthers their cause every day....
The Falklands belong to the islanders and the UN has not, and will not, remove their RIGHTS.... And voices and his puppets can scream all ththe want , but they won't be able to point to any resolution that has stripped the islanders of their rights.
@45 Liberato
Apr 04th, 2015 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to have a touching faith in the United Nations, but it's seriously misplaced. The UN has never once supported the Argentine claim to the Falklands. That is never once, as in not ever, never, never, never. There is a simple reason for this, which is that generally speaking, the UN is not in the business of determining sovereignity. Not the Security Council, not the General Assembly, and most definitely not the C24. The only body with any legitimacy in the matter of sovereignity is the ICJ.
It's rather hard in this respect to see why Argentina is voluntarily foregoing at least a major propaganda victory. Consider for a second that any two countries can agree at any time to take any dispute to the ICJ. Any dispute, any time. So all Argentina needs to do, is invite the UK to take the matter to the ICJ. If the UK refuses, or even just doesn't answer, that's a major propaganda victory right there, just for the price of a stamp. And of course, if the UK accepts, then Argentina is bound to get the islands, since the Argentine case is watertight, irrefutable, and incontestable. Isn't it?
But maybe you're so pissed off at the UK you don't even want to write them a letter. Nil desperandum. The C24 can ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion at any time. And as we know, the C24 is packed with Italo-Iberian colonial implants voting on an ethnic basis, and a bunch of supporting dictatorships and nut job countries who'd be only too happy to see the UK embarrassed.
So one way or another, the ICJ thing is in the bag for you, just there for the taking.
Why on earth don't you take it?
I spy another troll, Liberto, has appeared with the usual fairy tales, myths, lies and false interpretations of historical events.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Take your case to the International Court of Justice and always bear in mind the Arana Southern Treaty of 1850 in which Argentina tacitly acknowledged Britain's sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
45 Liberato
Apr 04th, 2015 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It may sound ridiculous to you but then many Argentineans have a problem with the truth. So I'll restate again that the UK support for the Islanders is because of what you state not in spite of. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.“ The committee you refer to is a minor sub-sub committee of the UN that can merely issue none-binding advisements. Who is so biased in favor of Argentina that the UK has refused to accept their statements on the matter for the last fifteen years.
Your statement ”The status quo of the islands is ... not by law“ you cannot find any support for it under international law.
Nations can politically hold any opinion they wish, what they can't legally do is amend the effects of their failure in 1833 to recognize an Argentine claim of sovereignty; their previous ”silence“ is binding irrevocable ”consent” for UK sovereignty.
The UN doesn't recognise Argentinean sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. It only recognises British sovereignty. It never requests that Argentina undertake any actions regarding the Falkland Islands because Argentina cannot legally do anything.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN recognises a sovereignty claim by Argentina. That is not acceptance nor support. Why?
Because the UK also recognises a sovereignty claim by Argentina. That is not acceptance nor support.
Must e pretty frustrating for poor old plastic face because she has tried every idea known to man to take these Islands from us and is failing on every account because of one simple fact. She and her previous corrupt leaders chose to brain wash their children but they have so brain washed them that let alone try to make a sensible statement of lies they cant even do that because in their brain washing years their government turned them into zombies and they no longer know who they even are anymore. pathetic I say. Not a single one of them has chosen to use friendly dialogue just feeble threats that we all know makes them look so uneducated. But then again that is exactly what they are uneducated.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20. Do you not understand? Take off and you're dead.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@23. I've researched. You're shit. Want to die?
@25. Death and destruction to all argie scum shitters wherever they've hidden.
@26. NO UN GA resolution is binding. The UK is sovereign.
@34. The UN is irrelevant. Check out the rights of a sovereign nation.
@45. Want to 'argue'? And, as the missiles land, you will say what? I hereby authorise the government of the United Kingdom to annihilate argieland and every argie wherever they hide. Nazi scum shit lickers and suckers that they are. Destroy all 45 million!
#50: The UN do not recognize british rights over the islands just as they dont recognize Argentine rights either. They recognize a sovereignty dispute. They dont grant recognition of british rights over the islands. Far from it. For the UN, the uk is the colonial administrator of the islands. And all information regarding the colony, are requested to the colonial administration, which in the case of Malvinas, is the Uk.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0These are facts, the sovereignty dispute is implicity recognized in several resolutions of the UN. The colonial situation is also recognized in several resolutions, plus the listing of the islands in the decolonization process with all that carries. Which eventually,every year the UN request information to the uk regarding the development of the colony.
And by the way. The uk recognize there is an argentine claim but they refuse to recognize there is a sovereignty dispute.
