MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands time capsule to commemorate 250th anniversary of Union Flag raised in the Islands
A time capsule commemorating the 250th birthday of the Union Flag being raised at Port Egmont in the Falkland Islands was delivered to Saunders Island last week. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNo you crazy fools don't you watch the Simpsons. Creatures evolved from David's DNA will take over the world.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 02015 - 1833....Argentine computer says no....
Aug 15th, 2015 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Come on Islanders don't confuse the poor Trolls, you know their history doesn't start before 1833, you are being so unfair.
Nice one, Taff.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's funny....they need a helicopter to reach the bit that Britain claimed...
Aug 15th, 2015 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0250 years the Falklands have been British.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0And yet Argentina is only 205 years old by the oldest reckoning.
So how do they claim the Falklands again?
Great stuff Taff local hero.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0The sage of Dunoon is hissing his bile again. Stems from Angst caused by living in a damp dump that ranks with Benefits Street, and failing to make the piping competition again.
@5 ECP.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinista logic.
Whats ours is mine & whats mine is my own.
Voice's brainless logic... the only place you can claim is where you raised your flag first. Doesn't look good for SA then does it Voice. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Cumaná in Venezuela is likely to be the first bit that Spain claimed and its descendants, as that appears to be the first European settlement in SA (could be wrong but it is somewhere around that area).
Aug 15th, 2015 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's funny, eh Voice.....Argentina couldn't even use a helicopter to reach the bit that their ancestors first claimed.
You must be a very sad little man to continually nit-pick perceived faults where ever you go.
I guess they're there to have their commemoration, eh Voice.
You don't need a helicopter to get to Saunders Island. The Voice of ignorance.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0let's see...
Aug 15th, 2015 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0250 years ago the english still thought that the earth was flat, supported by 1 turtle and 4 elephants.
animals...
“...has been gathering together a variety of items representing Falklands life today, to place in the time capsule”
items representing the islets life today, huh???
like what, for instance?
sheep droppings?
penguin excrement?
clearly they were inspired by this one
http://simpsonswiki.com/w/images/thumb/b/b3/Springfield_time_capsule.png/800px-Springfield_time_capsule.png
losers...lol
@10 Paul
Aug 15th, 2015 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0250?
Drake circumnagivated the globe 435 years ago.
You pretend to hate the English whereas in fact it is jealousy of the British and especially of the Falkland Islanders that is your prime motivator. Ultimately, the FIs are free to hold whatever ceremony they wish for whatever reason they wish, and there is nothing you can do about it. That must really sicken you. Just think of them right now doing exactly as they please. Free.
Go on Paulie, be happy for them.
Replace it in 250 years time, because as we all know the Islands will by then be an independent people of British descent.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 010 paulcedron II
Aug 15th, 2015 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing that's flat is your knowledge of history as Francis Drake had circumnavigated the globe between 1577–1580 a mere 435 years ago. Drake was the first to complete a circumnavigation as captain and leader throughout the entire expedition.
Paul
Aug 15th, 2015 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are definitely thinking alot more these days. Your English has improved immeasurably. You could almost be a different person compared to the limited individual who gave voice to much foul mouthed abuse.
8
Aug 15th, 2015 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain may have raised the flag there first, but they settled the rest of SA and claimed it...whereas Britain raised their flag only at Port Egmont as there was already a flag and settlement on East Falkland....
Now usually when there is a flag and settlement it tends to mean that, that bit is already claimed...yet it appears that Britain think it should be theirs....
...I'm struggling with that particular logic.....
...cue... another Terry....
wait for it....
it's coming...
10
RIP Terry Pratchett...I'll miss his wit....
@10. 250 years ago was 1765.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIR Francis Drake circumnavigated the world between 1577 and 1580.
SIR Thomas Cavendish circumnavigated the world between between 1586 and 1580Vice Admiral The Hon. John Byron, RN circumnavigated the world between 1764 and 1766.
There is no evidence that the English EVER thought the world was flat.
Try Hindu mythology.
Representation of Falklands life today? Like a picture of a British soldier with his boot on an argie neck? Like a model of HMS Conqueror sinking the Belgrano while the rest of the argie fleet runs? Like argie aircraft falling from the skies? Like a panoramic view of the 11,313 argie cowards taken prisoner and disarmed? Like a schematic of the Falklands industry? The drill rigs, the FPSOs, the tankers, the shore-based facilities, the latin american poverty? Have to think about how to represent charging the world $75 per barrel, but latin america $150 per barrel. $ = US dollar. Not argie toilet paper.
But you hang on. Long before the Falklands time capsule is opened, any argies that might still exist will be doing so in caves. Desperate that the remaining indigenous people won't find them. Will they still believe in sub-human sacrifice? Do they still believe in cutting out your beating heart? Probably after they've removed your genitalia. Haven't needed them for years, have you? Won't need them in the future either, will you?
'Now usually when there is a flag and settlement it tends to mean that, that bit is already claimed...yet it appears that Britain think it should be theirs....'..
Aug 15th, 2015 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gosh Voice, so the whole of SA was uninhabited was it? Spain just settled uninhabited land and claimed it as Spanish or did they conquer the land, killing the original inhabitants, stealing the land.....just like you accuse the British of doing in the Falklands (but without the killing)...yet it appears that the Spanish seem to think that SA was theirs......
I'm also struggling with that particular logic of yours Voice....In fact there is no logic in your argument, just hypocrisy.
15 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
Aug 15th, 2015 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Time moved on so did Spain leaving, the only other participant in the “condominium” arrangement the UK. Which was legally recognized by Argentina by ignoring two official protests by the UK. As silence under international law is acceptance of the other parties claim. As everyone else was excluded under Anglo-Spanish treaties. Including the 'pretense' of inheritance.
@16: “after they've removed your genitalia”... Nice one, but first they have to have some to remove! They certainly didn't have any in '82!
Aug 15th, 2015 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10: Paulie, jealous that Argentina isn't 250 years old, yet? How old is your flag? At least you didn't swear and type incomprehensible garbage this time. Well done! I'm not sure that the British ever though that the world was flat, we have been, for about 1000 years, a sea-going nation. It's where you get Greenwich Mean Time and the established latitude and longitude system from. Ptolemy actually proposed all this, based on the premise that the world wasn't flat.
But you all ready knew that, didn't you?
Hat's off to Taff for his sterling work. Cool.
let's see...
Aug 15th, 2015 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0250 years ago the english still thought that the earth was flat
Where did you learn your history,
every school boy knows Argentina used a pump and pumps it up until it became round...lol
Ha ha, try the romans and Greeks.
Pretty obvious that the Falkland Islanders are more than confident of their future to do this..
Aug 15th, 2015 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm told that there's even a copy of “An Account, Historical, Political, and Statistical of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata” by Ignacio Nunez..
Which by itself is more than enough to seal the fate of the mythical and mystical malvinas..
2265 here we come..
17
Aug 15th, 2015 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn...like England never conquered anywhere....killing inhabitants and stealing land....
I'm sure it's easier to name the countries England didn't invade....
18
Spanish/Anglo treaty referred to the coast of the mainland not the Falklands....and you can't prove otherwise....
The wording is explicit and all you can do is offer an opinion to the contrary....
Also it's not a case of inheritance it's a case of East Falkland was administered from BA...along with Tierra del Fuego...Spanish possessions that would naturally become the successors title....
@22: “Also it's not a case of inheritance it's a case of East Falkland was administered from BA...along with Tierra del Fuego...Spanish possessions that would naturally become the successors title....” And when was this supposed to have happened? Before or after Vernet asked the British if it would be ok if he set up a business in the Falkland Islands? Why would he have had to ask the British?
Aug 15th, 2015 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands were never a Spanish colony. The British flag was first planted in 1765. If we are going to argue semantics, Spain only settled south of the River Plate, hence the name of the settled area. What happened in Patagonia? The Welsh were all ready co-existing quite happily alongside the native inhabitants. Why did the Spanish have to interfere?
