In William Shirer's epic, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Air Marshal Goering is quoted as having predicted that, "In thirty years time, Britain [would] be an overcrowded little island living on the glories of its past."
How right he was.
For weeks now, Brits have been force-fed glorified memories of an event which took place 25 years ago proving to the world that the British ruling classes cling on desperately to their imperial pretensions regardless of the price in blood that is invariably paid for it by their subjects.
Subjects, for in Britain there are no citizens, only the lowly subjects of Her Satanic Majesty, that notorious blood-sucker whose hidden and most influential hand still manipulates the death-machine of international monopoly capitalism and usury.
Governments, as the astute Tony Benn has observed quoted in an article below, use the Media to project the distorted version of reality which suits them. In Britain, it also uses the monarchy to promote a bluster of hollow patriotism in the manner described by an earlier commentator, Walter Bagehot, as a necessary tool of pomp and circumstance, bread and circuses, by which the masses are governed and kept in their place.
By promoting the disgraceful, modern-day colonialist adventure of the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war the mainstream media (MSM) is playing to classic form, glorifying a sickening episode in which hundreds of young Brits and Argentinos died over a crop of rocks in the bleak South Atlantic. For weeks now we have heard nothing but blaring chauvinism, led as always by the BBC, on what a great job "our boys" did in liberating the hardy, Best-of-British Falklanders from the dastardly grip of that dago, Leopoldo Galtieri.
Of course, no mention is made of that other dictator, Margaret Thatcher (or 'Señora Torture' as she was aptly described by an Argentino mispronouncing her name), or the reasons behind her galloping patriotism and willingness to spill the blood of Britain's youth in a war which was a calculated attempt, on her part, to bully a weaker country into submission, claim victory and thereby bolster her badly-flagging electoral popularity.
Nor the fact that the disputed sovereignty of the Falkands/Malvinas dates back to 1833 when the British opportunistically seized the islands with its military might. These things are better left undiscussed. As is the uncomfortable contrast some have made since of the obviously racist interest the British Government had in coming to the rescue of a handful of white colonists 8000 miles away from the Motherland while, in the Indian Ocean, having expelled through threat and deceit another small group of dark-skinned people from the Chagos Islands.
There is no comparison, the British Government would maintain. After all, the Chagos Islanders were descendants of indentured labour (legal colonial slavery) whereas the Falklanders were authentic colonists (colonizers). And besides which, the Big White Father in Washington had made it known that he wished to acquire the Chagos Islands, lock stock and barrel, in order to build a nuclear strategic base on Diego Garcia (called Fantasy Island by its Yankee usurpers) to fight the good fight for Democracy-'n'-Freedom and occasional bomb the * out of uppity rag-heads in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
Reality doesn't bear looking at too closely. It never has. Especially the vicious, murdering lies behind what is called patriotism, that perpetuator of paternalism and an inherited, psychopathic Jewish thunder-god. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, it is sweet and seemly to die for one's country. Evidently, the BBC, the British MSM, the Government and the Royal spokesperson, Prince Andrew, on TV for those miserable parasites called the monarchy, still insist it to be so.
But let me tell you of an alternative, personal version to the official glorification of that episode of tribal blood-letting.
Back in 1982, I was living in south Oxfordshire, the heart of Tory-land, out-of-work together with the rest of Thatcher's marginalized millions, scraping a living out of a mixture of substitute teaching and government welfare, fathering a child and two step-children and campaigning daily against the Reagan/Thatcher Arms Race and the Cruise missiles at Greenham Common.
Then suddenly came the Falklands/Malvinas crisis. Instead of dealing with it peacefully through the United Nations, as she could have done, Thatcher decided to live out her pretensions of being a latter-day Boadicea, offering the blood-sacrifice of British youth in yet another opportunist war ('yet another' because it was a repeat of how the Falklands were originally seized).
