jaggybunnet Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Hmmmm, let's keep your beloved Th*tcher's close friendship with the butcher of Santiago our little secret, eh? that was one of the reasons we were able to beat the argentines, due to using there country for intelligence gathering. don't kid yourself about ANY of the politicians, they all have to sell there soul at some time whether it be for oil or just to make sure they are with the winning team when it all goes tits up, if you believe other wise you are being very naive. some are better that others at hiding it but they all do it Edited February 2, 2012 by jaggybunnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 that was one of the reasons we were able to beat the argentines, due to using there country for intelligence gathering. don't kid yourself about ANY of the politicians, they all have to sell there soul at some time whether it be for oil or just to make sure they are with the winning team when it all goes tits up, if you believe other wise you are being very naive. some are better that others at hiding it but they all do it I see, so basically every politician has a close friend who's a murdering fascist, responsible for tens of thousands of abductions resulting in brutal executions. Christ, I am naive. I never would've suspected that had you not pointed it out. Phew! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I see, so basically every politician has a close friend who's a murdering fascist, responsible for tens of thousands of abductions resulting in brutal executions. Christ, I am naive. I never would've suspected that had you not pointed it out. Phew! LOL oh dear BJ no, i said that they all have to sell there soul at some time but dont let that stop you making stuff up as usual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 LOL oh dear BJ no, i said that they all have to sell there soul at some time but dont let that stop you making stuff up as usual Selling your soul for a packet of cheese n onion munchies compared to selling your soul to a brutal murdering dictator. That's roughly the debate here. But you are both missing fundamental points: 1. It's not the "selling of soul" that's the issue. It's who it's being sold to and to what end. 2. The vile bint doesn't have a soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I see, so basically every politician has a close friend who's a murdering fascist, responsible for tens of thousands of abductions resulting in brutal executions. Christ, I am naive. I never would've suspected that had you not pointed it out. Phew! Maybe just like Blair with Gadaffi, Churchill with Stalin or Galloway with Hussain? Not in the mass murderer category but wasn't Alex Samond a great friend of Fred Goodwin a few years ago? I can assume that you would also include any politician who has dealings with Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc? Or is it just another anti Thatcher/ Tory rant that shows you to be just as bigoted and narrow minded as the people you hate? Edited February 3, 2012 by Phoenix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Selling your soul for a packet of cheese n onion munchies compared to selling your soul to a brutal murdering dictator. That's roughly the debate here. But you are both missing fundamental points: 1. It's not the "selling of soul" that's the issue. It's who it's being sold to and to what end. 2. The vile bint doesn't have a soul. So what is worse then? Dealing with a murdering dictator to save lives or dealing with a murdering dictator to get cheap oil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Maybe just like Blair with Gadaffi, Churchill with Stalin or Galloway with Hussain? Not in the mass murderer category but wasn't Alex Samond a great friend of Fred Goodwin a few years ago? I can assume that you would also include any politician who has dealings with Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc? Or is it just another anti Thatcher/ Tory rant that shows you to be just as bigoted and narrow minded as the people you hate? The issue at this point of the 'debate' isn't about dealings with tyrannical despots, it is - or was - specifically about Th*tcher's close personal friendship with Pinochet. No pragmatism at issue there, like JB tried to smoke bomb us with; just a point made about its personal fondness for a blood-curdling executioner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambies Lost Doo Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Should we even be having this discussion? RBS failed so it goes out of business like every other business. There are double standards when people bash the bankers (ignoring other sections of the country who are overpaid) and yet want billions of pounds pumped into the banks they hate to save them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 The issue at this point of the 'debate' isn't about dealings with tyrannical despots, it is - or was - specifically about Th*tcher's close personal friendship with Pinochet. No pragmatism at issue there, like JB tried to smoke bomb us with; just a point made about its personal fondness for a blood-curdling executioner. So it is just a vendetta. It's only Thatcher that we can condemn for having friends who are less than honourable? Or maybe you think that Gadaffi, Hussain and Stalin were just misunderstood? As I've already said BJ you seem as blinkered and narrow minded as those you choose to condemn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 So what is worse then? Dealing with a murdering dictator to save lives or dealing with a murdering dictator to get cheap oil? Saving whose lives?