Last year Alicia was telling the world Top gear was a lying when they said they were attacked by teenage veterans. She is still lying so don't get your knickers in too much of a twist.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Figures from Brussels showed the UK paid £7million to a £50million European Union assistance package. British taxpayers are also contributing £20million to a £450million loan from the International Monetary Fund. the money continues to flow in spite of Alicia and Ketchup. The Brits must be soft as the fat boy.
@45 Liberato
Apr 04th, 2015 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm so glad that your name celebrates 14th June 1982, Lberation Day for the Falkland Islands.
Thank you for that kind gesture.
“ They were not the first to settle the islands ”
Only by 1 year. Not by 10,20,30,500 or 100 years.
Second by one year-to France. Not second to Spain, not second to Argentina.
The British settled the Islands before Spain (and Argentina,formed in 1853).
As the French no longer claim the Islands, the British were there first.
Argentina did not settle the islands before 1765-so Britain were there before Argentina, (1982-1765=217 years) and Spain (by two years).
The French have no claim on the Islands as Bougainville sold his settlement to the Spanish.
The Spanish did not hand the Islands over to Argentina in 1810 as they did not recognise Argentina, and a Spanish mission saluted the Union Jack (In Stanley, not Port Louis) in 1863-to do that could not possibly imply that they then accepted joint sovereignty as in 1771.
Cretina:
Apr 04th, 2015 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are serious about regaining control of the Falklands -
BUY OUT THE ISLANDERS!
Pay each a $1,000,000 expatriation fee and the top of the market of their independently appraised fixed assets plus personal relocation expenses. To this add a corporate fund to be equally distributed between expats when 90% acceptance is achieved. Add $10,000,000 a year until no one can withstand it any longer. Escrow in Germany. With the people gone the next labor government will cave.
53 Liberato
Apr 04th, 2015 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Afraid you'll have to try a new piece of sophism as that claim is null and void since the Referendum. With it's completion the UK has for-filled it's legal obligation under the Charter as the Islands are now “decolonized”. The fact that you and your stooges don't accept the affirmation of international law is not the UK's problem, as there is no legal power on earth to compel them to do more.
“DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained
a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a
sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the
well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
b. to develop self-government, the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.”
”Self-determination of people: a legal reappraisal Antonio Cassese
The content of self-determination as laid down in the Covenants
Article 1 of both the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides as follows:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based upon the principle of mutuai benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsib
55: mmm nop, there was no liberation in the islands. Acording to the UN they were a colony before 1982 and they remain being a colony in 2015. As simply as that.
Apr 04th, 2015 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The difference of one year makes you not be the first, makes you have no legitimate claim. In that time for claim sovereignty over a territory, that territory had first to be res nullius, secondly, proof that the uk discovered and claimed and make a permanent settlement in order to proof that they had intentions to keep the territory. The uk did not discovered them, they did not claimed them first and they did not settle them first, the territory was not res nullius and they only made a brief settlement hided from the known french ( and later spanish) colony which lasted just a couple of years.
The french did not relinquise sovereignty. They recognized a prior spanish right and transpassed the colony to spanish hands, The spanish had already claimed sovereignty and when the british left, the spanish governed the colony for over 40 years alone without any british protest.
Argentina was not created from a tomato. We were the spanish colony that independized from the motherland, claiming all the territories that once was called the Vicerroyalty of the River Plate. The uk recognised that new nation (1825) by the way without protesting for the argentine posession and administration of the islands in 1820.
So You think your claim is based on a theorie that the spanish saluted the union jack? and that by that act Spain ceded sovereignty to britain?. So you are recognizing the spanish had sovereignty rights over the islands while the uk did not?. How contradictory.
But i have never saw the british claiming this “proof” of a recognition act on the part of Spain. How strange.
Never the less. for the law, the uk recognized us waaaayyy before the spanish and years before the british invasion of 1833 and years after Argentina took formal possetion of the islands.
58 Liberato
Apr 04th, 2015 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By failing to refute my post #55 legally means you have accepted it as true. “We were the spanish colony that independized..” You were explicitly barred under prior Anglo-Spanish treaties from ever holding sovereignty. Under Utrecht and Nootka Spain had promised NEVER to cede any of her territories, and gave permission for the UK to continue further development in Islands, in the event of a third parties' intrusion. Along with shared sovereignty of the islands from the 1771 Declaration. But even if these prior conditions didn't exist and the UK simply sailed over the ocean blue and took them, it was perfectly legal in 1833 to wit:
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by SHARON KORMAN
“...Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.10 That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...”