Hurriedly, I photocopied a batch of hand-bills which had written across them, Ceasefire Now!, drove across town and plastered them wherever I could. On inspection twenty-four hours later, I discovered them all to have been torn down. Such was the fever of jingoism that had infected every little market-town through Her Satanic Majesty's land. So, determined not to be outdone, I printed double the number of hand-bills and, this time, stuck them with a much stronger glue. The next day, with satisfaction, I noted that many of the posters were still up. But such was the frenzied anger of our local patriots, you could see where they had attempted to scratch down the offending posters, leaving behind a trail of claw-marks.
To make it worse, I developed the measles and had to be put in quarantine in the living room next to the TV. So I had very little else to do but to watch the entire playing out of the Falklands war-movie from start to finish. Every time a British battle-ship was sunk by the Argentinos, I cheered traitorously, "teach the British colonialists a lesson!" Later on, I discovered that I was not alone. Many other Brits opposing Thatcher's war had done the same.
One interesting aspect of the media show which accompanied the adventure in the South Atlantic was the manner in which the War Office (aka Ministry of Defence) censored all TV reports by running a thick cable from the TV cameras to caravans installed outside Downing Street where all reports would be monitored and adjusted to Government requirements. Now called 'embedding' that process of censorship and government-sanctioned propaganda has been developed to a fine art both in Britain and the USA.
Sadly, Thatcher won and by doing so condemned her subjects to 15 more years of penal servitude. A great victory march was organized in Portsmouth and the patriots gave themselves to an orgy of chauvinism, booze and self-degradation. One of the memories of that celebration of pomp and circumstance were the numbers of one-legged war-wounded. How sad, these sheep who, over and over ad nauseam so easily go to their slaughter!
At what was really nothing more than a football match where murder was sanctioned.
My other memories of that war are of the the young lad from a school in which I taught who had been sent out, fresh from training to fight, never to return. I felt the paternal feeling one develops, as a teacher, for one's charges and, from that time onward felt a cold hate for all the Thatchers and the Blairs who turn our planet into a hell on earth.
Today, I hear that still the veterans of that war continue to suffer the after-effects. And that far more have died since by their own hands than ever did in the Falkands/Malvinas. So much for all the filth and psychic poison being pumped out by the whores of the MSM.
No doubt the 'Iron Lady' got a sense of destiny that warmed the cockles of her heart while prosecuting the war. I think she probably believed it was in Britain's interest to hold onto the 'Malvinas', nit least beacuse huge oil deposits are rumoured to hang about in that area of the South Pacific.
One wonders how deep she was with the elite. Husband a Freemason and all that. Mark has been up to all sorts of unsavoury activities. Perhaps he was targeted?
Targeting the unions and the miner's was, in her eyes, a battle against communism. She thought provatisation and all that was opening up the world to competition. True - state entrprises are monoploies and monopolies are meat & drink to the elite since they protect them from competition. But the sell-offs simply transferred assets fom one monopoly (goverment paid for by corporations whose shareholders the British Public were shafted) to another - the cabal of corporations and the dynasties behind them who control government anyway.
(Nothing much changed except now the UK assets can no longer be offered as collaterel against the national debt. Meanwhile the PFI/PPP nighmare saddles our children with a yoke of debt slavery unless we break the system.)
The Poll Tax was the act of a rank amateur. It was destined to backfire. She may have been goaded into it. After all, it did align with her gut instict - that of self-responsibility. Once on the statute books the terminal phase of her reign could commence. Before she was invincible.
She rose to power in a party controlled by the same cabal that run Nu Labia. However many of her moves were counter to the wishes of the cabal. Her fierce opposition to the EU being prime. Her closing speech accused the single currency of being federalism by the back door. Who here disputes this now?
She was toppled by the vile Hesletine and succeeded by hand-over man Major, now nicely set up in the evil Carlyle group. No such post for Thatcher. She was ousted, and, IMO, that almost makes her almost one of us...