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Saving whose lives?? British Soldiers during the Falklands War. And no I'm not defending Pinochet or denying the killing of his countrymen. Just making a point that I would rather deal with a dictator in order to save British lives rather than just for an oil deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 British Soldiers during the Falklands War. And no I'm not defending Pinochet or denying the killing of his countrymen. Just making a point that I would rather deal with a dictator in order to save British lives rather than just for an oil deal. But if the British soldiers hadn't been sent to the South Atlantic by th*tcher in the first place to fight for a ridiculous lumps of rock that 99.9% of British people had never even heard of their lives wouldn't have been in danger. I'm trying hard to see your logic here mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 But if the British soldiers hadn't been sent to the South Atlantic by th*tcher in the first place to fight for a ridiculous lumps of rock that 99.9% of British people had never even heard of their lives wouldn't have been in danger. I'm trying hard to see your logic here mate. they are british and they wanted to stay that way theres your logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 they are british and they wanted to stay that way theres your logic All 5 of them? Did they have a referendum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 All 5 of them? Did they have a referendum? come on, there is at least twenty and i have spoke to them all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 But if the British soldiers hadn't been sent to the South Atlantic by th*tcher in the first place to fight for a ridiculous lumps of rock that 99.9% of British people had never even heard of their lives wouldn't have been in danger. I'm trying hard to see your logic here mate. Even for you that is a ridiculous post. Or do you just forget about the fact that Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands? Or maybe you think that it should belong to Argentina against the wishes of the population of the islands? Funny how you are all for Scotland having the right to decide its own fate but are quite willing to deny the Falkland Islanders their rights. I used to love the debates on the old forums, pity we cant have them here because of the narrow mindedness of certain posters who cant even bring themselves to write someones name due to their own distorted viewpoint. I would have thought that most people would have grown out of that habit by the time they left primary school. Guess that shows the level that certain posters are at. No real debate to be had with someone who refuses to even acknowledge that their belief may not always be correct and that other people might have different views. Funny how those people always claim to be on the side of free speech while totally ignoring the other sides point of view. Those who claim Thatcher as the root of all evil look and sound as ridiculous, bigoted and moronic as those who claim that she was a saint and was never wrong. I'll leave you and BJ to your posts now as i've learned never to argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejag Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Even for you that is a ridiculous post. Or do you just forget about the fact that Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands? Or maybe you think that it should belong to Argentina against the wishes of the population of the islands? Funny how you are all for Scotland having the right to decide its own fate but are quite willing to deny the Falkland Islanders their rights. I used to love the debates on the old forums, pity we cant have them here because of the narrow mindedness of certain posters who cant even bring themselves to write someones name due to their own distorted viewpoint. I would have thought that most people would have grown out of that habit by the time they left primary school. Guess that shows the level that certain posters are at. No real debate to be had with someone who refuses to even acknowledge that their belief may not always be correct and that other people might have different views. Funny how those people always claim to be on the side of free speech while totally ignoring the other sides point of view. Those who claim Thatcher as the root of all evil look and sound as ridiculous, bigoted and moronic as those who claim that she was a saint and was never wrong. I'll leave you and BJ to your posts now as i've learned never to argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Funny how that the Islanders DID NOT enjoy FULL British citizenship untilJanuary 1st 1983?? 