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
59: quote: “You were explicitly barred under prior Anglo-Spanish treaties from ever holding sovereignty. Under Utrecht and Nootka Spain had promised NEVER to cede any of her territories, and gave permission for the UK to continue further development in Islands, in the event of a third parties' intrusion. Along with shared sovereignty of the islands from the 1771 Declaration”
Apr 05th, 2015 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0WHAT???? enlight me please which articles are you talking about ?.
CONQUEST????? Really?. The conquest only was a valid form of starting a legal sovereign title in a WAR. If the british would have being in a state of war with Argentina, it could have validated a tittle over the islands. But an act of war in times of peace, lawfull or not, could not affect the issue of tittle. Even in the 19 century. Britain did not put forward the claim of conquest preciselly becouse it had not been at war with Argentina, and war, in the tradicional international system, was the only lawfull means of acquiring rights to territory by force. or of deciding by appeal to force between disputed claims of territory. In the absence of war, the british use of force was unlawful.
The case of the Palmas case, again involve a war between Spain and The USA, where the spanish ceded the island to the US while they were claimed at the same time by the netherlands.
So you not only forget the french precedents and the spanish precedent, but try to compare Argentina when it was independendiced with the history that happened before its independence. Ignoring there was a colony here being the Vicerroyalty of the River Plate. And not only that, you know assume the british can base their case on conquest, something they have always refuted to do so, even when britain have changed many times the nature of its “tittle”. From discovery, changed to occupation, changed to prescription and now to self determination. Of course how can they claim conquest without being expose as pirate for atack a friendly nation.
60 Liberato
Apr 05th, 2015 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Peace of Utrecht Article VIII
“it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.” http://www.answers.com/topic/treaty-of-utrech...
Nootka Convention
”However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. ...The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.“
http://www.answers.com/topic/treaty-of-utrech... http://www.answers.com/topic/treaty-of-utrech...
”Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself... annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if thepossession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
Genera
None of this is really important. The Falklands remain British and there isn't a damn thing Argentina can do about it.
Apr 05th, 2015 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 061 continued
Apr 05th, 2015 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0General theory of law and state by Hans Kelsen
You and your nation need to clue in to reality and start by complying with the statute of the ICJ. Article 38, paragraph 1 of the statute indicates that, in disputes submitted to the ICJ, the law the ICJ will apply will be: “a.international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules
expressly recognized by contesting states; b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d.... judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.” Globalization and International Law by David J. Bederman
Politicians... Westminster announces an increase of expenditure of the Falklands over the next 10 years which represents in actual numbers something like 0,4% of annual UK defence spending which is the same as nothing over the current level, the point is to be seen doing something about it. It worked like this first The Sun fires the news, next couple of hours the MoD confirmed and the following days the Argentine officials dont waste time in throwing a tantrum in the UN, the UK press and so on.
Apr 05th, 2015 - 03:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0I dont understand how people here on both sides dont get bored with this stuff.
@53. The UN doesn't recognise.....? Where do you put your brain? The Falkland Islands are, for the time being, a territory in the UN Trustee system. And the Trustee is the UK. I say 'for the time being' for a simple reason. The UK is sovereign. The UN has no authority to overturn that sovereignty. UN General Assembly resolutions are NON-BINDING. How many times do you have to be told? And your response when the Falkland Islands request independence but reject UN 'authority'?
Apr 05th, 2015 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@58. Poor boy. If spain had a 'prior right', why did it have to buy the French settlement? You could have 'claimed' anything you liked. Perhaps you should research international law on the acquisition of territory. Any 'claim' you might have made was illegitimate and illegal. You had to go there and occupy it for a suitable period. Sending a pirate doesn't count. Perhaps you should check out 1770/1. When Britain was ready to go to war with spain over OUR Islands. Except that spain capitulated. Of course, Nootka is irrelevant. The Islands were already British. Britain only agreed not to conquer anything else.
While you're exercising your legal acumen, try the legal principle of 'uti possidetis'. At the end of an armed conflict territory and other property remains with the possessor. 14 June 1982. Britain in possession of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Everything before 1982 IRRELEVANT. The Islands are OURS. Paid for with OUR blood. Don't bother talking about argie blood. We were just seeing off illegal argie terrorist trespassers.
Now, all of this has been thrashed out many times on this board over a number of years. Every argie contention and claim has been comprehensively defeated. Don't waste our time, Libertomato. Go back and read years of comments. Let us know if you come up with something new. And just remember, everything will be placed at the disposal of British lawyers. You have only two places to go. The ICJ or another war. And you know who wins!
Thats it Liberato.
Apr 05th, 2015 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 03 choices ONLY for Argentina,
1) present your case to the ICJ(we all know that you won't!).
2) convince us to want to join you(good luck with that!).
3) successfully invade & conquer us(you know, we know, the WHOLE World knows that you are incapable of doing this!).
