Falkland Islands' Sovereignty Threatened?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Boy you are really fucking reaching for this arnt you.

I don't know if it's 'reaching', Seems more like flailing to me. Trying to hit on every possible point of conflict. I mean, which is more like Mertokuria's approach? Someone dangling from a tree branch, stretching for an apple? Or someone in a field of sunflowers, trying to knock the head off every single one?

Actually yeah that is more suitable.

[The Islands of Versilia]

I don't know if it's 'reaching', Seems more like flailing to me. Trying to hit on every possible point of conflict. I mean, which is more like Mertokuria's approach? Someone dangling from a tree branch, stretching for an apple? Or someone in a field of sunflowers, trying to knock the head off every single one?

Actually yeah that is more suitable.

Well, this bugger's a rude one, isn't he?

[Valaran]

This is not propaganda. At least there is no in the cartoon (it is told there that Argentina lost the war). It is just glorification for the fallen soldiers.

m8

I don't think 'one-sided' even covers the level of crap in that. Random jets blowing p British ships? Random punching racist visualizations of Gurkas in the face? Random 'let's just say its Argentinean and omit that the legal issue is complex'? randomly pretending the war was anything but one-sided?

Yes, you do but in an other dirrection. You are told how UK is evil for being successful by having colonies around the world.

No, its called taking account about the fact in addition to being successful, we caused, at various points, starvation, massacres, and slavery. We aren't told 'the uk is evil', but we are given facts about the benefits the Empire brought, and the stains on its record.

I prefer actually the Argentine approach since it strenghening positive values like patriotism.

Patriotism > morality amirite?

[The Islands of Versilia]

Ye know what? Bugger this, I've 'ad enough of this knobhead's banter.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Wow. Somehow, having spent enough time around english, I've never once heard any expression of this mentality.

It is enough to see National Geographic where there is constant documentaries about christianity in the negative sence. About the Crusaders, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and so on.

Well, none of us suggested it would be a declaration of war, because obviously it isn't. We're not as hair-trigger as North Korea.

How you propose doing it is a meaningless escalation of tensions. If you truly cared, you would call for - and I'm sure at official remembrances this is probably the case - both sides to be commemorated without preference.

Why should be without preference? There was no Catholics fighting for the British side in the Malvinas war.

Ah so you have a source then that says not a single British soldier, pilot, sailor or other military personnel that fought in the war was a Catholic?

Mind sharing it?

edit: Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock

[The Huskar Social Union]

It is enough to see National Geographic where there is constant documentaries about christianity in the negative sence. About the Crusaders, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and so on.

Why should be without preference? There was no Catholics fighting for the British side in the Malvinas war.

Ah so you have a source then that says not a single British soldier, pilot, sailor or other military personnel that fought in the war was a Catholic?

Mind sharing it?

edit: Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock

Im waiting.

[North Arkana]

...

Well, yes, Argentine jets tried to blow British ships back than. It is not propaganda. The visualisation of Gurkas is not racist, it is your political correct complex. The Gurkas is punched in the face because he was on the side of the brits. The Argentines represents their arguments and it is ok.


Well that is also one-sided view of history. If you were true than why not to speak about positive sides of colonialism? Oh yes, it is racist so the Brits cowardly ignored it.


Patriotism and morality do not counter each other. Patriotism is a moral value so every moral good person should also be a patriot.

The Schutzstaffel called. They said they're patriots and to stop demonizing them. /s

[Valaran]

Well, yes, Argentine jets tried to blow British ships back than. It is not propaganda. The visualisation of Gurkas is not racist, it is your political correct complex. The Gurkas is punched in the face because he was on the side of the brits. The Argentines represents their arguments and it is ok.

'and it is ok'. For you, maybe.

Well that is also one-sided view of history. If you were true than why not to speak about positive sides of colonialism? Oh yes, it is racist so the Brits cowardly ignored it.