22 Voice
Aug 15th, 2015 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any attempt by you to interpret a treaty to render it meaningless is barred under international law from GROTIUS and Vattel as an absurdity. Right up to the present day under the Golden Rule: It was defined in Grey v. Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1, “the ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless it would lead to absurdity, when the ordinary sense may be modified to avoid the absurdity but no further.”
Free Online Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
Thus: Meaning of Absurdity
That which is both physically and morally impossible. That which is irrational ; which is obviously opposed to the manifest truth ; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; nonsensical; ridiculous.
http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/absurdity/#Absurdity_in_Historical_Law
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE READ
“In 1758, Vattel formulated a rule or principle of interpretation in the following words :
”Any interpretation that leads to an absurdity should be rejected: or, in other words, we cannot give to a deed a sense that leads to an absurdity, but we must interpret it so as to avoid the absurdity....” (The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law. Text of 1758 : Book II : S. 282.)
This rule has been regarded as authoritative by the foreign offices of the world and by international lawyers and tribunals for one hundred and ninety-two years.
The authority of the principle, which is embodied in Vattel's formula, has been recognized as recently as March 3rd, 1950, by this Court. In the case, Competence of the Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion : I.C.J. Reports 1950, at page 8, it is stated :
” .... The Court considers it necessary to say that the first duty of a tribunal which is called upon to interpret and apply the [p 245]provisions of a treaty, is to endeavour to give effect to them in their natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which they occur. If the relevant words in their natural and ordinary meaning make
Yeah I'm trying to understand Voice's logic on this one.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Britain's claim isn't valid because it didn't claim MORE?
Terence Hill 24 continued
Aug 15th, 2015 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0..sense in their context, that is an end of the matter. If, on the other hand, the words in their natural and ordinary meaning are ambiguous or lead to an unreasonable result, then, and then only, must the Court, by resort to other methods of interpretation, seek to ascertain what the arties really did mean when they used these words.
18 July 1950; INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES WITH BULGARIA, HUNGARY AND ROMANIA (SECOND PHASE) ADVISORY OPINION
http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1950.07.18_peace_treaties.htm
Regardless, Argentina by it's silence has given tacit recognition to the UK's incontestable sovereignty
Your claim that “Also it's not a case of inheritance” is directly refuted by Argentina who claims it is.
“treaty referred to the coast of the mainland not the Falklands... and you can't prove otherwise....” Well I've just done so through no less authority than the ICJ. As your interpretation renders the treaty meaningless, and therefor an absurdity. Whereas, you can find no legal authority that confirms your unqualified personal opinion.
@16 Conqueror,
Aug 15th, 2015 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stop it Conks, you make me laugh so much.
@10 Think,
Feel alright, Think/pc? No swearing?
Maybe sick today & another troll got your shift to do?
@22 Voice/Think,
Why do you bother?
The boys always defeat your ridiculous arguments.
Argentina “inherited” nothing from Spain.
This has been explained to you several times.
Repeating the lie does not make it so.
@22 ..and which successor was that idiot? Your familiar dirge is as bad as your piping, an irritating drone devoid of anything meaningful.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hope you enjoyed the summer weather and the wee beasties, apparently its been one of the worst summers on record. Leaves one fractious doesnt it?
isolda
Aug 15th, 2015 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Stop it Conks, you make me laugh so much.”
so all that garbage made you laugh, HUH?
says all about your less than zero IQ, my dear lovely gorgeous isolda.
sad, sad, sad.
23
Aug 15th, 2015 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They conquered it....legal title in international law of the time...
24
Didn't I say all you would offer is opinions....
What is absurd is the FACT that the treaty refers only to the coasts of the mainland not the islands...
To imply that the words mean something else is as you mention absurdity...
27
Oh yeah sure Isolde....Show me where my FACTS have been defeated by anyones opinions....
Stick to..... “You can't have it because its ours”....
Your usual argument....
28
Have you ever...and I mean ever posted anything remotely resembling an articulate comment.....
You embarrass my name...
Bad summers...? Perhaps for those that are stuck with one home.....Doh!
Now is there anyone else that would like to present Britain's piracy as justification for legal title....
They seized an opportunity because they were in a stronger position militarily based on a weak claim that they had abandoned 60 years previously....
Nothing has changed and they only hold it because they are in a stronger position militarily....how long can that last.....Not forever....
@29: Oh, hey Paulie! The only reason you're using “IQ” is because I asked you what yours was on another column. What is your IQ, Paulie?
Aug 15th, 2015 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell us all how old your flag is. If you can top 250 years, you'll be lying as usual.
Paulie, you're the one that really makes us laugh, that's why we chat with you.
Cheery-bye.
22 Voice
Aug 15th, 2015 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Spanish/Anglo treaty referred to the coast of the mainland not the Falklands....and you can't prove otherwise....”
Oh yes I can you cannot reference the SECRET ARTICLE, without including article 6 to wit: “Nootka Sound Convention, SECRET ARTICLE, Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America...ARTICLE VI, It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent,..”
I happen to have a couple of unbiased experts on hand that support entirely the interpretation I have posted. and are therefor refuting your 'lonely' assertion.
”...Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain's reassertion of
sovereignty in 1833 (see sections 18 and 19) was an exercise of Britain's rights under this clause. In the opinion of Professor Dolzer,(legal representative for Argentina) (translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRudolf_Dolzer&edit-text=) the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way...” Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
@30: “They conquered it....legal title in international law of the time...” and either murdered or evicted the actual owners. It was hardly “conquering” and more than just a bit “colonial”.
Aug 15th, 2015 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still, it doesn't support Argentina's claims to the Falkland Islands, does it. I suppose we could claim “Well, we conquered it.” But that wouldn't be the truth. Fact: The British were busy raising the Union Flag on the Falklands in 1765.
Where was Argentina in 1765?
32
Aug 15th, 2015 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn....only the Secret Article in the treaty is relevant to your statement about inheritance....
....and lo and behold it SPECIFICALLY refers only to the mainland...
I don't know why you bother...is it to try and mislead others into thinking you have a point...?
Soooo....lets have some more OPINIONS versus the actual words of the Treaty....
Getting it Wrong... by.....Peter Pepper Picked a Peck of Pickled Pascoe....
A wonderful anniversary that everyone with any intelligence will celebrate. How lucky the islanders are to have kept their freedom and independence from the failed state of Argentina. Here's the latest judgement on the Zimbabwe of Latin America, as published by the much respected Bloomberg news agency. Enjoy!
Aug 16th, 2015 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0”The past century has been an unmitigated failure for Argentina’s economy. A century ago, the country was firmly in the ranks of the developed nations, boasting a per capita gross domestic product about three-quarters that of the U.S. (about where Japan and the U.K. stand today). Since then, the figure has declined relentlessly, as Argentina stagnated and the rest of the world pulled ahead. As of today, Argentina is down to about a third of U.S. income levels, putting it solidly in the ranks of middle-income countries.
In the early 2000s, GDP -- not GDP growth, but actual income per person -- plunged by about two-thirds. That is a disaster on a level usually seen only by the likes of Russia or Zimbabwe.
That GDP plunge came from a sovereign debt default -- a hallowed Argentinian tradition. The country experienced its first sovereign default just 11 years after achieving independence in 1816, and it didn’t stop there. Argentina defaulted in 1890, and some of its provinces defaulted in both 1915 and 1930. It narrowly avoided default in 1956, then defaulted on its external debt in 1982 and its internal debt in 1989. Then came the big one, in 2001. Argentina’s epic default was the worst in history at the time.”
Well done, Argentina. Keep up the good work. And congratulations to everyone on the Falklands. You are heroes.
33
Aug 16th, 2015 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try looking at the definition of Conquer....
con·quer/ˈkäNGkər/
verb
overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force.
...like I said legal title concerning Patagonia....
“Fact: The British were busy raising the Union Flag on the Falklands in 1765.”
Correction....
Fact: The British were busy raising the Union Flag on Saunders island in 1765. while East Falkland was already claimed and settled....