Suck it up, baby.
66 lsolde
Apr 05th, 2015 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”2) convince us to want to join you(good luck with that!)“.
There you go with with number 2 again!! What was their last ”Please like us“ campaign? didn't some argentine president give each Islander a book or something? OOOOhhhhhhhh!!! a book!! I can't see why you weren't all falling over yourselves to sign up!!
After all that has gone before, EVEN one of the opposition MP's said something along the lines of ”It would take at least 50 years for us to normalize relations with the Islanders BEFORE we attempt to get them to trust us.”
Oh, and then you had titman say ( in 2013 ) that the Falklands would be argentine in 20 years.
Nice going you twit!! best foot forward and all that!!
@64 Cabeza Dura
Apr 05th, 2015 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I don't understand how people here on both sides dont get bored with this stuff.”
It's a sport.
Apart from that, it's actually quite an impressive achievement of the Peronists to have conned almost an entire population into fervent belief in a mythology which is so evidently not just false, but completely irrelevant.
Quite impressive achievement so true.. like Liberals have conned almost an entire population on about you know what.
Apr 05th, 2015 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Free thinkers are quite a rare exception in this world.
And to finish my point the politicians on both sides have served each others purpose in this case over a same original lie that there is a significant increase in Mt Pleasant defence expenditure... Westminster plays tough to its constituency, BsAs plays the victim, and by playing and overdramatizing nothing at all the victim helps Westminster feed back in its original intention.
@69
Apr 06th, 2015 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're right about one thing, it's an excellent result for politicians on both sides, a fuss about nothing with plenty opportunity for striking poses.
For the rest, some people will believe anything just so long as you can scare them enough. It's especially adept if you can also convince them they're free thinkers at the same time.
And most people will believe anything in order to keep th comfort zone well and aliave.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Make it simple. Im miles away from your average Argentine poster, you are just mts away from the next average british poster.
You aint a free thinker Hamas.
@ 20 Liberato who writes: “we have in our constitution a prohibition to use force to recover the islands.”
Apr 06th, 2015 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Constitución de la Nación Argentina (1994):
“The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal
of the Argentine people.”
“respectful of the way of life of their inhabitant” is Argentine for harrassment.
“according to the principles of international law” means “we will take it to the International Court of Justice - not done in the 21 years since 1994.
We saw exactly how much Argentina respects international law and the UN Security Council when Argentina ignored the UN Security Council BINDING Resolution 502, of 3 April 1982, containing as litra 2:
”Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);”
Liberato actually argues my point.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that the UK is seen as the “colonial” power in the Falklands means that the UN recognises that only the UK has sovereignty. Not Argentina and not the Falkland Islands government.
Someone has to have sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Their inclusion as a territory that requires decolonisation means that someone is exercising sovereignty.
Again Liberato also supports me by continually claiming that the UN recognises a sovereignty dispute. Where has the recognition of a sovereignty dispute ever equated to recognition of sovereignty?
Because if that is the case then the UK recognises Argentine sovereignty and that is just farcical. Guyana would recognise Venezuelan sovereignty. Belize would recognise Guatemalan sovereingty. Japan would recognise Chinese sovereignty over the Senkaku. Ukraine would recognise Russia's sovereignty over Crimea.
See that is the point you are arguing Liberato. You equate recognition of a dispute as recognition of the actual claim and that is impossible. The UN has NEVER supported nor recognised Argentina's sovereignty. You will never EVER be able to provide documented proof of that.
Ever!
However you will find dozen upon dozens of UN documents that recognise UK sovereignty. Indeed if you read UNSG resolution 502 it doesn't ask for the withdrawl of British troops just Argentine because the UN cannot request a member state remove troops from its own territory.
The UN also recognises only a limited number of paths for non-self governing territories. Independence, free association or joining the territory of another state. The fact that the Falkland Islands are still on the list of non-self governing territories means that the UN does not recognise them as part of Argentine territory nor UK territory but it is only asking the UK to “decolonise”.
Liberato's brainwashing might not like the facts but they are facts nonetheless.
A question to Liberato who writes “The Malvinas islands [error for: 'The Falkland Islands' as the owners call them] are not british territory. They are a colony, a non self governing territory which sovereignty is in dispute between the uk and Argentina.”
Apr 06th, 2015 - 04:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even if The Falkland Islands were a colony,
1. why would they not be British territory?
2. why would they be Argentine territory?
@71 Cabeza Densa
Apr 06th, 2015 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, but it takes a bit more to be a free-thinker than just regurgitating guff from hate sites. That just makes another flavour of loony.
If it helps, Tobi used to do a reasonably credible attempt at free thinking, but that was before he completely lost the plot round about the time of his Libertad meltdown. Even so, you might get some tips if you look up his old stuff.