After I wrote the above (sorry about the typos - in a rush 2day) I thought about Blair. Parallel universe - being 'ousted'?. Maybe. But what did Blair ever say that was contrary to the agenda? Is he not in fact about to sign of with further capitulation to the EU? Plus his manner of leaving is ostensibly voluntary. There were real tears in Thatcher's eyes as she pulled away from No 10 for the last time. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
There were real tears in Thatcher's eyes as she pulled away from No 10 for the last time.
You don't seriously think those tears were for anyone but herself do you??!!!
Thatcher did a great job of talking down the EU but talk is all it was. She took this country ever deeper into the EU and under her "reign" the biggest sell out to the EU was signed by her i.e. the Treaty of Rome. She talked tough and made a big play of seeming to be tough with our European "partners", but acted like an obedient poodle where it mattered.
You don't seriously think those tears were for anyone but herself do you??!!!
No. But she obviously felt betrayed.
At the time the socialists abhorred Thatcher - and I think the abhorrence was genuine. Anything socialsts abhor can't be all bad...
Now the socliasts pretend they are her natural heirs.
Alan Watt (who I like a lot) maintains she was one of them because of the asset transfer of privatisation and her comment that some of the younger generation will never work etc.. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Now the socliasts pretend they are her natural heirs.
No. The "New" Labour party do. They are most definitely not Socialists.
Quote:
Alan Watt (who I like a lot) maintains she was one of them because of the asset transfer of privatisation and her comment that some of the younger generation will never work etc..
One of them? A Socialist?? Thatcher??? Are you Stelios under another name?
i am talking generally not specifically to anyone.
Margarette Thatcher was far less warmongering than Tony Blair.
That is a fact.
Like her or hate her, history will judge Blair as Britains worst leader since David Lloyd George.
I agree with Venceremous about many things but disagree with her views on the Falklands,
I am not in favour of war. But if a country is invaded, in an unprovoked attack it has the duty to defend itself. I cant believe people would have rather the British people who live there be controlled by a facist RIGHT WING dictatorship. I suppose you would also the Channel Islands remain in German hands too?
You can criticise Thatcher for many things and i do, but unbridled warmongering is not one of them. Blair beats everyone on that score.
[/quote] _________________
Last edited by karlos on Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Thatcher was a principled leader who stuck to her guns.
The words Thatcher and principled can only be used together if there is a big fat "not" in there as well.
Quote:
Look the socialists at the time opposed her defence of the Falklands.
The Falklands is part of Britain, the people who live there are British.
The Falklands are not part of Britain they are thousands of miles away ffs. The Falkland Islanders had a permanent representative in this country lobbying parliament for the right to British nationality which they were DENIED!!! They became British only when it suited Thatcher to have a war.
Quote:
Why do all you left wingers want them to be handed over and given to the Argentine facist dictatorship of the Generals.
Who tortured and assassinated their oponents.
I am not a "left winger" and your repeated assertion that someone who disagrees with your extreme views becomes one is inaccurate. The fascist murderous dictators of South America were best pals with Thatcher including the odious Chilean dictator who she so infamously defended. Your support of the Tory party without any genuine analysis of what it has become, and your silly attacks on "New" Labour which is clearly just a continuation of Thatcherism is laughable. For the record I am a supporter of the reasonable Conservatives who kicked Thatcher out, or the reasonable Socialists who introduced child benefit and the Open University. Since the late seventies we have had nothing but self-serving treasonous lying filth in power whatever label they have.
For me John Major was a bad leader who sold us out to Europe as did Ted Heath.
'Moderate' conservatism does not work.
Like Ron Paul in America, true conservatism is about not invading other countries. True conservatism is civil liberty, freedom, small government.
At the moment i think the current wars and the wars to follow are the most important issue of the day. Everything else is insignificant in comparison. Buy the way Nigel Farage is against the war too. _________________
For me John Major was a bad leader who sold us out to Europe as did Ted Heath.
'Moderate' conservatism does not work.
It was Thatcher who signed the Treaty of Rome!!! She said one thing and did another.
