Is it because they are white?

I thought you had been warned off overt trolling and excessive arguements?

Ohoh – hora just declared war on Spain.

I also like the weaselling over the Hong Kong population and the Chagosians – they don’t appear to have had their wishes made paramount do they.

I don’t think that the situation with the Falklands is really similar enough to Hong Kong to be relevant.

As far as the Chagossians go, it was wrong. Because something wrong was done in the past does not mean it has to be repeated in the interests of consistency.

You can shout racist all you want, all you’re doing is taking the focus away from your own (quite reasonable) arguments. I’m assuming that’s not what you want to do.

BTW, I don’t think you can get any less Little Englander than me.

The same as the UK’s delegation interpretation of the resolution.

Ah, you were on that then – or do you have some other insight to their thought processes?

How about the other question – or is that one too awkward?

So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?

If we removed the population from the Falkland isles forcibly and then in 40 years would it be acceptable to say no indigenous population there so it doesn’t matter?

Its a disgrace. Its not a wrong in the past – its still ongoing. a case in front of the European court of human rights at the moment.

We handed over the Hong Kong population to china without much complaint. Against their wishes. we even refused them right on entry to the UK

But the Falkland islanders wishes must be paramount.

What hypocrites.

TandemJeremy – Member
Ernie – you will not be able to shift any views here.

Oh, the ironing.

So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?

On another thread? Feel free to start one – something emotive in the title would probably help.

Ah, you were on that then – or do you have some other insight to their thought processes?

How about the other question – or is that one too awkward?

Grow up aracer, acting like a halfwit doesn’t suit you.

That the colonial days are over ?

yeah if i were amerindian that’s exactly what i’d be thinking 🙄

thanks for the fascinating link to the u.n’s pontificating on decolonization by the way. unfortunately, the u.n seem to be selective in their determination to eradicate colonialism.

what is your opinion on the influence of the u.n.f.c.c.c treaty (kyoto) on spreading neo colonialism in the global south through the clean development mechanism and the joint implementation mechanism ?

Ohoh – hora just declared war on Spain. …

Well it’ll give their rampant unemployed something to do

Tally Ho!

🙂

Grow up aracer, acting like a halfwit doesn’t suit you.

I’ll take that as a yes to the other question being too awkward then. Feel free to answer sensibly rather than throw out back-handed ad-homs, I know it’s not beyond you (SWIDT).

Junkyard, I’ve got a large Baguette. I’m not nursing, its standing proud. Ready to fly the flag of our Union against the Spaniards.

Ohoh – hora just declared war on Spain.

Are you sure he is not just celebrating his marriage to me and trying to consummate it with an audience…would seem more his style tbh.

can this thread get more childish?

So the situation with the Chagossians can still be remedied. where are all the folk shouting about that?

If we removed the population from the Falkland isles forcibly and then in 40 years would it be acceptable to say no indigenous population there so it doesn’t matter?

Its a disgrace. Its not a wrong in the past – its still ongoing. a case in front of the European court of human rights at the moment.

I don’t think that at any point anyone on here has disagreed with anything above, certainly not me. Is what you’re saying that people shouldn’t attempt to defend the rights of the Falklanders until they have made attempts to defend the rights of the Chagossians?

thanks for the fascinating link to the u.n’s pontificating on decolonization by the way. unfortunately, the u.n seem to be selective in their determination to eradicate colonization.

Ah, I see, the UN talks bollox on such matters ?

Maybe it’s time the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council ?

Although it’s funny how British governments and the media are always telling us how UN Resolutions and the wishes of the UN are paramount.

But now we know that the UN Charter should be ignored when it doesn’t quite fit with the UK government’s view.

We shall fight them on the Benidorm beaches, we shall never surrender.

I can picture them at their key boards getting a semi

what you do in your spare time is no concern of ours junkyard

little Englander

in a thread packed full of irony, i’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are aware of the irony of accusing people of being both imperialist and a little englander….

in which case i can only assume that you’re saying it to cause offence.

Maybe it’s time the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council ?

wouldn’t be bad idea imho. i don’t see why the winners of wwii should still be team world police 65 years later

Although it’s funny how British governments and the media are always telling us how UN Resolutions and the wishes of the UN are paramount.

But now we know that the UN Charter should be ignored when it doesn’t quite fit with the UK government’s view.

you’re quite mistaken if you think my stance on this has anything to do with supporting the uk over anyone else. it’s more to do with the fact that i consider the u.n stance to be contradictory and selective and i’ve given my reasons why.

you’re quite mistaken if you think my stance on this has anything to do with supporting the uk over anyone else.