I dont understand what you are talking about Hamas, hate stuff sites? boycott Israel, loonwatch.org, islamophobia watch ??
Apr 06th, 2015 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you dont like the statistics of Pew Research center suck it up, Im not going to apologize for stating the obvious and knowing basic statistics that speak for it selves.
And Tobi ?? He is smarter than the lot of you. He just trolls here so while smoking a joint and listening to Raly Barrionuevo in the background and laughing his arse out.
@ Liberato
Apr 06th, 2015 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN recognises the UK as the “administering power” for the Falklands/Malvinas, with de Facto (i.e. day to day) sovereignty over the territory.
The UN also explicitly recognises the Islanders right to Self-Determination.
Incidentally S. Georgia/Sandwich Islands are not listed with the C24 and are an entirely separate false claim.
The facts of history are that the British have the Prior claim, that is to say the British claim is older than the French, Spanish or modern Argentinian claims.
Indeed the Spanish occupation of the Islands was run from Montevideo in modern day Uruguay, a part of the Vice royalty of the RP which does not form part of modern Argentina.
Even if “inheritance” or “legal succession of States” could be applied here, it would work in favour of Uruguay not Argentina.
Your arguments simply do not stand up to any scrutiny.
@76 CabezaDura2
There are lies, dammed lies and then there are statics.
And the fools who think they are gospels.
Explains a lot about toby though, under IQed for purpose, totally paranoid hearing whistles and bells with his head stuck up his arse.
From modern day medicine, biology, genetics, to politics and polls are based on statistics.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pretty much all none logical sciences are based on statistics.
And the PRC is one of the most important and respected institues that do this world wide.
And then there is still fools like yourselves that dont believe in them and believe in liberal rubbish religion. You aint that different to the average Malvinista that doesn't concede that hes wrong in face of the evidence.
Toby is smarter than you are. He states that his purpose is to troll right from the start and he always rattles you up.
@ 78 CabezaDura2
Apr 06th, 2015 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“non logical sciences” Now there is an irony.
Except you’re not talking about “evidence” are you? You’re talking about projections, there is no “proof” it is correct.
A fact is defined as experimentally reproducible, zero margin of error.
Toby is undoubtedly intelligent but certainly not “smart”.
He makes great entertainment but a poor quality troll, it’s quite apparent even he doesn’t believe most of the shit he puts up these days.
He was better off before his breakdown, he had some credibility back then.
There is no factual evidence that a humble Austrian monks peas should dominate purple over white in F2 in a 3:1 ratio always, but Mendel's inheritance LAWS ( notice LAWS, not theory) are worldwide accepted except for modifications to the laws.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The basics of it relies in the amount of times you reproduce the experiment.
For example your parents should have tried more times till they had actually got a smart kid. They are probably both double recessive to dumb too. So that would be FACTUALLY impossible to get a smart kid out.
;-)
@ 80 CabezaDura2
Apr 06th, 2015 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey look on the bright side, at least I have dazzling blue eyes, Latina women luuuuv them, you know what I mean, nudge, nudge.
With blond hair as well, they just fall at my feet, you know what I mean, wink, wink.
In your case, your parents (if you had any) should never have been allowed to have any children.
78 CD2
Apr 06th, 2015 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Toby is smarter than you are. He states that his purpose is to troll right from the start and he always rattles you up.”
and what is the purpose of his Trolling ? - to get attention, nothing more.
He has given up on rational arguments, but still he is here.
Tobi will hurl insults, challenges, expound gross lies, and even debase himself, just to elicit a response.
We are more the fools for responding to it, as he is clearly and boisterously, mentally-ill.
81. I guess it gets much more complicated for you after the phase when you input your physical details on your profile into those obscure sex and dating sites you admittedly visit, when you get to the stage where you have to actually e-mail your photo to the over.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 082. Toby is kind of average Argentine left wing, only that he is good with languages. I picture him smoking weed and fighting imaginary revolutions listening to neo folk hippie music and laughing is arse out while trolling around.
83
Apr 06th, 2015 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...so, kinda lazy, useless, living with his parents, and doing nothing constructive.
What's going to happen when their parents die?? :-)
@83 CabezaDura2
Apr 06th, 2015 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The genetic blessing showered on me mean I am considered “very good looking” even amongst my own people.
Amongst Latinas, whose men are usually third world ugly, often as dumb as rocks and all have ego’s much bigger than either their penises or abilities.
Hey I can do no wrong, you know what I mean, nudge, nudge.
Veeeerryy obliging they are, you know what I mean, wink, wink.
Actually no, you probably don’t “know what I mean”.