Moderate "isms" are the ONLY ones that work. There is no blanket philosophy that deals with all events or economies. Wholesale Nationalisation is every bit as bad as wholesale Privatisation. When a government takes over business it is Communism and it does not work. When business takes over government it is Facism and it is even worse. Thanks to the work begun by Thatcher and continued by Major and Blair we are well on the way to a fascist state with all that implies for us. A return to a moderate "ism" of any description is urgently needed. As long as this country is populated by political illiterates we have no chance.
"Our constitution presupposes a nation so fundamentally at one that we can safely afford to bicker".
A famous quote that used to apply pre Thatcher. Before she blew away the post-war consensus, doubled the prison population and made millions unemployed while turning the UK pension from one of the best in Europe to one of the worst. She also left office with inflation higher than what she inherited. All with the bonanza of North sea oil and the revenue from selling state assets. She could not have been more treasonous and the final consequences of what she started we have yet to experience, but the evidence is not looking good.
So, BC, your ideal system is 50% fascism and 50% communism
I simplify I know, you would claim the best of both and a '3rd way'
Both are examples of pyramid hierarchies. Any combinaton you care to mention will have a similar structure.
We need a completely new political system - one that is immune to 'pyramiding'. And one that is transparent.
Thatcher did not act alone - her insticts were libertarian, but her advisors will have steered policy to suit them - whether to further their agenda, undermine her power, or both.
Don't believe that guff she was immune - no one can be to the insidious and very well researched psychological warfare she will have been subjected to for not following the agenda.
Ultimately she failed. She never stood a chance. She did not realise what she was up against. All IMHO.
The dark monster does not willingly show its hand...
What I hate about Bliar is he DOES know what he is doing. And so, I fear, does Cameron. In fact, he may well be one of the ruling elite 'coming out'... _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
So, BC, your ideal system is 50% fascism and 50% communism
No - there is no ideal system, but running a country according to a blanket philosophy of "this way and no other" is ruinous. There is a need for some industries to be in the hands of government. I hear nobody pressing for the privatisation of the air force asking "what does a government know about running an air force?" Utilities like water, electricity, ports, railways and many others should never have been taken from public ownership. There are other industries which should never have been nationalised (although many were begging for the government to bail them out by nationalising them). The farming industry should receive no subsidies as they are private businesses. The list is endless where irrational measures are implemented in the cause of a general political belief. Looking at problems on an individual basis and dealing with them in a manner that is best for the country NOT for a few individuals or corporations is what I espouse.
Btw, your belief that Thatcher was a helpless pawn has given me a lot of laughs. Remember the Shirley Porter saga? The people she really served while a prominent politician in this country did very well under Thatcher. It was Thatcher who paved the way for Blair.
Thatcher did not act alone - her insticts were libertarian, but her advisors will have steered policy to suit them - whether to further their agenda, undermine her power, or both.
Yes that is very well put, she was from a Methodist backround and did have good core values. But like everyone she was a cog in the wheel and was surrounded by a load of grey suits
rodin wrote:
What I hate about Bliar is he DOES know what he is doing. And so, I fear, does Cameron. In fact, he may well be one of the ruling elite 'coming out'...
Blair definately sold his soul to the devil long ago.
I think talking about Cameron is a bit early.
My instincts are he is Blair 2.0
But we still have Gordon 'the moron' Brown for 3 more years and alot of bad things can happen in 3 years. It is Brown we need to expose and oppose. He is warmonger and facist like Blair without the smile.
In fact i would say Brown is the real bogeyman.
i am talking generally not specifically to anyone.
Margarette Thatcher was far less warmongering than Tony Blair.
That is a fact.
Like her or hate her, history will judge Blair as Britains worst leader since David Lloyd George.
I agree with Venceremous about many things but disagree with her views on the Falklands,
I am not in favour of war. But if a country is invaded, in an unprovoked attack it has the duty to defend itself. I cant believe people would have rather the British people who live there be controlled by a facist RIGHT WING dictatorship. I suppose you would also the Channel Islands remain in German hands too?