Bluntly, I don't think you know too much about the British Empire.

Patriotism and morality do not counter each other. Patriotism is a moral value so every moral good person should also be a patriot.

Patriotism is not always a moral value.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Ah so you have a source then that says not a single British soldier, pilot, sailor or other military personnel that fought in the war was a Catholic?

Mind sharing it?

edit: Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock

I dont have a source for that that is why I ask for a one. It is also very plausible since UK has only 5-10% of Catholic so there was no great chances for having catholic soldiers. Also, back in the 1980s Catholic were being murdered by the UK government.

Hahahahahaha! Hahahahahahahaha!
Oh, my God!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Valaran]

Also, since everyone should be patriots, in that case, why should any patriotic Brit think about giving up the Falklands?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ah so you have a source then that says not a single British soldier, pilot, sailor or other military personnel that fought in the war was a Catholic?

Mind sharing it?

edit: Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock

I dont have a source for that that is why I ask for a one. It is also very plausible since UK has only 5-10% of Catholic so there was no great chances for having catholic soldiers. Also, back in the 1980s Catholic were being murdered by the UK government.

Ah so you dont have a source then.

See this is how an argument works: when you make a claim, you back it up with sources and evidence, you dont sit and wait whilst asking others to back it up for you.

And 5-10% is still a sizeable minority and still leaves room for a good number of catholic soldiers, it does not mean there would be none all together.

And the fact that Catholics were being killed by British forces(obviously referring to the troubles here) does not mean that every single catholic in the UK or elsewhere is going to be universally opposed to the British Government. Because that is not how people work.

so in short, stop talking out your ass.

[Imperial isa]

Mertokuria just stop before you hurt yourself.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ah so you have a source then that says not a single British soldier, pilot, sailor or other military personnel that fought in the war was a Catholic?

Mind sharing it?

edit: Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock

I dont have a source for that that is why I ask for a one. It is also very plausible since UK has only 5-10% of Catholic so there was no great chances for having catholic soldiers. Also, back in the 1980s Catholic were being murdered by the UK government.

Your problem seems to be believing that both the Falklands War and The Troubles were solely religious conflicts, where the evil Protestant Brits came to crush the uppity Catholics.

To reiterate an earlier point, it's not the 1600s anymore.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ah so you dont have a source then.

See this is how an argument works: when you make a claim, you back it up with sources and evidence, you dont sit and wait whilst asking others to back it up for you.

And 5-10% is still a sizeable minority and still leaves room for a good number of catholic soldiers, it does not mean there would be none all together.

And the fact that Catholics were being killed by British forces(obviously referring to the troubles here) does not mean that every single catholic in the UK or elsewhere is going to be universally opposed to the British Government. Because that is not how people work.

so in short, stop talking out your ass.

I do not have a source. It is on your part to proove otherwise. Why should the Church make some mass commemoration for British soldiers if there was no Catholics in them?

Why should the church commemorate fallen soldiers just because they're Catholic?
Why not just commemorate fallen soldiers, period, since a life cut tragically short knows no religion.

[Valaran]

Actually that is how to most world funcioning.

[citation needed]

the Brits are self-haters.

[citation needed]
Also, even though we're self haters (allegedly), and yet we still won? Maybe self-hating is the key!

I would say that it is a moral value, and a humanistic one. Another things is when some bad things are justified by patriotism.

The same would go let say for gay rights. If some fanatical gay activist comits terror attacks on innocent civilians in name of gay right, it does not turn the whole concept as immoral.

But patriotism is more readily used for immorality than lgbt rights.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ah so you dont have a source then.

See this is how an argument works: when you make a claim, you back it up with sources and evidence, you dont sit and wait whilst asking others to back it up for you.

And 5-10% is still a sizeable minority and still leaves room for a good number of catholic soldiers, it does not mean there would be none all together.