8 months after the start of the war. It is obvious that Thatcher and her government saw an opportunity to wrap themselves in the Union Flag to get her re-elected at the next election, She was in deep trouble and rode the wave of nationalism thereafter.The uneccessary waste of life was avoidable.They had no interests in the Falklands until a political saviour for them presented itself. So I think you need to look at yourself before decrying other peoples opinions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Even for you that is a ridiculous post. Or do you just forget about the fact that Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands? Or maybe you think that it should belong to Argentina against the wishes of the population of the islands? Funny how you are all for Scotland having the right to decide its own fate but are quite willing to deny the Falkland Islanders their rights. I used to love the debates on the old forums, pity we cant have them here because of the narrow mindedness of certain posters who cant even bring themselves to write someones name due to their own distorted viewpoint. I would have thought that most people would have grown out of that habit by the time they left primary school. Guess that shows the level that certain posters are at. No real debate to be had with someone who refuses to even acknowledge that their belief may not always be correct and that other people might have different views. Funny how those people always claim to be on the side of free speech while totally ignoring the other sides point of view. Those who claim Thatcher as the root of all evil look and sound as ridiculous, bigoted and moronic as those who claim that she was a saint and was never wrong. I'll leave you and BJ to your posts now as i've learned never to argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. What is it with some of you aficionados of auto eroticism? If you can't be bothered to put up an argument you resort to banal name-calling. Ridiculous? What's ridiculous? Lumps of rock off the coast of Argentina inhabited by a few thousand sheep and a handful of descendants of some ancient English colonial outpost. Reality is no-one had even heard of the place until Argentina tried to take them back. Narrow-minded??? Look in a mirror ya mad t*ry. I used to take you half seriously but clearly that was an error of judgement. And clearly the idiot here is you. Away and live in the Falklands if they're so precious. Away and rant you're blue-blood nonsense there. Edited February 4, 2012 by hamiltonjag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 What is it with some of you aficionados of auto eroticism? If you can't be bothered to put up an argument you resort to banal name-calling. Ridiculous? What's ridiculous? Lumps of rock off the coast of Argentina inhabited by a few thousand sheep and a handful of descendants of some ancient English colonial outpost. Reality is no-one had even heard of the place until Argentina tried to take them back. Narrow-minded??? Look in a mirror ya mad t*ry. I used to take you half seriously but clearly that was an error of judgement. And clearly the idiot here is you. Away and live in the Falklands if they're so precious. Away and rant you're blue-blood nonsense there. Thanks for proving my point about the lack of debate. Perhaps you could point out the "banal name calling" in my previous post? And to follow up that insight with personal abuse just highlights the lack of debate on here. Simply because you didn't know where the Falkland Islands were previous to 1982 is not an indication that "no-one had even heard of the place". I'm quite sure maps were available and that the islands were on it. Perhaps you meant to say that the Islands were not at the front of the minds of the British public. Again I will try to keep the debate going as ask you why you feel the rights of the Falkland Islanders are less important than the rights of for instance Scottish people? Why does one group get the right to choose their own destiny in a referendum while denying the wishes of the Islanders to remain British? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Funny how that the Islanders DID NOT enjoy FULL British citizenship untilJanuary 1st 1983?? 8 months after the start of the war. It is obvious that Thatcher and her government saw an opportunity to wrap themselves in the Union Flag to get her re-elected at the next election, She was in deep trouble and rode the wave of nationalism thereafter.The uneccessary waste of life was avoidable.They had no interests in the Falklands until a political saviour for them presented itself. So I think you need to look at yourself before decrying other peoples opinions! Very true to say that full British citizenship was not granted until 1983, before that they were British Dependent territory citizens which although they had some rights they were not allowed the automatic right to live within the mainland UK. After the war the Islanders requested full British Citizenship which was granted bringing it in line with Gibralta. The basic facts of the war were that an outside nation invaded the dependency of another nation and as such went against the wishes of the population of the Islands. As for the statement that the "unneccessary waste of life was avoidable" should we have allowed Argentina to take the Islands by force and not attempt to regain them? Where does that thinking stop? If the Americans invade Cuba should the Cubans just accept it in order to save the unneccessary waste of life? As for Thatcher yes she did make the most of the invasion and used it to gain a