Never mind someone had to draw the short straw, better luck in your next incarnation, if you try really hard in what is left in this life, you might make it back as something above a cockroach.
@78
Apr 06th, 2015 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I recall, it was you yourself who posted an article showing you could use the PRC numbers to argue whatever you like, thus demonstrating your own inability to distinguish between a fact, a number, and an EekANumber!
85.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How can I explain that you are bullshiting me?? The usual “Latinas” is a concept that would include from Bolivian indigenous women in the Altiplano to Annalisa Scarrone.
If you were overlly acquanted with such a far range of women you would differenciate far more than just “latinas” you would be far more fussy with defining your women's category.
Its as credible as saying Im a top hit amongst “ all European women”
And what in the US you tipically call “latina” is a mixture of Mexican, Dominican and Cuban. Mostly northern Caribbean. Its OK but its fives or sixes compared to Argentine or Colombian women.
86
I posted an article to show how much the number can deminish to 200 million Muslim extremist worldwide even by a Liberal source. And I actually told you before hand that it was bullshit !!!
And that is coming from an idiot that says there is only 50 K of them worldwide...Or you think I have forgotten??
@87
Apr 06th, 2015 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, me, I kind of thought the CIA, the US State Department, and MI6 were a bit more credible than your lurid fantasizings, but I chucked in another 50000 or so myself to keep your knickers in a twist. As I recall, you've got a force 80 times the size of the People's Liberation Army hidden under the polar ice caps or something. Jeepers!
CabezaDura doesn't know what Nostrils was once like.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is of course highly intelligent, but even a goat herder in Outer Mongolia can be highly intelligent. Doesn't mean he can utilise it to any benefit for himself or his society.
Nostrils simply gave up because he couldn't handle any form of criticism of his country without seeing it as a personal attack. His raison d'etre may NOW be trolling but that is simply because he has failed at successfully being anything else on here or indeed in life.
He's intelligent but lacks emotional maturity and coping mechanisms.
Many of us have watched the transformation. CabezaDura just thinks it was always thus.
I cant tell what you are most if a RETARD OR A LIAR.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First of all what you provided is a list of the terrorist groups the US State department recognizes but it doesnt say the strenght of these groups and most important of all you fail to understand the difference between a extremist and an actual terrorist.
CIA latest figures of ISIL alone is somewhere between 20 K FOREIGN FIGHTERS ALONE!!! Kurdish sources say the actual number is something like 200 K.
Just between ISIS and the Taliban alone you have at least over 100 K strenght fighters. And that is leaving aside Boko Haram all the way to the Xinjiang Uighur islamist groups
And again lunatic, dont you understand the difference between extremist Muslims and actual terrorists in activity??
There would be no such thing as LONE WOLF ATTACKS
YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A RATIO OF 4:1 BRITISH MUSLIMS IN ISIL/ BRITISH ARMY if there were no extremist in hiding.
Gosh you are a RETARD.... Are you guys taught maths and statistics at school or have liberals declared numbers politically incorrect already??
If there was 50 K worldwide extremist the US must be the most incompetent and useless empire that ever existed, Hell TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent on the war on terrorism over the last 15 years, I guess that they did a much better job in Vietnam where there was at least they killed that ammount of communist guerillas with no smart tech.
Gosh the stupidity and divorce from reason of libtards is breath taking!
@90
Apr 06th, 2015 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, the State Dept site does give numbers, insofar as anybody knows what they are. Which is, of course the whole point. This being so, I do think it's reasonable to conclude there aren't 1.8 billion lone wolf extremists and/or terrorists, or there would be none of us here.
But puleeze, do we really have to have another Cabecita Densa fear, hate, and misogyny thread? There are loads of these already for anybody who's interested enough to look.
“or there would be none of us here.”
Apr 06th, 2015 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is hardly any Christians and Jews in those Muslim countries left, so I would say that you are roasted again.
And 700 MM of them at least hold extremist views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg
Are you thankfull they didn't cut your head off and plant another bomb ?? Maybe not today not tomorrow... Maybe you have to thank them for not killing you, that is the phylosophy of the coward.... but its not the people I want next doors living neither you nor them.
@92
Apr 06th, 2015 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Curiously enough, nobody has tried to cut my head off recently. I think I might have noticed.
Otherwise I'm sure we can all be reassured that whatever happens there will always be some tiny corner of civilization frothing at the mouth in Argentina.
The one that laughs the last is the one that laughs the better.
Apr 06th, 2015 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have a feeling that great times are coming for Argentina, two things await Europe as a fact:
Old age and islamification.
Your grandkids would be taking a long long long cue in our embassy to escape the Caliphate of Britanistan even if Alicia Castro is still in charge.... well not yours because they are already Muslims but still, allegorically speaking.