PeDo
Aug 16th, 2015 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Tell us all how old your flag is. If you can top 250 years, you'll be lying as usual.”
but my dear PeDo....
where is the fallacy in your “reasoning” (lol)?
250 years ago was 1765.
ALL these territories including the islets were the virreinato del rio de la plata.
lets use your “logic”: you lot say that YOU inherited the islets from england, the uk little britain...you choose.
then, with the same arguments we can say that we, marvelous argentinians, have inherited the islets from spain.
now, as far as the whole fucking world knows, except YOU, you not too bright inhabitants of the islets, these lands were “discovered” by spain,
and as i have wisely said, when magallanes - el cano discovered malvinas, patagonia, estrecho de magallanes, etc, etc etc, the english still thought that the earth was flat.
those islets have been part of the virreinato del rio de la plata since its foundation.
and now they are OUR ilstes.
you are just squatting them.
CAPISCE?
34 Voice, Vestige, Think et al
Aug 16th, 2015 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear! your solitary unqualified opinion which is directly refuted by an Argentine historian, and an international lawyer who was hired by Argentina.
The Secret Article directly refers to ARTICLE VI, “It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent,.”
Otherwise, your interpretation turns the treaty into an absurdity. Such an interpretation has been unacceptable since Vattel, and is further endorsed by the ICJ
”In the 1961 case Temple of Preah Vihear (Preah Vihear),51 the IC] further articulated the canons of interpretation underlying its own jurisprudence. Accordingly, the court assigns words the meaning which they naturally have in their particular context. Nevertheless, words must not always be interpreted in a “purely literal way.” An unreasonable, absurd, or self-contradictory result entitles the court to consider relevant circumstances beyond the text. The principles enunciated in Conditions of Admission and Preah Vihear affirmed a generally textualist method of interpretation, presaging articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention.
p.120 Treaty Interpretation and ICJ....
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1339&context=iclr
So your reliance on a literal interpretation has been rejected by no less a body than the ICJ. So unless you can show some expert opinion that backs your unqualified interpretation...., but that's alright you're inevitably wrong.
Haha..there we go with the interpretations again....
Aug 16th, 2015 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is one interpretation that cannot be refuted...
It is that article VI specifically bars Britain from ever settling East Falkland....so why do you bother using it...
More to the point WTF are they doing there when they were specifically barred....
39 Voice
Aug 16th, 2015 - 02:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“There is one interpretation that cannot be refuted...
It is that article VI specifically bars Britain from ever settling East Falkland....so why do you bother using it...”
Even if in your wildest dreams you were correct, it is only pertinent to Spain as Argentina is barred from any involvement.
“there we go with the interpretations again....”
At least I have experts that bolster my contention and conversely refute yours, including judgements from the ICJ.
Please remind me exactly, how many experts support your interpretation?
@37: Let me get this straight, after all, you say I'm not too bright: Magellan sighted the Falkland Islands? I believe that's what you mean (it's quite difficult understanding the words through the shit). We both know he never mapped them and that John Davis did map them in 1592 and John Strong was the first to step ashore in 1690, giving them their name, the Falkland Islands, after the Royal Navy's treasurer, Viscount Falkland.
Aug 16th, 2015 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Magellan, on the other hand, sailed down the coast of South America, round Tiera Del Fuego and into the Pacific, between 1519 and 1521. An excellent navigator with a gifted cartographer, he mapped the eastern side of S. America assiduously, but neglected to map the Falkland Islands?
The problem is with Magellan sticking close to the coast of S. America, he wouldn't have known the islands were there.
You cannot have “inherited” the Falklands from Spain as they relinquished their claim to the islands.
The islands were claimed in their entirety by Byron, he had no knowledge of the French, neither they of he. The whole discussion was settled in the 1860s when Spain recognised Argentina as an independent country, no longer a colony, following which there were no more claims by Argentina until the 1940s by Peron. He was trying to curry favour with the Germans, believing that they would win the War.
In International Law, there is no “inheriting” land.
And, as we keep telling you, the British never thought the world was flat. The Catholic Church tried to close Galileo down for stating the world was a sphere and not the centre of the universe. Even the Norse and the Greeks knew the world was not flat. You really are a bit thick, aren't you?
We didn't inherit the islands from the British. The Falklands were settled by the British. Most of us over here are actually British - the Islanders, the Saint Helenians and those who used to be Argentine, Chilean, Peruvian, they too are now British and we all get along just fine.
Suck it up, shit head.
@37 cara de dos ortos podridos
Aug 16th, 2015 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where did you get all your false information? It is quite clear from history that the Falklands/Malvinas were never part of the Virreinato del Rio de la Plata - they were administered directly from Madrid.
@30 Voice/Think or whatever you are at the moment,
Aug 16th, 2015 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0As l was saying, the boys have COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED your ridiculous arguments, so there is no need for me to go any further.
And you are so right………the Falklands are OURS.
i.e. NOT YOURS.
I don't believe that you are a Scot. No normal(perhaps you are not normal)Scot would support Argentina against his own people.
Unless we have another Betts on our hands.
And FYI, we will be able to hang on here til long after Argentina is but a memory.
Most normal people, if they have done something really stupid and are completely humiliated because of it, would hope that the world would forget and would certainly never mention it again.
Aug 16th, 2015 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can anyone explain therefore why Argentina never misses an opportunity to shine as big a spotlight as they can on their stupidity of 1982 and what must be the most humiliating defeat for any country in the whole of military history.
Why do they keep reminding the whole world how stupid they are and how totally weak and spineless they are?
Its crazy Argentina, forget the Falklands they will never be yours, there is no dispute over sovereignty. You will never have any respect in the world while you keep crying over something you cannot have, and while you keep reminding everyone of your past and present stupidity. Trolls, isn't it humiliating to be continually pissing against the wind, a wind that will never change direction.
There is a saying that bigger fools watch on I suppose, of which I am guilty, having followed this site for some years like a long running soap that goes around and around. Each circuit reinforcing the facts against Argentina's ridiculous claims once more. Thank you both sides for the entertainment though.
Isolde, you hit the nail on the head. Voice is suffering, hes trapped in a sink town on the banks of a soggy loch. He cant go out in a kilt because he will be bitten to pieces by midges. Its pissing down constantly and hes barred from the Combined Services. That, and raw recollections of how he, Mr MacDonald was treated by the Falkland Islanders makes him align himself with the RGs, one of the ARZ nations (I am liking that!). Any educated and sensible Argentinian knows what CFK and her cronies are up to, but the poor, thick and bitter loosers like Voice all fall for it, hook line and sinker. Idiots..
Aug 16th, 2015 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0lets see, bunch de pelotudos.
Aug 16th, 2015 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0first the pelotudo @41, PeDo:
the whole fucking world knows that those islands were discovered by Esteban Gómez, a crew member of the Magallanes expedition in 1520.
that is 170 years before john “strong”.
even a burro knows that england did not have the slightest clue about the existence of these territories in 1520.
now, try to use your reasoning for the first time ever, how the fuck someone who has sailed the wonderful mar argentino and discovered tierra del fuego and the estrecho de magallanes could not have discovered those islands which are located just 300 km from isla de los estados.
so, it is not only that your knowledge is zero and that you have been indoctrinated, but also that your reasoning ability is nil.
go back to the pork stanley elementary school.
____________________________________________________________________
42 gordo tirapedos:
“ they were administered directly from Madrid.”
lets see fartso:
those islands were governed by the gobernación de las islas malvinas, from 1766 to 1774 and they were dependent on the gobernación de Buenos Ayres.
from 1774 they were governed by the Comandancia de las Islas Malvinas, which reported directly to the Virreinato del Río de la Plata when this was created in 1776.
have you ever attended a school in your whole sad little life, you permanent farter?
i guess not.
____________________________________________________________________
43 isolda
”I don't believe that you are a Scot. No normal(perhaps you are not normal)Scot would support Argentina against his own people.”
and who the fuck told YOU, my lovely dear beautiful gorgeous isolda, that i am scot??
of course, i am argentino and san isidrense to be exact.
now you understand when i say that you are totally nuts, my dear isolda??