landslide in the General Election but she could only have did that if the British Public were behind it and on this occasion they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Thanks for proving my point about the lack of debate. Perhaps you could point out the "banal name calling" in my previous post? And to follow up that insight with personal abuse just highlights the lack of debate on here. Simply because you didn't know where the Falkland Islands were previous to 1982 is not an indication that "no-one had even heard of the place". I'm quite sure maps were available and that the islands were on it. Perhaps you meant to say that the Islands were not at the front of the minds of the British public. Again I will try to keep the debate going as ask you why you feel the rights of the Falkland Islanders are less important than the rights of for instance Scottish people? Why does one group get the right to choose their own destiny in a referendum while denying the wishes of the Islanders to remain British? 1. Your entire post was riddled with banal name-calling: "ridiculous", "narrow minded", "bigoted and moronic"..... 2. I'm quite sure you're right in one smug remark about maps being available prior to 1982. I suppose anyone with the will and a magnifying glass could have found the Falklands. 3. The level of debate was set by you. Stop trying to twist it. I'm sure no-one is fooled by you. 4. If I can't bring myself to type out that vile bitch's name it has nothing to do with childishness. It is to do with the level of contempt I have for vermin like it and those like you who support it. And having lived through its venomous destruction of whole communities. 5. The Falklands are thousands of miles away. If the sparse population are so keen to be British let them live here. I have no problem with that. If they don't want to be governed by Argentina they shouldn't live on islands off the coast of Argentina. If a group of Argentinians had occupied the Isle of Bute I suggest you'd probably be the first to be a tad indignant about it. If you can't see the difference between 3000 individuals (of whom only 30% are actually British, so in essence your argument concerns only around 900 people) and the wishes of 5.5 million people in Scotland I'm sorry but I can't help you there as that level of ignorance requires professional help. Don't like being insulted? Don't fire childish insults at others. There's a good chap. Carry on. Edited February 4, 2012 by hamiltonjag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 1. Your entire post was riddled with banal name-calling: "ridiculous", "narrow minded", "bigoted and moronic"..... 2. I'm quite sure you're right in one smug remark about maps being available prior to 1982. I suppose anyone with the will and a magnifying glass could have found the Falklands. 3. The level of debate was set by you. Stop trying to twist it. I'm sure no-one is fooled by you. 4. If I can't bring myself to type out that vile bitch's name it has nothing to do with childishness. It is to do with the level of contempt I have for vermin like it and those like you who support it. And having lived through its venomous distruction of whole communities. 5. The Falklands are thousands of miles away. If the sparse population are so keen to be British let them live here. I have no problem with that. If they don't want to be governed by Argentina they shouldn't live on islands off the coast of Argentina. If a group of Argentinians had occupied the Isle of Bute I suggest you'd probably be the first to be a tad indignant about it. If you can't see the difference between 3000 individuals (of whom only 30% are actually British, so in essence your argument concerns only around 900 people) and the wished of 5.5 million people in Scotland I'm sorry but I can't help you there as that level of ignorance requires professional help. Don't like being insulted? Don't fire childish insults at others. There's a good chap. Carry on. 1. Yes you are right my post was "riddled" with the words ridiculous, narrow minded, bigoted and moronic. I described your post as ridiculous which I stand by as it was full of inacuraccies and lies. Your claim that 99.9% of British people had never heard of the Falklands is backed up by?????????. You blame the head of a nation for sending troops to liberate a dependency that has been invaded by a forgien force. You may not agree with the decision but the majority did both in Government at the time and in the next general election. Narrow minded, bigoted and moronic were used to describe people who fail to even consider the fact that other peoples opinion may be just a valid as theirs and are unwilling or unable to accept that. If you see yourself in either of those groups then the problem may lie with you and not others. 2. The Falkland Islands have for many years been a important point of navagation around Cape Horn and was used extensively in shipping. It was also involved in navel battles in both WW1(Battle of the Falkland Islands) and WW2 (Battle of the River Plate , So famous they even made a film of it) Again the fact that neither you nor a majority of the British public knew much about it is a lack of education not a lack of significance of the Islands. 