@87 CabezaDura2
Apr 06th, 2015 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Listen kid, not wishing to sound “sexist” about this, but for the purposes of this discussion there are only two types of women, the veeeerryy good looking ones and the ones you still couldn’t pull even if you were filthy rich.
@90 CabezaDura2
“RETARD OR A LIAR”
Bit of advice here, say RETARD AND A LIAR, ok.
Go for both, improves your chances of at least scoring something.
I wouldn’t normally help out like this, but it wasn’t pretty to watch Toby beaten down every time till he just “snapped”.
Nature is red in tooth and claw I suppose, survival of the fittest and all that, poor boy was reduced to a gibbering wreck, he never really had a chance.
Then his multiple personalities emerged and there was no way back for him. All very sad to have to watch.
The ease with which you are regularly bested by all and sundry these days, makes me worry the same is going to happen to you.
It’s the “liberal rubbish religion”, my caring side, what can I say no need to thank me.
Now, stiff upper lip and best paw forward, get out there and BLOGG like you’re English, show em you’ve got balls, Argy sized ones.
95.. And out of curiosity, in which of the two categories of women does your mother and your gay hairdresser that find you “very good looking” fit???
Apr 06th, 2015 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The rest of the post I understand nothing about it.
@96
Apr 07th, 2015 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The rest of the post I understand nothing about it.”
Surprise, surprise.
@96 CabezaDura2
Apr 07th, 2015 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yep, I can believe that, humour, subtleties, sarcasm are complete fucking mysteries to you, that much is totally obvious.
Which is what makes you such a soft target, much of the time you don’t even realise your being insulted, never mind understand how.
Repartee involves more than just knowing what words mean, it’s how you use them that counts. Something you have not even begun to learn yet.
We should have some sort of handicap system like golf, or ban anything involving clever wit or “off the wall” humour, give these straight laced Argys a sporting chance at least.
Or we will have more of them wandering about aimlessly, moaning and gibbering incessantly as well as unintelligibly.
All of us here have a responsibility to avoid more Tobys, one was enough, heart wrenching it was watching him “snap”, no vet to put him down, he aimlessly blithers about to this day.
98...
Apr 07th, 2015 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thats all very well blah blah blah. But the little big small problem is that you are not witty nor funny nor ironic. None of your post @95 was. Leave that to me. Its not that I dont understand really its that I dont care.
My reply was. Short and sweet.
I know, I know... you want to be like me and women want me.
But as Im generous too I will give a tip for you. You apolagize before hand and cover yourself in order to not sound sexist. You are scared of what a woman reading you might think.. You clearly aint a womans man my friend. Dont bother by not wanting to sound “sexist” and speacilly “latinas” you claim to bang, dont take their word for it the love the mysoginist and the sexist. No matter how liberal and feminist they claim to be.
And RE Toby..
He is listening to “Ey Paisano” smoking and drinking patero sweet wines and laughing and grinning away as you do nothing but talk about him.
Nostrils is trapped in a miserable existence, if you can't see that then you are even more limited than your constant misogyny and islamophobia indicates.
Apr 07th, 2015 - 02:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0...And Im also a homophobe, dont forget. Ohhh and also a Zionist Nazi according to Hamas you can be both at the same time and he is right of course.
Apr 07th, 2015 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think you are a homophobe. Nor a Nazi. Nor a Zionist.
Apr 07th, 2015 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't even think you you are racist.
You just get quite irrational regarding women and Islam. That's all.
Don't try to put words in my mouth, you lack the education.
@101
Apr 07th, 2015 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's an awfully predictable accusation for a freethinker. Is the predictable freethinker another of these fabulous Argentine oxymorons, like Peronist democracy?
In fact, if you care to look, you will find I have never once called you a Nazi. Thats because I don't think you actually are a Nazi, just a right wing extremist who ought to get out more often.
I wish either the Brits or the Americans would release the documents proving that Kirchner has already agreed to the entire Falklands archipelago to China for 50 years in return for 30 Bn Yuan in the unlikely event they fall into her hands .
Apr 07th, 2015 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0It would start WW3 , but she couldn't care less .
Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, “Why have you done this to me?” And the snake answered, “Look, b**ch, you knew I was a snake.”
Apr 07th, 2015 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And that is why the defenses are kept up to date.
Benson : Argentina is probably the last thing on the mind of the UK's military planners .
Apr 07th, 2015 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are also strategic , geopolitical considerations .
A listening station in the S Atlantic can keep an eye on Chinese /Russian surface and submarine activity round the Magellan Straights , plus keep a presence near Antarctica , which is hugely rich in resources .