17
Aug 16th, 2015 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn...like England never conquered anywhere....killing inhabitants and stealing land....
I'm sure it's easier to name the countries England didn't invade....
Yawn.....And there we have it. Voice loses the argument, so he changes the goal posts. His typical modus operandi, makes out he is the intellectually superior one who is lowering himself to answer his inferiors, with just a touch of boredom. While he knows full well his logic and argument can be derailed by the simplest of facts.
30...
They conquered it....legal title in international law of the time...
Erm... so let us just get this straight, Spain conquered South America and get legal title, Britain 'conquered' the Falklands (well asked the UP to F.off) and they don't get legal title. Ah yes great logic Voice. 100% fool-proof logic.
46. Yeah...read her post again tit. then place brain into gear and try again, nutter.
47
Aug 16th, 2015 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0shut the fuck up, you imbecile.
capisce?
I must say Potty Paul @48 that your impecable logic and obvious interlectual superiority has us alll in awe of you.
Aug 16th, 2015 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But, you repeatedly prove that you are a prize prick of the first order Bahahahaha… .
I guess you didn't realise, because you are too thick, that Isolde was replying to Voice...here is her first line of the post.
Aug 16th, 2015 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'@30 Voice/Think or whatever you are at the moment,....'
Capisce?
@46 caea de dos ortos podridos
Aug 16th, 2015 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You just make a lot of false statements but you never, ever, produce any firm proof of your nonsensical crap.
Please produce verifiable proof of your latest idiocies. All of which, I am certain can be proved to be your usual bullshit.
You are a pathetic boludo!
I have been “lurking”, if that's the word, this news site for some time now and I have to say that I have never come across such an ill informed, discourteous group of people as the, purportedly, Argentine posters on these collective comment forums.
Aug 16th, 2015 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I had thought that I might garner some factual, historical details from Argentines on here, but it is, sadly, not going to happen.
Spirited intelligent conversation it is not. I would have liked to have seen something developed and different, but all I am seeing on here, after several months of watching, is just a group of intolerant, ignorant, childish bullies intent on doing nothing more than shouting and making nasty, racist comments.
I honestly don't understand why Islanders, Australians, Americans or the British can be bothered “talking” at these people.
@46: Paulie, Gomez deserted the Magellan expedition and went back to Spain, in 1520. There were no Spanish or Portuguese maps depicting the Falkland Islands. Gomez only made it as far as the River Plate and on his return to the motherland was put in jail.
Aug 16th, 2015 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Having been to sea a few times, I can assure you that you can't see much further than 20 miles to the horizon from a ship. The Falklands are slightly further away than that from the S. American mainland.
Magellan stayed close to land because the seas were pretty rough. His expedition was split up by the weather. Apart from you no one believes that Magellan or Gomez sighted the Falklands.
Got it?
So is seeing an island on the distant horizon (assuming for one moment that they did) enough to claim sovereignty; don't they need to plant a flag on it or something?
Aug 16th, 2015 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interestingly I hear that all the USA flags planted on the moon have been bleached completely white by the sun over the years. As the moon is now seemingly covered by Argentine flags, and the moon itself can be seen quite clearly from Argentina, should they not have sovereignty of it? Just a thought.
50 Buzzsaw
Aug 16th, 2015 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0again boludo, shut the fuck up
@46
Aug 16th, 2015 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“even a burro knows that england did not have the slightest clue about the existence of these territories in 1520.”
Neither did the Spanish.
The reason the French knew where the Falklands were in 1764 was due to British maps and accounts of the Islands by British sailors who had sighted the islands . It is also how the Spanish knew about the Islands as British published their discoveries.
@46
“the whole fucking world knows that those islands were discovered by Esteban Gómez, a crew member of the Magallanes expedition in 1520.”
Where's his written accounts? He would want to announce its discovery, right?
“now, try to use your reasoning for the first time ever, how the fuck someone who has sailed the wonderful mar argentino and discovered tierra del fuego and the estrecho de magallanes could not have discovered those islands which are located just 300 km from isla de los estados.”
The reasoning is simple. The expedition sailed near to the coastline-so they couldn't see the Falklands.
I am standing up on a high bit of ground here, but even if there were no obstructions from Stafford to France I would not be able to see France and it is a little over 200 miles away from here.
But RADAR was really invented in the 1500s and Gomez had bionic eyes that could see over the curve of the Earth right?
I am convinced that if Paulcedron had two more brain cells he would be a plant. Perhaps a Rubus cockburnianus seems fitting
Aug 16th, 2015 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@57 buzzsaw
Aug 16th, 2015 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't believe he's a plant - he is a diminutive “weasel”!
@50 Buzzsaw,
Aug 16th, 2015 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Buzzsaw, l noticed it myself as l scrolled down.
l guess that Think has so many personas on here that he loses track of who's who.
@46 Think,
Put our foot in it, did we? You despicable creature.
You need more supervision at the Ministry of Stupid Argentine Trolls, where you work.
Burro.
42
Aug 16th, 2015 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are incorrect...the Falklands was not administered from Madrid it was administered from BA...
Ask Terry Hill....
43
In all the time I have been on here...I have never once claimed any nationality....
You can assume all you like....
You must really miss Mr. Think....to see him lurking around every corner...
I personally, always assumed you were Mr. Think...
47
”Erm... so let us just get this straight, Spain conquered South America and get legal title, Britain 'conquered' the Falklands (well asked the UP to F.off) and they don't get legal title. Ah yes great logic Voice. 100% fool-proof logic.“
Are you for real...?
Conquering at that time gives legal title....asking someone to leave does not...Doh!
Is that too difficult to grasp...?
52
”I honestly don't understand why Islanders, Australians, Americans or the British can be bothered “talking” at these people.“
You hit the nail on the head...that is all the Falklandphiles do on here....talk at people ...not to them....
Now go back to lurking as your comment was hardly ”Spirited intelligent conversation ”....
60, Voice. Perhaps you misunderstand me, although I don't think you do. What I meant by my comment was that many of the Argentine folk on here don't seem to want to listen to what is being said.
Aug 16th, 2015 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When the UN suggests that the UK, Argentina and the Falkland Islands should discuss sovereignty, if the general demeanour in Argentina is “they're ours, give them to us”, it gives the impression that there isn't really any discussion to have. That is translated on here by the Argentinian people to mean that their version of events is the right one, that all of the “English” are pirates and thieves and anyone who argues otherwise is just as bad.
Most of what I see on here is good reading.
61
Aug 17th, 2015 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is a great collective wealth of knowledge on here, though somewhat biased given which side they choose to support....
Your comments, whether you realise it or not, are not impartial and have clearly indicated which side of the fence you are sat on...
The UN have never suggested that the Falkland Islands should discuss sovereignty...only that there interests should be taken into consideration...it is a bilateral affair UK/Argentina and only trilateral concerning their interests as they are a non self governing territory...
...I see another adversary....;-)....let the good times roll....
ps ....“They're Ours”...I think is copyright and belongs to Isolde.....
the most pathetic of all this is that this 4th class site dedicates an article to an old milk jar full of the typical crap of the islets.
Aug 17th, 2015 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0where the fuck is the news here?
tragicomic.
@63 cara de dos ortos podridos
Aug 17th, 2015 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only pathetic presence here is YOU! Why don't you just go away if you find it “tragicomic”?
Boludo!
@60 exactly voice....so GB 'conquered' all of the islands, they may have planted their flag in one part but as you stated.
Aug 17th, 2015 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0So show me where it says that you have to murder and violently wrestle the land from the other party in order to fulfill your definition of 'conquer' and therefore gain legal title.
So your infallible logic is saying thus.
'The fact that the UP capitulated without a fight to the HMS Clio means GB could not gain legal title because no shots were fired and no one was killed'.
