That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Last time I checked the Argentine government is 1-0 for starting wars over the Falklands and 0-1 for winning one.
Not really, I spend time in English and argentinian communities and I see more British nationalists going apeshit anytime the subject gets brought up, i mean, look at your comment. They also project wild opinions and have baseless assumptions on the general argentian populations opinion on the war. Its kinda nuts. Argentinians have really negative feelings as it relates to their country any time the topic gets brought up and don’t really think about the falklands the same way British nationalists think they do.
There was nobody living there before the British arrived, but after the British arrived British people moved there. It seems to me that the only country with a good claim, is Britain
Actually the first colonists were French. The claim was transferred to Spain via a pact between the Bourbon kings of both countries. The Spanish name for The Falklands derives from the French, Îles Malouines, named after Saint-Malo/Sant-Maloù.
The Argentinians only ever occupied the islands for six months, for a penal colony - which ended via mutiny, not military expulsion. They’ve otherwise been under continuous British occupation since 1833, barring the 1982 war.
I’m English, and by no means pro-English colonialism, but the Argentine claim is spurious nonsense.
According to Wikipedia, The French and English colonized two separate islands within months of each other, though the French are credited with being there first. Historians apparently disagree on whether or not the two settlements knew the other was there for the first year.
The English have the longest claim that was never relinquished, since the French gave their settlement to Spain years after the French and English set up the original two colonies.
Why do you keep posting this link? It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim, it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it, and it doesn’t back up a number statements you’ve made (“The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.” for instance).
Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.
It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim
If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.
it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it
Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.
But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.
If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.
Unlikely. People won’t put in the work to decipher you, so it’s a poor methodology for convincing anyone.
But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.
It’s not presumptuous because the point is they’re uneducated on the subject, and they should read the link to understand what they’re saying before they say it.
That they’re stating facts that are not in evidence, but if they read the article that the link points to then they would be better educated and can revise their comments if they want to.
Why should my point, which is contain in the article, be repeated when the article can just be read?
It’s like if somebody says they know how to fly a plane, and to describe it like driving a tractor trailer, you tell them that’s wrong and you hand them a manual on how to fly a plane, instead of starting to instruct them on how to fly a plane.
In other words, the point was not a minimal one, and would take much verbage on my part to reply to here on Lemmy, versus just giving them a knowledge base for them to read, from that makes the point for me.
Not true, it was sparcely populated and in 1831 an American warship raided the area dissolved the government and rolled back out. 1833 the English come back and claimed the island and the dispute keeps on.
The government, was literally 1 German man who the argentines said “yeah your the government now go live there”
There’s another rock sticking out of the ocean further south that Great Britain claims ownership over, and its just got a plaque on it to state ownership, no people live there.
British people lose all sense of logic anytime falklands get mentioned.
They need them for strategic sheep reserves
Yeah, since New Zeeland became an indepent nation there really hasn’t been any proper fallback if anything happens to Wales…
That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Last time I checked the Argentine government is 1-0 for starting wars over the Falklands and 0-1 for winning one.
Not really, I spend time in English and argentinian communities and I see more British nationalists going apeshit anytime the subject gets brought up, i mean, look at your comment. They also project wild opinions and have baseless assumptions on the general argentian populations opinion on the war. Its kinda nuts. Argentinians have really negative feelings as it relates to their country any time the topic gets brought up and don’t really think about the falklands the same way British nationalists think they do.
So do I once again need to point out the obvious.
Argentina started a war over an island that contained British nationals and has never been populated by anything other than British nationals.
Argentina continually refused to have the case of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice. Despite the UK offering twice.
And this thread is still full of Argentinian supporters sprouting bullshit factually inaccurate claims.
But yes it is the British who are unreasonable in this instance. 🙄
I’ll take back what I said if you can link me three of these comments that this thread is full of.
Gotta hang on to colonialism because: English.
There was nobody living there before the British arrived, but after the British arrived British people moved there. It seems to me that the only country with a good claim, is Britain
Actually the first colonists were French. The claim was transferred to Spain via a pact between the Bourbon kings of both countries. The Spanish name for The Falklands derives from the French, Îles Malouines, named after Saint-Malo/Sant-Maloù.
The Argentinians only ever occupied the islands for six months, for a penal colony - which ended via mutiny, not military expulsion. They’ve otherwise been under continuous British occupation since 1833, barring the 1982 war.
I’m English, and by no means pro-English colonialism, but the Argentine claim is spurious nonsense.
According to Wikipedia, The French and English colonized two separate islands within months of each other, though the French are credited with being there first. Historians apparently disagree on whether or not the two settlements knew the other was there for the first year.
The English have the longest claim that was never relinquished, since the French gave their settlement to Spain years after the French and English set up the original two colonies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Why do you keep posting this link? It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim, it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it, and it doesn’t back up a number statements you’ve made (“The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.” for instance).
Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.
If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.
Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.
But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.
Unlikely. People won’t put in the work to decipher you, so it’s a poor methodology for convincing anyone.
You’ve also got facts wrong, as mentioned above.
It’s not presumptuous because the point is they’re uneducated on the subject, and they should read the link to understand what they’re saying before they say it.
That they’re stating facts that are not in evidence, but if they read the article that the link points to then they would be better educated and can revise their comments if they want to.
Why should my point, which is contain in the article, be repeated when the article can just be read?
It’s like if somebody says they know how to fly a plane, and to describe it like driving a tractor trailer, you tell them that’s wrong and you hand them a manual on how to fly a plane, instead of starting to instruct them on how to fly a plane.
In other words, the point was not a minimal one, and would take much verbage on my part to reply to here on Lemmy, versus just giving them a knowledge base for them to read, from that makes the point for me.
That’s not true.
Why does this falsehood keep getting repeated over and over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Not true, it was sparcely populated and in 1831 an American warship raided the area dissolved the government and rolled back out. 1833 the English come back and claimed the island and the dispute keeps on.
The government, was literally 1 German man who the argentines said “yeah your the government now go live there”
There’s another rock sticking out of the ocean further south that Great Britain claims ownership over, and its just got a plaque on it to state ownership, no people live there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
That’s a population, though sparce.
It’s a singular person, that doesn’t give them much of a claim
I didn’t say it did. The person I responded to said uninhabited, it was inhabited.