All of the above & more, is why Argentina wants the Falklands.
Apr 07th, 2015 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@99 CabezaDura2
Apr 08th, 2015 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually I didn’t claim to be any of those things, I merely pointed out that:
“They are complete fucking mysteries to you, that much is totally obvious.”
So now you are aware that, what is said, is not always what is said, depending on what it means, it’s a start for you.
When you get better at English you will start to understand how you are being taken the piss out of.
There is no hiding, it’s a sexist remark used as an insult to you, like in satire.
As I said “you’re such a soft target, much of the time you don’t even realise your being insulted, never mind understand how.”
As for poor Toby, you’re trying to be kind I know, you realise how what happened to him affected me and you’re just trying to cheer me up.
But I know the truth, he wanders the threads blithering inanely, personalities disassociating as he speaks. All very sad.
108.
Apr 08th, 2015 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn, I guess that because you say so it makes it so.... or whatever.
I find you as basic as a door matress.
What is a 'door matress'?
Apr 08th, 2015 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0genuine question
The UK will be returning the Malvinas within 25 years despite trying to avoid the date by ramping up the tension now.
Apr 08th, 2015 - 02:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Return the whats?? ... to who??
Apr 08th, 2015 - 04:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0- broken record... !
Argentina will belong to China, we before that ever happens.
Venzla belongs to them, already.
@ 111 Hepatia: “The UK will be returning the Malvinas within 25 years”
Apr 08th, 2015 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0- and pigs can fly.
The great thing about Hepatia's 25 year prediction is that it will never come true as the date moves each year and is forever stuck at 25 years.
Apr 08th, 2015 - 05:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0At first that 25 years meant 2038. Then 2039. And now it means 2040.
Next year the result will be 2041.
So even Hepatia has accepted reality that the Falkland Islands will not become part of Argentina.
Hepatia is probably an old crone of a Peronista, not expecting she/it will live to see it happen.
Apr 08th, 2015 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“25 years” is the same to her/it as 50 or 100 or....
And you will be 25 years older, Hepatia, in 25 years.
Apr 08th, 2015 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0And STILL, the Falklands will NOT be ruled by Argentina.
For you, tomorrow never comes.
Here is a list of current of world wide territorial disputes .
Apr 08th, 2015 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0A lot of them involve grown up countries that have nuclear weapons and large standing armies .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes
Do all you Malvinistas really think that the UN gives a rats arse about Argentina's spurious claims to some islands 650kms from the mainland of S America and whether the French got there first or Pope Gregory X gave it to Spain or Britain set up a whaling station or the Swiss a brothel ?
@117 Usurping Pirate,
Apr 08th, 2015 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They do,
They think that Argentina is the centre of the Universe & anyone who disagrees with them is either “haughty” or “arrogant”!
And this from the most arrogant people in South America.
Just ask their neighbours what they think of them.
Amongst my wide circle of friends I can count Brazilians, Chileans, Colombians and Venezuelans.
Apr 08th, 2015 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They all say Argentines are arrogant dicks.
I couldn't possibly comment. ....
111 Hepatia
Apr 08th, 2015 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The UK will be returning the Malvinas within 25 years”. Not according to Albert Einstein.“When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large scientific method in most cases fails. One need only think of the weather, in which case the prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible.” Albert Einstein
Predictions, there's no future in it. anon
”It is often said there are two types of forecasts ... lucky or wrong!!!!“ in ”Control“ magazine published by Institute of Operations Management
”The future isn't what it used to be !“ anonymous
”Forecasting future events is often like searching for a black cat in an unlit room, that may not even be there. “ Steve Davidson
”The herd instinct among forecasters makes sheep look like independent thinkers. “ Edgar R. Fiedler
”He who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass.“ Edgar R. Fiedler
”Forecasting is the art of saying what will happen, and then explaining why it didn't! “ Anonymous
”Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.” Lao Tzu, 6th Century BC Chinese Poet
#118 : Fortunately , the propaganda is now wearing thin .
Apr 08th, 2015 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you cannot believe the government about any official statistic , about how Nisman was killed , about how Cristina suddenly became worth miliions of dollars , why would anyone believe them about the Malvinas ?
On the one hand , the government says its imperative to “ recover ” them , but does nothing about Bolivian encroachement in Salta .
As YB or CD2 said on here somewhere , it's like the hum of an old broken fridge , you just tune it out .
The people's answer is “ Whatever , just give me my welfare cheque and a choripan ” particularly as a lot of her supporters are new citizens from Paraguay , Bolivia and Peru anyway who couldn't point at the islands on a map .
111 Hepatia
Apr 09th, 2015 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK will be retuning Argentina to Spain within 25 months lol.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!