The Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly marked the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by reaffirming its support for the country’s sovereignty and democratic freedoms. Read full article
As the British always fall into inconsistencies, into great contradictions, an invading country of Argentina, which expelled its inhabitants, supports an invaded country like Ukraine.
One more example of British hypocrisy.
Argie troll, all you white Europeans should leave Argentina and return to Italy and Spain and return the land to the true owners, typical hypocrisy from the Argentines,
We were invaded by the British 4 times, we expelled them 3 times, unfortunately we continued with a part of our country occupied by a foreign country. British hypocrisy.
It was never British territory, that exists in the feverish imperialist minds.
You are a fraud, and a coward and continue to lie even though you know what you post is bollox, no credibility what so ever, it was never British Territory, the biggest lie of all, co take your garbage to the ICJ, you will lose and lose big time, Argentina 97% white, genocide of the true native owners of the land, Hypocrisy at its worst, nothing more than a fanatical troll who has wasted 8 years of his life on a load of BS, what a silly sad little boy you are,
Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
..It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'..
According to this world renowned jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
if the conquest is firmly established. 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 (war being, according to traditional opinion, a contention between two or more States through their armed forces and hence at least a bilateral action) 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 the possession is firmly established. It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
Guys dont bother wasting your time responding to Malvi, nothing he posts is either true or relevant, he just does it to get a reaction, he is but hurt because he knows Argentinas claim is false. he needs counseling,
don't bother wasting your time responding to Malvi
To me its just an exercise in pure logic. It's so easy to show sources by two international law scholars. Who aren't British, that refute such claims, and put the info in the public arena.
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAs the British always fall into inconsistencies, into great contradictions, an invading country of Argentina, which expelled its inhabitants, supports an invaded country like Ukraine.
Feb 25th, 2025 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -3One more example of British hypocrisy.
Russia/Ukraine
Feb 25th, 2025 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Even Reagan got off the fence in ’82. How Argentina ‘tried’ to justify their 1982 invasion of the Falklands at the UN.
Falklands - Two Acts of Force (1833 & 1982) One Illegal (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/82967126/Falklands_Two_Acts_of_Force_1833_and_1982_One_Illegal
Russia/Ukraine
Argie troll, all you white Europeans should leave Argentina and return to Italy and Spain and return the land to the true owners, typical hypocrisy from the Argentines,
Feb 25th, 2025 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Argentina hypocrisy
Feb 26th, 2025 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +2invaded British territory twice, got booted off twice.
We were invaded by the British 4 times, we expelled them 3 times, unfortunately we continued with a part of our country occupied by a foreign country. British hypocrisy.
Feb 27th, 2025 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -2It was never British territory, that exists in the feverish imperialist minds.
You are a fraud, and a coward and continue to lie even though you know what you post is bollox, no credibility what so ever, it was never British Territory, the biggest lie of all, co take your garbage to the ICJ, you will lose and lose big time, Argentina 97% white, genocide of the true native owners of the land, Hypocrisy at its worst, nothing more than a fanatical troll who has wasted 8 years of his life on a load of BS, what a silly sad little boy you are,
Feb 27th, 2025 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1It was never British territory
Feb 27th, 2025 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
..It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'..
According to this world renowned jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
if the conquest is firmly established. 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 (war being, according to traditional opinion, a contention between two or more States through their armed forces and hence at least a bilateral action) 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 the possession is firmly established. It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
Guys dont bother wasting your time responding to Malvi, nothing he posts is either true or relevant, he just does it to get a reaction, he is but hurt because he knows Argentinas claim is false. he needs counseling,
Feb 27th, 2025 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1don't bother wasting your time responding to Malvi
Mar 06th, 2025 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To me its just an exercise in pure logic. It's so easy to show sources by two international law scholars. Who aren't British, that refute such claims, and put the info in the public arena.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!