You can criticise Thatcher for many things and i do, but unbridled warmongering is not one of them. Blair beats everyone on that score.
[/quote]
have you ever lived in Argentina? obviously not from your over zealous imagination of her citizens living standards.
you cannot imagine the channel islands being controlled by a foreign power, yet ignorantly trumpet britain occupying the malvina, an island a couple of miles off Argentina, yet thousands and thousands of miles from britain.
Do you know when britain self proclaimed the malvinas to be british? what would you say if the isle of wight, an island a few miles of the uk was self proclaimed to be argentinian?
did the malvinas belong to britain before theu stole it? and if not who did it 'belong' to?
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject:
Quote:
But if a country is invaded, in an unprovoked attack it has the duty to defend itself. I cant believe people would have rather the British people who live there be controlled by a facist RIGHT WING dictatorship. I suppose you would also the Channel Islands remain in German hands too?
Stelios, the Malvinas was invaded and seized by Britain in 1833. It was a prize of unbridled imperialism and remains so.
Contrast the difference between Thatcher's enthusiasm to spill blood over a handful of British expatriates in the Falklands and HMG's betrayal of the dark-skinned Chagos Islanders who were expelled through threat and deceit in order for the US Air Force to build a nuclear base at Diego Garcia.
But if a country is invaded, in an unprovoked attack it has the duty to defend itself. I cant believe people would have rather the British people who live there be controlled by a facist RIGHT WING dictatorship. I suppose you would also the Channel Islands remain in German hands too?
Stelios, the Malvinas was invaded and seized by Britain in 1833. It was a prize of unbridled imperialism and remains so.
Contrast the difference between Thatcher's enthusiasm to spill blood over a handful of British expatriates in the Falklands and HMG's betrayal of the dark-skinned Chagos Islanders who were expelled through threat and deceit in order for the US Air Force to build a nuclear base at Diego Garcia.
Disgusting.
Its getting pointless trying to talk sense and reason with stelios, maggie thatcher and her racist crew can do no wrong in his eyes, they are tory.
Intrestingly enough Diego Garcia, was the only place given advanced warning on the sunami which killed so many a couple of years back.We still wait to hear why they did not pass that warning on to others.
theres so many disgusting historical events which the usa and uk governments have done, and keep doing to citizens around the globe, ''in our name'' for our ''freedoms and protections'' that one tends to lose track of them all.
How they must chuckle amongst themselves when ignoramuses spew vile the like of, the malvinas are british.
It wouldant suprise me in the least if stelios is of the 'opinion', the malvinas are near the shetlands isles in scotland.
the argentinians see the british islanders currently occupying the malvinas as squatters. when a bully attacks you, who is stronger than you, what he takes he owns, in his law.
Still, now the barbaric british empire and its savage ways have receeded from its heyday, what better way to flag wave and scream patriotism to celebrate 25 years of an imperialistic britains 'holding onto the falklands', with a celebration to sing god bless the queen, and commemorate british war crimes and criminals.
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Still, now the barbaric british empire and its savage ways have receeded from its heyday, what better way to flag wave and scream patriotism to celebrate 25 years of an imperialistic britains 'holding onto the falklands', with a celebration to sing god bless the queen, and commemorate british war crimes and criminals.
While I agree with most of what you say LongTooth it should be noted that the Falklands were uninhabited when settled by British settlers nearly 200 years ago. They are also a long way from Argentina not just a few miles - about 400 miles I think. Is Argentina not big enough for the millions of Europeans who have made it their home in the last two centuries, displacing and mistreating the original inhabitants? My point is the Falkland Islanders are the only people to have ever made a go of living on the islands successfuly and why cannot they be left alone? The war was a godsend (arranged with Galtieri?) to Thatcher and it is blatant hypocrisy to claim Britain was defending its own people. Nonetheless the Argentinians should drop their claim, as should Britain, and just agree to leave the islanders alone. They settled on a desolate unwanted land and hurt nobody in so doing. They have earned the right, after so many generations of living there, to call the place their own.
you cannot imagine the channel islands being controlled by a foreign power, yet ignorantly trumpet britain occupying the malvina, an island a couple of miles off Argentina, yet thousands and thousands of miles from britain.