I wasn’t commenting on your stance. I was commenting on the UK government’s stance.

TJ – you still have not answered whether, in your opinion, the Shetland islanders should have a right of self determination, can you answer please.

You’ve been quick to call people hypocrites over their position on FI/DG/HK – I would really like to see whether your stand is quite so consistent on the freedom of people a little closer to home, especially given your stated support for the right of self determination for Scotland…

I was commenting on the UK government’s stance.

You were complaining that the politicians pick and choose the bits they like? 😆

You were complaining that the politicians pick and choose the bits they like?

Was I complaining ? I suggested that the UK gave up its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council – don’t you think that’s a good idea, specially as the UK has ignored selected UN resolutions for over 40 years, and rejects key aspects of the UN Charter ?

But yeah, I get your point. There is an implied criticism, specially of our “free” media. I doubt whether many people in Britain are aware of UN Resolutions concerning the Falklands, the UN Charter and its policy of decolonisation, and the fact that the Falklands are considered a colony.

Which considering the importance that the British media purports to attach to the Falklands issue is clearly absurd. But there you go – self-regulating censorship.

What if the Argentinians withold their Beef and the Brazilians their live coverage of the Carnival? Sheeet man. What would we do withold those two global economic powerhouses?

What if the Argentinians withold their Beef and the Brazilians their live coverage of the Carnival? Sheeet man. What would we do withold those two global economic powerhouses?

Hahaha that’s so funny hora !

They are just silly little countries with no future, and there we are with the Big Boys and a bright rosy future !

Specially that “Brazil” ffs !!!

Hahaha !

:rolls eyes again in now painful eye sockets:

Ernie – I fail to see your point, The Argentinians ignored UN security council resolution 502 issued on 3rd April 1982 demanding an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falklands. They also ignored the long standing UN resolutions and the General UN principles that use of force was unacceptable.

As far as I can see the UN has only ever requested that the UK enter into negotiations, never used stronger wording than that, which is very different from a UNSC demand!

Zulu – I clearly did – the right of any group of peoples to have self determination.

No, thats weasel words and you well know it TJ- as it depends entirely whether you define the Shetland Islanders as a ‘group of peoples’ in their own right, or whether you classify them as a subset of the Scottish ‘group of peoples’ and as such are bound to a Holyrood centred decision on Scottish independence

So I’ll ask you again for absolute clarity – do the Shetland Islands have a right to self determination in their own right, yes or no?

Not quite sure why Juandem Jeremy is accusing those who believe the FI should choose their own destiny of being Little Englanders. Clearly he’s unaware of the Islanders origins, the majority of them came from Scotland. Proper Scots that is, not self-hating exiles who now skulk about in ‘England’s loft extension’

Bravo – its the nasty jingoistic attitude expressed by some on here.

What if the Argentinians withold their Beef and the Brazilians their live coverage of the Carnival? Sheeet man. What would we do withold those two global economic powerhouses?

Are you genuinely that ignorant Hora, or is it just an act?

Ernie – I fail to see your point, The Argentinians ignored UN security council resolution 502 issued on 3rd April 1982 demanding an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falklands.

Your powers of observation are truly astonishing Z-11. Yes “The Argentinians” did not comply with security council resolution 502, are you offering that as a justification for Britain persisting ignoring UN resolutions on the decolonisation of the Falklands for the last 50 years ?

That the right-wing Argentine Junta ignored the UN should come as a surprise to no anyone. For several years, aided and abetted by the United States and Britain, the Junta had been engaged in the “Dirty War” which involved arrests/torture/murder/disappearance of countless victims, in gross violation of the United Nations Charter.

I fail to see how the behaviour of a British backed military Junta justifies Britain ignoring UN resolutions for 20 years before the Falklands War, and for 20 years after the Falklands War. As you would say……. “I fail to see your point”.

The Junta argued that Britain’s persistent failure to comply with UN resolutions justified taking military action. They would not rule out “the military option” as US/UK governments like to call it. All complete bollox of course.

Furthermore Security Council Resolution 502 required more than just withdrawal by Argentine forces. It also required “an immediate cessation of hostilities”, the Junta at least maintained a ceasefire, although Britain didn’t. It also called on “the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. The Belgrano was attacked and sunk after the Peruvian Peace Plan had been accepted by Argentina. And Britain made it clear that it would continue to ignore the UN Charter concerning decolonisation. Britain failed to comply with Security Council Resolution 502 – which they tabled. That takes some doing.