3. Sorry the level of debate was set by the original poster who blamed the tories for the bonus paid to Stephen Hester despite the bonus actually being set by the previous government (which BJ has acknowledged) 4. The fact that you even type someones name says more about you than anybody else can. As I've said those who think that Thatcher was to blame for everything that is wrong in the world and that she some form of Anti- Christ are just as bad as those who claim that she was wonderful and never made a mistake in her life. I really feel sorry for people who see the world in that black and white way. 5. At what distance do we decide that people are worth defending? Is the Outer Hebrides too far from London or Edinburgh to care about? Had the Argentinians populated Bute in the 17th Century, been run by Argentina since then and had decided in numerous referendums that they wished to maintain their Argentine status then no I wouldn't be indignant about it because I believe that people have the right to self determination. I'm not the one being hypocritical here unless you are suddenly against the right of the Scots to hold their referendum? As for the highlighted part of your post. I assume you highlighted it to show a fact or to emphasise a point? As has been pointed out by a previous poster the Falkland Islanders recieved full British Citizenship in 1983 which actually means that over 90% of the population are actually British but don't let the facts get in the way of your point. As for the wishes of 5.5 million Scots being more important than the 3000 Falkland Islanders in the case of self determination. At what stage do the numbers make it viable? If Scotland only had 3 million people would it still be viable? 2M, 500000? I'll ask again, do you not find it hypocritical to support self determination for one group of people while denying another group the same right ( a criticism which could be made against all the political parties within the UK) Perhaps you can also point out where I have felt insulted? And if you believe that you were being insulted by any previous posts then you must think that you fell into one of the mindless, narrow minded or bigoted groups that I was discussing. Again If you can point out any personal abuse then I will happily delete it. I hope you will do the same e.g aficionados of auto eroticism, ya mad t*ry( which I'll take as a compliment), the idiot here is you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Fair enough then. In my opinion your post above is moronic, narrow-minded, ridiculous cack. So no personal insult there, going by your analysis. At what stage do numbers make it viable? Protecting the wishes of 900 people (about the size of a good away support at Firhill) thousands of miles away on islands (I repeat.... despite your cack-handed bizarre insult about education)..... probably 99% of British people had never heard of. Ludicrous. But you are entitled to your moronic, narrow-minded bigoted beliefs to the contrary. British stiff-upper lip and all that. How dare those Argies yadda yadda... "Your claim that 99.9% of British people had never heard of the Falklands is backed up by?????????" Estimate. Start a poll if you like. "Who had heard of the Falklands prior to 1982?" and "of those that had, who gave a flying **** about them prior to 1982?". "the fact that neither you nor a majority of the British public knew much about it"..... oh wait.... it's a "fact" now? Cancel that poll then. (see how annoying cherry-picking is? You're good at that...... which is a massive improvement on my original assessment of your abilities..... don't start... you're good at being patronising too. Bet you don't like that flung back at you either) "I'll ask again, do you not find it hypocritical to support self determination for one group of people while denying another group the same right". Nope. I don't find it hypocritical for the reasons I have already stated. But hey if it makes you feel better why not write to your local MP (if she/he isn't tory enough for you you could always write directly to the reptile-in-chief in Downing Street) suggesting a referendum for the Falkland islanders. Straight-forward question: Do you want to be British or Argentinian? Let's see how that turns out with the 30% of the population of the rocks who are actually British. So..... I'm not being hypocritical. Give them a referendum.... I mean the whole population of the Falklands. Please keep your moronic ranting posts coming. (Clearly that cannot be seen as a personal insult going by your analysis) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejag Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Very true to say that full British citizenship was not granted until 1983, before that they were British Dependent territory citizens which although they had some rights they were not allowed the automatic right to live within the mainland UK. After the war the Islanders requested full British Citizenship which was granted bringing it in line with Gibralta. The basic facts of the war were that an outside nation invaded the dependency of another nation and as such went against the wishes of the population of the Islands. As for the statement that the "unneccessary waste of life was avoidable" should we have allowed Argentina to take the Islands by force and not attempt to regain them? Where does that thinking stop? If the Americans invade Cuba should the Cubans just