Do you know when britain self proclaimed the malvinas to be british? what would you say if the isle of wight, an island a few miles of the uk was self proclaimed to be argentinian?
did the malvinas belong to britain before theu stole it? and if not who did it 'belong' to?
So you would transfer the land to a foreign dictatorship against the wishes of the legal residents.
Your example of the Isle of Wight is indeed correct. If anyone invaded it we have the right and the duty to defend it.
In my eyes the Falklands, Cyprus, Palestine, Tibet, it does not matter where it is The indeginous peoples rights are paramount _________________
Contrast the difference between Thatcher's enthusiasm to spill blood over a handful of British expatriates in the Falklands and HMG's betrayal of the dark-skinned Chagos Islanders who were expelled through threat and deceit in order for the US Air Force to build a nuclear base at Diego Garcia.
Disgusting.
Disgusting yes but you are misquoting.
The Chagos Islanders were expelled by Harold Wilson
who last time i checked was a beloved Labour PM
Thatcher had nothing to do with the plight of the Chagos Islanders.
I support the right of the Indeginous peoples so i support the right of return of the Chagosians.
Dont you think the argies would have evicted the falklanders in the same way. _________________
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 1107 Location: Free Scotland!
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject:
I was speaking of successive British governments and their colonialist attitudes.
I don't believe the Argentinos would have expelled the Falkland Brits. They would have been given a choice, either to accept Argentine nationality or leave. There are thousands of Britishers and their descendants living quite happily in Argentina as they have for centuries.
Squabbling over the merits of Thatcher is not productive, I was merely injecting a bit of healthy skepticism into the idea that Thatcher was the demon the filthy left made her out to be. Her closing words to parliament certainly ring true now. Let's see how Bliar exits. All parties are nearly 100% controlled @ the top. This is obvious. I just suspect the Maggie was not in on the game to the extent of, say, Cameron. Maybe even a bit of an accident that she wiped Heath for leader. Major was a squalid figure who was paid off for subservience with a Carlyle pension. I could be wrong about Thatcher, Maybe she was up to her neck in it. Alan Watt thinks so, and he is pretty clued in I think.
Now - kiss and make up. We have a battle on here... _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
you cannot imagine the channel islands being controlled by a foreign power, yet ignorantly trumpet britain occupying the malvina, an island a couple of miles off Argentina, yet thousands and thousands of miles from britain.
Do you know when britain self proclaimed the malvinas to be british? what would you say if the isle of wight, an island a few miles of the uk was self proclaimed to be argentinian?
did the malvinas belong to britain before theu stole it? and if not who did it 'belong' to?
So you would transfer the land to a foreign dictatorship against the wishes of the legal residents.
Your example of the Isle of Wight is indeed correct. If anyone invaded it we have the right and the duty to defend it.
In my eyes the Falklands, Cyprus, Palestine, Tibet, it does not matter where it is The indeginous peoples rights are paramount
Thats the tactics the Boers used when land grabbing in africa, nobody can be seen, so we will claim the land. Unfortunately the xhosa and khoikhoi had lived on the land and it was theirs they didant believe in fencing it off or putting signs up saying private land belonging to the xhosa you know
It would be like you going into the countryside in france now, seeing nobody for miles and claiming the land as yours. You then retort, but nobody was living here, i am the indiginious person.LOL
did the malvinas belong to britain before they stole it? and if not who did it 'belong' to
I think it would be quite reasonable for Argentina to expect loyalty from Brits or for them to leave.
how would you like it if someone came to your house and told you to leave?
Really the Falklands is the wrong issue for the left wingers to nail their colours to, because it was a just war for Britain.
You must concentrate your efforts and opinions on the UNJUST wars where we have invaded places and butchered the people and stolen all their goods like oil and diamonds and gold.