Not quite sure why Juandem Jeremy is accusing those who believe the FI should choose their own destiny of being Little Englanders. Clearly he’s unaware of the Islanders origins

No I’m not sure either.

Neither am I sure why you think the British government gives a toss about 3,000 people living 8,000 miles away on the other side of the world.

After all they couldn’t care less if 3,000 people in Britain lose their livelihoods, they couldn’t care less if 3,000 elderly people in Britain die of cold, they couldn’t care less if 3,000 people in Britain die waiting for operations. Basically the plight of 3,000 people is of no consequence to them. Unless if course they live in some far-flung colonial outpost on the other side of the world, in an area which promises untold wealth and profit for a select few.

They were even prepared, and did for a while, deny 3,000 people full UK citizenship. 3,000 people FFS, and yet they were happy to have an open-door policy for EU foreign nationals, allowing potentially millions into the UK.

That’s how much they care about “the destiny” of 3,000 people.

Bravo – its the nasty jingoistic attitude expressed by some on here.

no jj, it was just hora trolling.

Zulu-Eleven – Member
TJ – you still have not answered whether, in your opinion, the Shetland islanders should have a right of self determination, can you answer please

my understanding of TJ’s view is that the Shetlanders can self determine to be anything but British as their group of islands do not form part of the island of Britain

TandemJeremy – Member
Big and daft – its not my definition of Britain – that is the only definition of britain – the mainland

FWIW I have no time for places not in Britain but that want to be British….

Great Britain? its a defined geographic area – the island that makes up England Scotland and Wales

more “Edinburgh Defence”?

my understanding of TJ’s view

Well, you see B_n_D, he’s given quite a lot of fairly contradictory statements, and I’m a little concerned that his latest phrase right of any group of peoples seems to not only contradict earlier statements, but in itself is rather ambiguous over exactly what it includes.

As I’ve said above, the Shetland islanders could be construed to be part of the homogenous group of Scottish people, so, for the sake of clarity, and since TJ has been so keen to call other people hypocrites, I’ve asked him on several occasions whether the Shetlanders have a right to self determination and, if they choose, independence.

Its an interesting quandry isn’t it? since if TJ thinks that they should have the right to choose independence, then it completely and utterly undermines his long established position on wider Scottish independence, as a key element on the affordability and justification for Scottish independence relies on income from the offshore oil fields that clearly ought to belong to the islanders – of course, on the other hand, if he is against a right to self determination for the Shetlanders, then he becomes a hypocrite on this thread, given his stance on the Falklands, HK, DG and his response to other peoples statements.

So far, I’d suggest TJ’s unwillingness to answer this simple question suggests he recognises this dichotomy, and is therefore deliberately avoiding answering, as he knows that either way, he becomes hoist on his own petard!

So, once again TJ, I politely ask you, for the sake of absolute clarity, do you support a right for self determination for the Shetland Islanders in their own right, or not?

Well it depends.

The Belgrano was attacked and sunk after the Peruvian Peace Plan had been accepted by Argentina.

The Belgrano was attacked and sunk because everyone knows damn well what her battle-group were up to whilst some two-bit sham of a treaty was being put together to buy a bit of time: i.e. in the middle of forming a pincer movement with the carrier battle group.

TandemJeremy – Member
There are some very strange thought processes here

Indeed there are, TJ – why on earth do you keep thinking that we want to listen to your straw-man argument that everything should fall to the lowest possible denominator i.e. forceful removal? I would suggest you start your own thread on the vagaries of that problem, and just concentrate on the OP’s topic.

Now that would be novel for you.

The Belgrano was attacked and sunk because everyone knows damn well what her battle-group were up to

What, actually sailing away from the exclusion zone, you mean?

None of those lives need have bin lost. Senseless murder.

What, actually sailing away from the exclusion zone, you mean?

But hardly heading for port, either. She and the carrier group were two battle groups which for the most part had been trying to encircle the British fleet. With the Belgrano gone, the carrier returned to port, leaving just long range flights from the mainland, with little loiter time over the islands. It wasn’t murder (we were at war, which sadly allows for the killing of people), and it’s undoubtedly one of the main reasons that the British forces won.

The exclusion zone was established to ensure that no civilian ships came near. It wasn’t set up to enable dangerous battle groups to flirt with its edges and waste valuable time.

“Our mission … wasn’t just to cruise around on patrol but to attack,”…”When they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I would say we were anxious to pull the trigger.”

We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders

I think we posed a real threat… we never had any intention of going back to shore; we were only waiting for the right moment to act.”

Hector Bonzo – Captain of the Belgrano