Really Voice, you are sure about that are you, you are sure that you can only conquer and hold legal title if you kill, maime, rape and pillage in the name of your country because it was required under international law at the time in order to gain legal title. I'd like to see that document.
conquer
Pronunciation: /ˈkɒŋkə/
Definition of conquer in English:
verb
[WITH OBJECT]
1Overcome and take control of (a place or people) by military force:
he conquered Cyprus
figurative they’ve conquered new markets in Japan
(as adjective conquered) a conquered people
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.1Successfully overcome (a problem or weakness):
a fear she never managed to conquer
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.2Climb (a mountain) successfully:
the second Briton to conquer Everest
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.3Gain the love, admiration, or respect of (a person or group of people):
the Beatles were to leave Liverpool and conquer the world
Such a proud moment for Democracy,The Falklands, Britain and its forces that bolster SELF DETERMINATION for its people against all aggressors who would strip this very basic human right given a chance.
Aug 17th, 2015 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0LONG LIVE THE QUEEN...LONG LIVE SELF DETERMINATION
@62 Voice,
Aug 17th, 2015 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite true old chap………the lslands ARE OURS, i.e. NOT YOURS.
So nice of you to agree.
@60 Voice,
Well l must have been mistaken. l thought that you said that you were Scottish.
l know that Clyde15 had his reservations about you, Think, err l mean Voice.
Yes, l miss sr Think. Until l woke up to what a lying old reprobate he actually is/was, l thought that he was a gentleman as he never insulted me like the idiots, José Mal or Marcos or that nasty piece of work Martin Fierro.
But he hasn't really left us………he has been reborn as, wait for it, Voice & foul-mouthed paulcedron & l also think, maybe as MagnusMaster.
The styles are similar.
Who really cares?
At the end of the day, we have the Falklands &
You DONOT.
Voice is Scotch, he cant use there and their correctly. The person operating his troll has changed. Isnt that right MacDonald? Err.. I mean Think.
Aug 17th, 2015 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 055, 63, etc ad nauseam
Aug 17th, 2015 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The more you read the expletive-laden, foul-mouthed gibberish from Pablito, the more it confirms he has utterly lost the argument and completely lost the plot. This Pobrecito is gradually strangling himself on his convoluted, contorted, constipated attempts to justify the unjustifiable. Have the courage (there's a laugh for a start) to face facts, compadre. Argentina’s great delusion, that it has any kind of legitimate claim to the Falklands, goes hand in hand with Argentina’s great illusion, that the world cares a gaucho's fart for its laughable fantasy.
@69 ezekielman
Aug 17th, 2015 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And so say all of us!
68
Aug 17th, 2015 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It must have taken you a very long time to catch me with a grammatical error....
.....but before you break out the champagne...
Let me draw your attention to your two lines and two mistakes...“cant”...“Isnt”...
...you must be English...
69
Aug 17th, 2015 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its posts like that , that keep me addicted to this site. Absolutely brilliant.
Sums up the whole situation and almost draws a line under this endless banter about this non existent, fictitious 'dispute' over Sovereignty.
Will this be the end, has PII been silenced? I shall miss it all terribly .
lets see imbecile @69
Aug 17th, 2015 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“55, 63, etc ad nauseam
The more you read the expletive-laden, foul-mouthed gibberish from Pablito,”
“it confirms he has utterly lost the argument and completely lost the plot”
are YOU talking to me in 3rd person?
where the fuck have YOU been “educated”, YOU twat?
or, otherwise, who the fuck is “HE”?
are YOU even more retarded than the average benny?
lol
250th anniversary of Union Flag raised in the Islands
Aug 17th, 2015 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0End of.
@73 cara de dos ortos podridos
Aug 17th, 2015 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really have lost the plot, haven't you? So just run away, you idiot!
Boludo!
@75 gordo1,
Aug 17th, 2015 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l second that motion.
But l “think”that its all a big act, designed to annoy us.
Whatever.
Don't have any respect for the useless article.
boludo 66
Aug 17th, 2015 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“LONG LIVE THE QUEEN...LONG LIVE SELF DETERMINATION”
tell that shite to the chagossians, you reverendo pelotudo.
or better, tell your useless viceroy to tell the chagossians the same shite.
Can never understand the trolls using the Chagos Islands as a reference.
Aug 17th, 2015 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If they support the right to self determination of the Chagossians, then they support the Falkland Islanders rights too.
OR are they saying that because some 40 odd years ago a government decision to remove the workforce and implanted population from a privately owned group of islands with no fresh water, that was the responsibility of the local government and the previous business owner, paid compensation (twice), and had their case heard up to the european CHR which was thrown out, should do the same to the Falkland Islanders. Is the logic that the UK moved some people off an island 40 years ago (even under totally different circumstances) so they can do it to the Falklands too.
I never know which one it is?
I personally think the Chagossians should be allowed to return if they so wish, as long as they are able to procure their own fresh water supply to enable them to survive. Which at present they appear not to be able to do without the help from the US Base which makes their occupation of the islands untenable.
@77
Aug 18th, 2015 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“tell that shite to the chagossians, you reverendo pelotudo.
or better, tell your useless viceroy to tell the chagossians the same shite”
You will be pleased to know that the latest foreign office feasibility studies (announced this month-apologies for no link-to return the Chagos Islanders home are progressing, including the possibility of them working on the base, having a limited tourist industry, a limited fishing industry and work associated with the Marine Protection Area .
I hope you will celebrate with me Paul if these proposals lead to Chagosians returning to their homeland.
Then you can concentrate on helping your Qom countrymen to achieve their aspirations.
One question, when the Chagossians return as they will, that will leave you high and dry regarding the Falkland Islands won't it?
Incidentally Paul are you in the Chagossian support group?
@78 Buzzsaw
“and implanted population from a privately owned group of ”
They were working for a private company, then so were many Falkland Islanders (FIC) prior to 1982, and a few since.
The graveyards prove several generations of Chagos Islanders were born and died in the Islands since the late 1700s.
“are able to procure their own fresh water supply to enable them to survive. ”
Another fallacy, like the Malvinas myth. One of the Islands has some of the highest rainfall in the world, so I assume they could collect and process this rainwater. Hopefully some islanders will pass security tests and be offered work on the USA base (instead of Philipinos and other expats being employed, 1,500 workers , I believe).
“Can never understand the trolls using the Chagos Islands as a reference.
If they support the right to self determination of the Chagossians, then they support the Falkland Islanders rights too.”
Absolutely right. Argentina cares nothing for the Chagos Islanders and if the latest proposals for settling the Islanders go ahead , I doubt the Argentines will be celebrating with them.
Pete Bog, that was my point, the Chagos Islanders are not native to the islands, but were brought in especially to work on the plantations. They have been there for many generations (like the Falkland Islanders), but they were not native/indigenous to the islands, so any support for them is the equivalent of supporting the Falkland Islanders.
Aug 18th, 2015 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for fresh water, it's not a myth, at the moment it is reality, there is no process as yet of harvesting the fresh water, yes they do have high rain fall and many fresh water lenses which which could supply potable water via wells. The FCO study concluded that modern consumption usage patterns and contamination of the ground water by human waste was a real threat. The harvesting of rainwater is again the most sensible solution, but is likely to provide only part of the potable water supply for a small settlement. Reverse osmosis is another option, but again requires investment and technology, which would need to be installed.
The point I made was that they should be able to procure their own water supply, I didn't say they couldn't do it, just that at the moment it isn't feasible without the correct investment and infrastructure. In order to have a sustainable population that can survive with or without the US base, they need to have a constant, clean and productive source of fresh potable water.
However, as you say support for the Chagos Islanders by Argentina is the same as support for the Falkland Islanders, they were just banking on the Chagos Islanders not being allowed to return. When they do, Argentina will have to twist it, to portray the garrison of 1833 akin to the Chagos Islanders and that if the UK are letting the Chagos Islanders back into their implanted home, then Argentina should be allowed their garrison's relatives to take possession of the Falklands.
You wait it's going to happen, it will be something totally stupid or utterly absurd.