accept it in order to save the unneccessary waste of life? As for Thatcher yes she did make the most of the invasion and used it to gain a landslide in the General Election but she could only have did that if the British Public were behind it and on this occasion they were. The invasion was avoidable. The government were given repeat warnings of the Military Juntas intentions.But that government stood aside and done nothing until they had invaded. The Callaghan administartion had dealt with similar sabre rattling by sending a couple of nuclear subs and warning the Argentinians what would happen,Even Thatchers great pal Ronald Reagan tried to dissuade her from military action and imploring negotiations.Hence she leant on a Despot from Chile to help her. As for invadinga dependency, what did the Thatcher administartion do when USA invaded the British dependancy of Grenada??, As for the electorate backing the invasion, Yes thats true, but shows how shallow the English are when a bit of Jingoism is shoved in their face. Imperialist to the death!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Fair enough then. In my opinion your post above is moronic, narrow-minded, ridiculous cack. So no personal insult there, going by your analysis. At what stage do numbers make it viable? Protecting the wishes of 900 people (about the size of a good away support at Firhill) thousands of miles away on islands (I repeat.... despite your cack-handed bizarre insult about education)..... probably 99% of British people had never heard of. Ludicrous. But you are entitled to your moronic, narrow-minded bigoted beliefs to the contrary. British stiff-upper lip and all that. How dare those Argies yadda yadda... "Your claim that 99.9% of British people had never heard of the Falklands is backed up by?????????" Estimate. Start a poll if you like. "Who had heard of the Falklands prior to 1982?" and "of those that had, who gave a flying **** about them prior to 1982?". "the fact that neither you nor a majority of the British public knew much about it"..... oh wait.... it's a "fact" now? Cancel that poll then. (see how annoying cherry-picking is? You're good at that...... which is a massive improvement on my original assessment of your abilities..... don't start... you're good at being patronising too. Bet you don't like that flung back at you either) "I'll ask again, do you not find it hypocritical to support self determination for one group of people while denying another group the same right". Nope. I don't find it hypocritical for the reasons I have already stated. But hey if it makes you feel better why not write to your local MP (if she/he isn't tory enough for you you could always write directly to the reptile-in-chief in Downing Street) suggesting a referendum for the Falkland islanders. Straight-forward question: Do you want to be British or Argentinian? Let's see how that turns out with the 30% of the population of the rocks who are actually British. So..... I'm not being hypocritical. Give them a referendum.... I mean the whole population of the Falklands. Please keep your moronic ranting posts coming. (Clearly that cannot be seen as a personal insult going by your analysis) I pointed out why the Falkland Islands were known(prior to 1982) If you choose to ignore this then this again proves your lack of debating skills. I can give reasons why the Islands were known before 1982, your figures were simply picked out of thin air (unless you can provide the info?) Feel free to "Cherry pick" my posts. You do know what cherry picking means though? Incase you don't I'll give you a definition "Cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias." If you want to ignore the main points in a post just to show an incorrect viewpoint then feel free. You might even get a job as a headline writer for The Sun one day. As for the claim that my views on the Falklands are bigoted, moronic and narrow minded I can only assume that you believe that the United Nations holds those same bigoted, moronic and narrow minded views as they have the Islands on a list of Non-Self Governing Territories which under General Assembly Resolution 1514 states that " All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." Please tell me how being invaded by a forgein country allows the self determination of a country/ territory? The Falkland islanders choose to be British and have full British citizenship (first given in 1983 and then superceeded in 2002 which allowed all British Territories UK citizenship). If they chose to be Argentinian then they could be Argentinian that is democracy (but is unlikely as over 90% have full British citizenship, made up of 61.3% Falkland Islanders and 29% British i.e. citizens through birth or lineage) I'm really sorry but I still cant see any explanation why you favour self determination for one set of people but not for others? Perhaps I've just missed it, any chance of highlighting it or explaining it? All I've seen is that Scotland has 5.5M people and the Falkland Islands only have 3000 therefore there is some reason that they don't deserve the right of self determination (as set out by the UN). At what level of population do you think that a country/territory deserves the right to decide its own fate? Edited February 4, 2012 by Phoenix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.