By comparing our defence of the Falklands which America opposed you allie yourselves with brutal south american right wing dictatorships which either shows lack of judgement or it shows you genuinely support all invasions.
Tibet by the chinese
Cyprus by the turks
Palestine by the zionists
the one thing is clear, at the time Neil Kinnock opposed the defence of the Falklands and if Britain had been under Labour rule the Falklands today would be called the Malvinas and the people who used to live there would now be asylum seekers.
In any case if any of you still are in any doubt, Argentina is ruled by zionists and at the time 1983 there was a particularly brutal facist right wing military dictatorship. I am shocked that you would want your fellow British citizens to be ruled by these monsters.
This is why i have never voted Labour and never will.
During the junta's rule, Congress was suspended, unions, political parties and provincial governments were banned, and in what became known as the "Dirty War" between 9,000 and 30,000 people deemed left-wing "subversives" disappeared from society. Torture and mass executions were both commonplace. The economy, which had been in dire condition prior to the coup, recovered for a short time, then deteriorated further.
Shame you left wingers couldn't have voted for General Galtieri yourselves. Talk about two faced.
Long Tooth wrote:
did the malvinas belong to britain before they stole it? and if not who did it 'belong' to i wonder why you avoided that question?
We know you would rather they belonged to your hero General Galtieri. It is because of people like you that people like him exist. I just hope the left wingers in Argentina apreciated your support for the Junta. Mind you i suppose its the same as some British people who supported Hitler. What a principled lot you left wingers are. _________________
Give up?
You started this thread yourself.
I believe you are wrong in wanting the Falklands to have been handed over to a brutal facist dictator.
I cannot see how you calling me a tory which i have not been since Maastrict excuses your lack of judgement.
I have looked at the issue and cannot see how you can serve up indeginous peoples whether they are white or black or asian to a brutal facist dictator against their wishes.
None of you has made a reasoned arguement other than you hate Thatcher.
I am sorry but youve lost this debate. How can you call yourselves peace campaigners and approve of a hostile invasion? _________________
I cannot see how you calling me a tory which i have not been since Maastrict
Who the f*** do you think you are kidding? You have defended all things Tory, including Major, on threads around this forum. You are so besotted with your "team" you automatically call anyone who disagrees with your views a left-winger even when they are not. That alone reveals your blinkered view of politics. You cannot even see that Thatcher did to the Tory Party what Bush did to the Republicans. She buggered it so much the decent Tories had to throw her out because they knew the dumb electorate, full of the likes of yourself, would keep voting her in to power, and that would be ruinous for the country. You are unable even to see that Blair is an arch Tory himself and relies on the stupidity of voters to vote for a label (Labour) rather than judging him on his actions, all of which are Tory, including going to war - a distinctly Tory trait.
My freind, i have no desire to prolong this argument.
I repeat myself. I used to vote Tory, but then i joined UKIP. And More recently i joined Respect. i have already on several threads stated my position.
But what this thread was discussing is the Falklands and the rights of indeginous peoples. Calling me a Tory which is nothing to be ashamed of does not answer all the issues i have raised, meaning the posters have conceded the argument and now simply want to vent their anti Tory views on me.
Blair is NOT a conservative. He has raised direct and indirect taxes, he has increased public borrowig to unseen levels, he imposed tuition fees and top up fees, he increased red tape on businesses to horrendous levels, what policies of his are Tory? Concreting over the countryside? ID cards? Banning fox hunting?
Go ahead, i have defended the Conservatives previously and on this issue i have done so again.
Pick another subject. _________________
I think it would be quite reasonable for Argentina to expect loyalty from Brits or for them to leave.
how would you like it if someone came to your house and told you to leave?
Really the Falklands is the wrong issue for the left wingers to nail their colours to, because it was a just war for Britain.
You must concentrate your efforts and opinions on the UNJUST wars where we have invaded places and butchered the people and stolen all their goods like oil and diamonds and gold.
By comparing our defence of the Falklands which America opposed you allie yourselves with brutal south american right wing dictatorships which either shows lack of judgement or it shows you genuinely support all invasions.