@80 Buzzsaw
Aug 18th, 2015 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Pete Bog, that was my point, the Chagos Islanders are not native to the islands, but were brought in especially to work on the plantations. They have been there for many generations (like the Falkland Islanders), but they were not native/indigenous to the islands, so any support for them is the equivalent of supporting the Falkland Islanders.” I see the point now-yes of course the Islanders were not originally there-but glad to see you agree with the principle that there have been several generations born on the Islands.
Buzzsaw-thanks for your info on the water-I think I was being a bit simplistic as of course the water has to be processed and channelled.
And the human waste is a factor, but if money was able to be spent perhaps the waste could be tanked and made into gas, and the resultant slurry used (in a measured way ) as a fertiliser (I have not done any research in what it would fertilise).
I didn't take that into account so you are ahead of me I think.
“When they do, Argentina will have to twist it, to portray the garrison of 1833 akin to the Chagos Islanders and that if the UK are letting the Chagos Islanders back into their implanted home, then Argentina should be allowed their garrison's relatives to take possession of the Falklands. ”
Interesting point Buzzsaw. The main part of the UK/Falklander's side is the civilian population that were allowed to stay.
In a sense it is lucky that Onslow did not boot everyone out (including Rivero-a fact not emphasised enough), otherwise Argentina's case would be stronger
I think you will be l proved right. Argentina will twist things-but if the UK is alert they will point out that some of the soldiers sent back were tried and executed by the Buenos Aires government for killing Mestivier.
I think (using Argentine trains of thought against them) that a garrison that mutinies, is not a proper garrison-so we could counter their arguments by thinking deeply.
Your comments are valid.
read and learn you pair of pelotudos
Aug 18th, 2015 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Document:Falklands and Chagos - A Tale of Two Islands”
The eviction of the Chagossians
... John Pilger described the attitude of British officialdom throughout the period as one of “imperious brutality and contempt” for the Chagossians, a description amply evidenced in his award winning 2004 documentary “Stealing a Nation” [10] and in official documents subsequently released by the UK and US governments.
British justifications for the evictions
There were no public attempts at justification by the British until the episode became more widely known through legal disclosure of documents during litigation by the Chagossians and following routine release of classified government papers around the turn of the century. There was no need since the entire project had, by design, been carried out with the utmost secrecy and deceit.
The papers amply confirm the conspiratorial nature of the entire project to hide the true nature of the islands population. They also illustrate Jon Pilger's characterisation of its architects as imperious, brutal and contemptuous of the people whose lives they so casually destroyed.
Diego Garcia
UK Court proceeding initiated by the Chagossians since 2000 are labyrinthine in their complexity and, in spite of notable judgments asserting, at minimum, a qualified right of return, successive British governments have continued with determined and thoroughly deceptive stratagems to prevent ANY return.
For a thorough description of the entire saga and the legal position up to and including the summer of 2006, see the High Court Judgment dated 11 May 2006 [17] which unambiguously affirms their full right of return with a memorable description of the eviction as “...illegal, repugnant and a breach of accepted moral standards”
Paulito....ECHR decision for you 2012 a little more recent
Aug 18th, 2015 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/9758451/Chagos-Islanders-defeated-in-European-Court.html
Even more recent...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/9758451/Chagos-Islanders-defeated-in-European-Court.html
So what is your point Paulie, seems like you are the one that needs to educate yourself. Both Pete Bog and myself are on the side of the Chagos people. I don't see what you are trying to prove or what point you are trying to make?
buzz
Aug 18th, 2015 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your source are two ENGLISH newspapers??
LOL
my point is this:
https://wikispooks.com/w/images/1/1b/Hypocrisy.jpg
Still not sure the point you are trying to make other than suggesting because they were moved off one particular island that the government should do it to the falkland islanders, (any particular Island you want vacated).
Aug 18th, 2015 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So in your warped mind, two wrongs make a right as long as it favours Argentina?
You argue that there is no self determination because the Falkland Islanders are implanted,therefore you cannot side with the Chagos Islanders as they are as implanted as the Falkland Islanders. To side with one means siding with the other.
Diego Garcia is the wrong example for you to champion, it does not help your case for the Falklands at all, in fact it makes the case for the Falkland Islanders stronger. But you seem to be having trouble understanding that!
RT @NavyLookout: Sickening. #Corbyn says we should hand Falklands to Argentina against the wishes of all living in the islands
Aug 18th, 2015 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://t.co/ZWyewTwXWB,
56 mins ago
Although this seems to be an interview 2 years ago, it does point to a future fact, that if corbyn get to power, then this man will demand a settlement and a deal with Argentina over the Falkland’s,
We don’t know what will happen in the future,
But looking at government appeasement trends,
And it ONLY my opinion I think the Falkland’s people should have an emergency debate and a vote to become a part of the United Kingdom and fully integrated into the country of Cornwall
And send an MP to London and pay taxes and get the full benefits from being full British citizen’s,, forget independence for another few decades, and as a part of great Britain, argentines claim will be non and void, and the British can intervene more quickly seeing as you would be a part of us,
This should be done now in respect and a guarantee of any future change of government or UN corruption,
Better to be safe now, than regret it later,
Some of you may well disagree, some may well piss on it,
But if you are confidant with the likes of corbyn then so be it,
Just my independent thought..
https://t.co/ZWyewTwXWB,
.
@85 buzzsaw
Aug 18th, 2015 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -1paulcedron never makes any valid points - ever! All he is able to do display his juvenile knowledge of vile accusations and idiocies.
He celebrates his 5th birthday next week,
Aug 18th, 2015 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so they say..
the little difference with chagos, that clearly you dont understand, is that in the case of malvinas you have a territorial integrity issue first of all.
Aug 18th, 2015 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and that the chagossian are NOT an implanted population like you lot.
capisce?
@89 Errr, I think if you bothered to read your history books you would know that the Chagos islands were uninhabited when discovered by the Portuguese in 1544 and remained uninhabited until 1778. That means Little Paulie that the population was implanted. I am not sure which bit of 'Uninhabited' you are not able to grasp. And in fact Diego Garcia has be populated for less time that the Falklands, gosh fancy that.
Aug 18th, 2015 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Little Paulie, you are allowed to have your own opinions, but you are not allowed to have your own facts.
Capisce?
@77, 82,84 & 89 Think,
Aug 18th, 2015 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Got it now, el stupido?
Capice?
@84 Paul
Aug 18th, 2015 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you are disappointed that the UK government may agree to return the Chagos Islanders ?
@89
“the little difference with chagos, that clearly you dont understand, is that in the case of malvinas you have a territorial integrity issue first of all.
and that the chagossian are NOT an implanted population like you lot.”
What territorial integrity issue?
The Falklands were nowhere near the United Provinces of the River Plate in 1833 so how could they be integral to a territory nowhere near the Islands?
Its a pity your brain is only integral to your CT scanner.
The Chagos Islanders were implanted-but that's irrelevant if they have had several generations born on the Islands. It was wrong for them to be evicted, so what are you doing to help to get them returned?
Actually the Falklands population was not implanted-i.e . they were not sent there to fulfil a purpose-they emigrated -the Chagos islanders originally were sent there to provide workers for the plantations-to the best of my knowledge, they did not emigrate .
Bot of course Paul you believe that Antonina Roxa was transplanted from the UK (she came from South America)-she ended up with a ranch in Stanley but did not come from the UK
@85 Buzzsaw
“Diego Garcia is the wrong example for you to champion, it does not help your case for the Falklands at all, in fact it makes the case for the Falkland Islanders stronger. But you seem to be having trouble understanding that!”
Read and learn, Paul, read and learn.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/05/chagossians-could-be-allowed-to-return-to-british-indian-ocean-territory
my lovely isolda;
Aug 18th, 2015 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. why do you use “think” as a vocative?
WRONG
2. why you do use “el” before “estúpido” (with tilde in spanish) ?
WRONG
3. why do you spell “capice” instead of CAPISCE?
WRONG
3 errors (horrors) in just 1 (ONE) post.
what a shame.
I have posted this same response to you at least four previous times, your only three years behind the rest of the world. So try and stay abreast of the subjects that you pretend to have some knowledge about. But it's par for the course as you're atypical of your government that lies about everything.
Aug 18th, 2015 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The telegraph; 20 Dec 2012; Chagos Islanders defeated in European Court
“The European Court of Human Rights has dismissed a case brought by Chagos Islanders claiming the right to return to their home in the Indian Ocean, bringing a long legal battle to a close.
The court in Strasbourg ruled that the islanders’ case was inadmissible because the applicants had already been granted due legal process in Britain, where their case rumbled on for three decades.
The ruling said that by accepting financial compensation from the British government in the 1980s, the Chagossians, who were expelled en masse to make way for a US military base, were no technically longer victims of human rights violations. ...”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/9758451/Chagos-Islanders-defeated-in-European-Court.html
that joke of daily telegraph is NOT a valid source, you moron.
Aug 18th, 2015 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it is the same shite as this 4th class site.
READ AND LEARN:
DIEGO GARCIA.
Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos archipelago and site of a major US military base. Photograph: REUTERS
Jamie Doward
Saturday 4 April 2015 21.42 BST
Chagos islanders ‘betrayed’ by UK failure to decide on their return
Supporters of Chagossians’ return to the Indian Ocean atolls condemn the government’s postponement and ‘lack of political courage’
Supporters of the inhabitants of a British overseas territory deported from their homeland are furious that the government has reneged on a promise that it would decide before the election on whether they could return.”
now, read how they are treated in england:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-chagossians-the-indian-ocean-islanders-exiled-from-their-home-and-struggling-to-make-ends-meet-in-britain-10169107.html
95 paulcedron II “telegraph is NOT a valid source”
Aug 19th, 2015 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently it is, as this is directly from the ECHR. So in my last two posts I've proved you have lied twice. In first instance, a fraud by omission, and in the second by impugning the reputation of a valid source.
ECHR 460 (2012) 20.12.2012
Chagos islanders’ case inadmissible because they accepted compensation and waived the right to bring any further claims before the UK national courts
In its decision in the case of Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom (application no. 35622/04) the European Court of Human Rights has by a majority declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.
The case concerned the expulsion of the Chagos islanders from their homes – on the Chagos Islands, a group of islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean which are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom – from 1967 to 1973 in order to set up an American military base.
The Court notably found that the heart of the applicants’ claims under the European Convention on Human Rights was the callous and shameful treatment which they or their antecedents had suffered during their removal from the Chagos islands. These claims had, however, been raised in the domestic courts and settled, definitively. In accepting and receiving compensation, the applicants had effectively renounced bringing any further claims to determine whether the expulsion and exclusion from their homes had been unlawful and breached their rights and they therefore could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention. It was not for the Court, in that event, to undertake the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact and law.
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-4207010-4992253#{“itemid”:[“003-4207010-4992253”]}
“Chagos islanders’ case inadmissible because they accepted compensation”
Aug 19th, 2015 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0WOT????
ARE YOU JOKING OR WOT???
THEY LIVE IN EXTREME POVERTY IN ENGLAND.
THEY DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY COFFINS, WHICH IS THE THING THEY NEED THE MOST.
SO WHAT COMPENSATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, YOU BRAINWASHED INDOCTRINATED AND DELUDED BENNY?
STOP READING THAT JOKE OF TELEGRAPH.
”“The big problem that the Chagossian community in the UK has is finding money for funerals,” says Sabrina. “When one of our people passes away it’s very difficult for us.”
READ AND LEARN:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-chagossians-the-indian-ocean-islanders-exiled-from-their-home-and-struggling-to-make-ends-meet-in-britain-10169107.html
97 paulcedron II
Aug 19th, 2015 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ARE YOU JOKING OR WOT...SO WHAT COMPENSATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT”
I'm not talking about compensation it is the The European Court of Human Rights that rendered the judgement. It appears to be based on the principle of res judicata.
noun: “a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata.
Taking money and attempting to pursue the issue further is an abuse that is tantamount to fraud. Your sitting here pontificating about the subject, and you don't even know that they had received money. Then you're not qualified to even express an opinion bozo, as you won't even accept the judgement of the ECHR.
@93 Think,
Aug 19th, 2015 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 01) because l want to.
2) because l want to.
3) because l want to.
What has it got to do with you, Think?
Idiota Paul Cedron, big mouth small brain, too much surfing in the midst of floaters has addled what passes for your brain - capisc?
Aug 19th, 2015 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Got it?
Suggest you move to the Chagos you so love… with the fraudsters you support, or, take a flight in that Beechcraft Bonanza over the riviero Plata
Tiny Paul, if you cannot, won't or are unable to read the historical legal documents related to the Chagos Islands, then their is little point in you making ridiculous comments, as you know nothing about the case except what you have taken from a sensationalist tabloid headline.
Aug 19th, 2015 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Re: Territorial Integrity....are you trying retrospectively use modern international law for an event that you think happened in 1833. Good luck with that. First with the retrospective bit and secondly with an event that didn't happen.
As interesting as it is ( though totally irrelevant), I cant believe that whilst distracted by the Chagos issue, nobody has picked up on Briton's post Number 86.
Aug 19th, 2015 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Watch the Jeremy Corbyn interview at the site he suggests. Its frightening. If ever it gave Argentine a flicker of hope of gaining the Falklands without a fight this is it.
If that lefty crackpot ever gains power over our economy, the Falklands will be the least of our worries as quickly follow in the footsteps of RGland and Zimbabwe down the plughole.
lets see bunch of imbeciles.
Aug 19th, 2015 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0isolda: you are totally nuts.
go back to the madhouse.
the voice of the pelotudez:
what's your point, you imbecile?
what are you trying to say?
it has something to do with this thread?
are you even more imbecile than the average isleteer?
buzz
no you asshole.
YOU deny the FACTS, which is understandable when all you have read in your whole sad life is this 4th class newspaper and...the telegraph...mon dieu.
again, READ a serious book and then we talk.
try with this one, from page 79, you ignoramus x 1 million.
https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=grcb3zchpwYC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=freedom+next+time+chagos&source=bl&ots=Lw2x8rlI8T&sig=wM9QlcdIwFzc_r19iPOJsnfoa-0&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBGoVChMIz4Cwqou1xwIVBh2QCh19dwYY#v=onepage&q=freedom%20next%20time%20chagos&f=false
103 paulcedron II
Aug 19th, 2015 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What's your point exactly? I've never seen anyone profess an opinion other than the Chagos got a raw deal. But, the legal issue is finished, the Chagos have exhausted all their legal avenues, it's over. In point of fact, essentially the issue is no different from when any government or municipality makes a compulsory purchase. The only two essential features are firstly, the untoward manner in which it was conducted, and secondly, that the Chagos were never the legal possessors. If and when the Island is no longer required by the Americans, the UK will probably make an appropriate political gesture.
Sorry Tiny Paulie, what facts have I denied, I agree that the Chagos Islanders should be allowed to return to the island they call home, even if they were implanted, it is still their home. They were harshly treated and hard done by. No one else was there before them so they should to be allowed back.
Aug 19th, 2015 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that legally they have exhausted their case up to and including the ECHR, shows that this particular scenario is not quite as straight forward as you seem to portray when using your one sided view of the argument.
You clearly have issues with the 'English', you want to argue, disagree and spout off at everyone here, even to the detriment of your own argument. But you have chosen to champion a cause which doesn't help your 'Malvinas Claim' at all. And the fact that the FCO are undertaking a feasibility studies with regard to the Chagos Islanders return, has put the proverbial 'spanner in your works'.
All you have is what happened 40 years ago and was not done in my name, nor I would imagine in the name of the other people here.
In essence you are arguing with yourself!
You never manage to open your mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.
Good day.
“the voice
Aug 19th, 2015 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0what's your point
what are you trying to say?
it has something to do with this thread?
are you even more imbecile than the average isleteer?”