Tibet by the chinese
Cyprus by the turks
Palestine by the zionists
the one thing is clear, at the time Neil Kinnock opposed the defence of the Falklands and if Britain had been under Labour rule the Falklands today would be called the Malvinas and the people who used to live there would now be asylum seekers.
In any case if any of you still are in any doubt, Argentina is ruled by zionists and at the time 1983 there was a particularly brutal facist right wing military dictatorship. I am shocked that you would want your fellow British citizens to be ruled by these monsters.
This is why i have never voted Labour and never will.
During the junta's rule, Congress was suspended, unions, political parties and provincial governments were banned, and in what became known as the "Dirty War" between 9,000 and 30,000 people deemed left-wing "subversives" disappeared from society. Torture and mass executions were both commonplace. The economy, which had been in dire condition prior to the coup, recovered for a short time, then deteriorated further.
Shame you left wingers couldn't have voted for General Galtieri yourselves. Talk about two faced.
Long Tooth wrote:
did the malvinas belong to britain before they stole it? and if not who did it 'belong' to i wonder why you avoided that question?
We know you would rather they belonged to your hero General Galtieri. It is because of people like you that people like him exist. I just hope the left wingers in Argentina apreciated your support for the Junta. Mind you i suppose its the same as some British people who supported Hitler. What a principled lot you left wingers are.
We know you would rather they belonged to your hero General Galtieri
Stelios, as staterd previously, its not often you are correct..... and, well, you are wrong again. Apart from the fact you do not know me, you make a horrendous assumption that general galtieri is my hero, all on the wrong assumption that, because the malvinas belonged to argentina before the british land grabbed it, by pointing this out to you, you see me as a fervrant supporter of him?
may i suggest that to bring yourself quickly up to date, you spare 5 minutes actually reading and absorbing the malvinas history? perhaps myself and other posters may then be spared your obscenity hurling and smearing as, hero worshippers of war criminals.
By ludicrously describing the british islanders living on the malvinas as ''indiginious people'' its clear you do not understand the definition of what indiginious people means.
To give you an example, there are currently islands in scotland that are bereft of people, people lived there in the past but have since left, they are uninhabited. According to your logic, the one you use for the malvinas, if the argentinians landed people on the islands, (settlers/invaders/occupiers/squatters) and they build a hut, they would then become indiginious peoples would they? and that island would now belong to argentina? becuase that is what you are saying in regards to the malvinas, its plainly absurd.
By labelling people with descriptions, such as left left wingers, you are transparent that you do so, to put people in nice little boxes for you to obtain your higher, self imagined,self delusional moral judgements, therbey massaging your little ego, and putting yourself on your higher little mound.
The way you warp and twist peoples words into a nice little labelled box, ie hitler lover, war criminal supporter, to enable you to go about preaching your ingnorance on a whole matter of subjects, is quite frankly, breathtakingly idiotic and highly revealing.
As far as i am concerned, at this moment, until you spend 5 minutes absorbing the history of the malvinas, you are nothing more than a figure of ridicule.
So please go on labelling me a hitle lover, a war criminal supporter and all the rest, because as we have read your posts, they are almost never ever correct, and you are wrong again.
I know i am wasting my breath here, but one last time, before britain land grabbed the malvinas, who did they belong to?
Whichever political party you are now flag waving and cheering for, i am sure you will have a very bright future as a spin doctor for them, your hysterical observation and declaration that the current british expats, now squatting on the malvinas, as indiginous people is, well ROTFLMFAO.
She buggered it so much the decent Tories had to throw her out because they knew the dumb electorate, full of the likes of yourself, would keep voting her in to power,
Stop and think what you just said, BC. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
I said that enough people in the Conservative party realized her appeal to the lowest common denominator ( Sun readers) would keep getting her elected but there were enough Conservative MPs who realiized that her continuing in power would be ruinous for the country. They were sufficiently patriotic to realise she had to go.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