What I am saying is that Chagos is irrelavent. They have been paid. Your interventions are nothing to do with the Falkland Islands time capsule. And I was just wondering what you are doing here and pointing out whst is obvious, that you are a prize prick that constantly fantasises in a purile effort to bolster your pathetic ego. Soddy offy…
MORON
Aug 19th, 2015 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What I am saying is that Chagos is irrelavent. They have been paid. Your interventions are nothing to do with the Falkland Islands time capsule”
THEY HAVE BEEN PAID???
LOL
AND SINCE WHEN THAT JOKE OF “TIME CAPSULE” WHICH IS A DECREPTIC MILK JAR FULL OF SHITE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHAGOS AND THE TYPICAL ENGLISH HIPOCRISY, YOU ASSHOLE?
Can anybody help me find my way back to the Falklands Island site?
Aug 19th, 2015 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought I was there, but this one seems to be reserved for discussion about the Chagos Islands.
The last relevant post was Briton at 86. Has nobody anything to say on that, I don't believe it. A potential British PM who is an Argy sympathiser, and your all talking about the bloody Chagos Islands.
Pork Cedron imbercile, you hate time capsules because your usurped territory has no history to be proud of. The Falkland Islanders have, the ejection of tresspassing criminals and rapists in 1833 and the defeat and ejection of cowardly invaders in 1982. Since the British left your joke land it has gone down and down to become a founder member of the ARZE nations. Only lunatics like you cant see that.
Aug 19th, 2015 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Chagos situation was settled straight after the people living on the islands as contract workers left. Its totally irrelavent. ARZE..
@107
Aug 19th, 2015 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Paul compensation was paid but I understand the Mauritius government grabbed most of it -that's not the fault of the Brits. The Mauritian government gave the Chagos Islanders the most dirty slum to live in -so they are no better than Britain.
Given that the ejection of the Chagos Islanders was wrong and despite already paying compensation, the British government is looking at a feasibility study to resettle the Chagos Islanders.
What is wrong with you? You should be pleased.
Given that the expulsion was wrong, what are YOU doing about it? Some of us are helping to campaign for the Chagos Islanders to go back.
“AND SINCE WHEN THAT JOKE OF “TIME CAPSULE” WHICH IS A DECREPTIC MILK JAR FULL OF SHITE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHAGOS AND THE TYPICAL ENGLISH HIPOCRISY, YOU ASSHOLE?”
The two are not related. The Falklands time capsule reminds us that the British were living in the Islands way before proto-Argentines did, and most of those got kicked off in 1831 by the USA, and most of those remaining as civilians in 1833 were allowed to stay by Britain.
@95
“the government has reneged on a promise that it would decide before the election on whether they could return.”
So are you disappointed that resettlement is actively being explored a few months later?
.@102
”Watch the Jeremy Corbyn interview at the site he suggests”
The Chagos issue which Corbyn supports must be used to attack his stance on the Falklands.
Corbyn is a far bigger threat to the Falkland Islanders than the Argentines.
I have mentioned this on previous posts.
Thanks all,
Aug 19th, 2015 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently he is seen [in the past] sitting next to a known terrorist who has stated publicly that the deaths of British , Dutch , American soldiers are ok,
corbyn may not have agreed with him, but did not disagree with him,
some think this new labour of ideals will attract millions of disaffected people flocking back to the part,
I have said it once, and many on here have said it as well,
we reap what we sow.
@11o
Aug 19th, 2015 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the explanation. Certainly relieved that
'Corbyn is a far bigger threat to the Falkland Islanders than the Argentines.'
is recognised and that you are on to it.
Don't follow the Chagos thing though. Corbyn is talking the same drivel as PaulcedronII.
Am I on to something myself here? Are PaulcedronII and Jeremy Corbyn one and the same?
PaulcedronII for Britisdh PM. They say hes unelectable, God I hope so, but stranger things have happened.
PETE
Aug 19th, 2015 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-that's not the fault of the Brits
YEAH, RIGHT...LOL
THAT IS WHAT THE BRITONS SAY AFTER EVERY LOOTING, MASSIVE KILLING, EVICTION AND INVASION.
ABOUT THAT GENTLEMAN CORBYN IS TOTALLY RIGHT ABOUT “an economic blockade and poor diplomatic relations between Britain and Latin America”
@113 Think,
Aug 19th, 2015 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are trolling again.
l will give this to you-you never give up.
Never give up being a stupid asshole.
But you're keeping us all dancing to your tune as you play one ridiculous song after another.
Definitely Herr Think, far too subtle for that fool, paulcedron.
Go away, Think.
isolda: stop swearing my dear isolda.
Aug 19th, 2015 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your level of dirty language is unacceptable.
i know you are not very used to think, but try to think before posting all that bullshite, my lovely isolda
115, 113 and all the rest of his inanities:
Aug 19th, 2015 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The more diarrhoea that pours out of poor little Paulie, the more everyone has to conclude this sick, demented and deeply disturbed chappie is in grave need of urgent medical intervention. There is one clear conclusion you can draw from the pathetic vision of someone digging themselves deeper and deeper into the abyss of despair: this is an individual who all his life has felt flawed, faulty and inferior and the reasons are simple. Unlike the Falklanders, he was not fortunate enough to be born under the flag of the greatest country on the planet, the United Kingdom, and he was not blessed with the ability to speak and write the world's most popular and most powerful language, English.
Over to you dearest Paulie. Please, please carry on keeping us amused... until the men in white coats arrive to take care of you.
@115 Think,
Aug 20th, 2015 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Swearing--you ain't seen nothin' Thinky boy.
Funny coming from you, the foulest mouth on Mercopress.
And you can stop the “lovely” & “dear” bullshit, Think.
l am not your “dear” & how would you know if l'm lovely or ugly?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Think.
You're carrying this paulcedron character just too far, sr Think(chief turnip farmer).
Stop the charade, m'sieur.
my dear isolda,
Aug 20th, 2015 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we already know that you are ugly.
very ugly.
but i am a gentleman, what can i do?
so i would never tell you that cruel reality.
So you are a liar also, Think?
Aug 20th, 2015 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A self-confessed liar to boot?
But yes, we always knew this anyway.
Yes Think, l could easily be pig ugly, but you'll never know will you?
There is one thing that we do know, with a slime-mouth like yours, you are no gentleman.
Admit it Think, you are a real loser.
ldiota.
do yourself a huuuuge favour my lovely isolda and shut up.
Aug 20th, 2015 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0isolda: just shut it.
120 and the rest of his garbage:
Aug 20th, 2015 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yippee! You've done it again, poor little Paulie. You've fallen headfirst into the trap we've set for you. You just don't get it, do you? Because you don't have the limited intellect to see what's coming. Unloved, unwanted, uneducated, uncivilised, you just carry on spewing out your multicoloured vomit which keeps us all so amused. Keep up the excellent work, amigo. No one can make us laugh like you. You are an absolute treasure. God bless.
121 pedazo de pelotudo
Aug 21st, 2015 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Unloved, unwanted, uneducated, uncivilised”
are you describing yourself, you retarded benny?
well done then
very accurate.
@120 & 122 Think,
Aug 21st, 2015 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just shut it, ok?
Got it, loser?
122 Pedazo de mierda, you make our day, every day. We love you.
Aug 21st, 2015 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@113 Senor 'Shut-it'
Aug 24th, 2015 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“THAT IS WHAT THE BRITONS SAY AFTER EVERY LOOTING, MASSIVE KILLING, EVICTION AND INVASION.”
What was looted from Port Louis in 1833?
You dickhead-the Royal Navy carried out it's instruction to allow Vernet's settlers to stay without touching their property.
Massive killing in 1833?
Who died?
Eviction-unauthorised forces, BUT NOT the civilians.
But then Argentines are different, as in 1982, they wanted to evict the civilians but not British forces.
Invasion. No invasion in 1833, Mr Shut-it-a letter was written to Pinedo to lower his flag and take it-Pinedo wanted to resist but his BRITISH crew said no.
No invasion-the Islands were claimed by Britain since 1690 (landing) and 1765 (settlement).
Can't invade what you already claim.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!