And the fact that Catholics were being killed by British forces(obviously referring to the troubles here) does not mean that every single catholic in the UK or elsewhere is going to be universally opposed to the British Government. Because that is not how people work.

so in short, stop talking out your ass.

I do not have a source. It is on your part to proove otherwise.

No its on your part to prove what you said as that is how an argument works, back up your points and claims. YOU have yet to give evidence for your argument, so i dont have to do jack shit other than sit back and laugh as you continue to desperately reach for things to try and cobble together a somewhat coherent point, to which you are failing miserably.

So back up your damn shit, or do you not understand the concept of "burden of proof"?

Why should the Church make some mass commemoration for British soldiers if there was no Catholics in them?

...

Ah.. i said nothing about this? Nothing at all, you are the one talking about commemorating dead soldiers with a mass, i made no mention of it what so ever, so to be frank, what the fuck are you talking about?

EDIT: Also the Falkland was not a religious war which you seem to believe it was given some of your posts, neither was the Troubles solely a religious war.

[Godular]

Ah so you dont have a source then.

See this is how an argument works: when you make a claim, you back it up with sources and evidence, you dont sit and wait whilst asking others to back it up for you.

And 5-10% is still a sizeable minority and still leaves room for a good number of catholic soldiers, it does not mean there would be none all together.

And the fact that Catholics were being killed by British forces(obviously referring to the troubles here) does not mean that every single catholic in the UK or elsewhere is going to be universally opposed to the British Government. Because that is not how people work.

so in short, stop talking out your ass.

I do not have a source. It is on your part to proove otherwise. Why should the Church make some mass commemoration for British soldiers if there was no Catholics in them?

You and burden of proof don't get on much, do you?

[Valaran]

It is on your part to proove otherwise.

Actually, no. You said there were no catholics. You prove it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Your problem seems to be believing that both the Falklands War and The Troubles were solely religious conflicts, where the evil Protestant Brits came to crush the uppity Catholics.

To reiterate an earlier point, it's not the 1600s anymore.

It was not religious conflicts, nor did I claim it. I just suggested reason why should the Church be more sympathetic to the anti-british sides.

And this was not my point of the thread. It was that on this day the Argentine liberated Malvinas. So it is good to remember this day and commemorate it.

If one accepts the Argentine argument that the Falklanders are not a native population and are in fact an implanted British population, then no "liberation" can possibly have taken place.

[Godular]

No its on your part to prove what you said as that is how an argument works, back up your points and claims. YOU have yet to give evidence for your argument, so i dont have to do jack shit other than sit back and laugh as you continue to desperately reach for things to try and cobble together a somewhat coherent point, to which you are failing miserably.

So back up your damn shit, or do you not understand the concept of "burden of proof"?

...

Ah.. i said nothing about this? Nothing at all, you are the one talking about commemorating dead soldiers with a mass, i made no mention of it what so ever, so to be frank, what the fuck are you talking about?

EDIT: Also the Falkland was not a religious war which you seem to believe it was given some of your posts, neither was the Troubles solely a religious war.

The line of argumentation was following. One poster said the Church should commemorate both sides of the war. I replied that why should both sides, and that it would be not logical if there was no Catholics there. After you jumped with this.

I said therfore to give some figures how many catholics were there in the British army back than.

I'm curious how one gets 'Catholic' whenever somebody says church.

[Imperializt Russia]

If one accepts the Argentine argument that the Falklanders are not a native population and are in fact an implanted British population, then no "liberation" can possibly have taken place.

Actually it can. The liberation of the land is important. The British living there could integrate into Argentinians society or move back to England.

Then they're not being liberated, they're being conquered and forcibly ejected from the island if they do not wish to, y'know, be forcibly integrated into a country they want no part of.

[Ifreann]

If one accepts the Argentine argument that the Falklanders are not a native population and are in fact an implanted British population, then no "liberation" can possibly have taken place.

Actually it can. The liberation of the land is important. The British living there could integrate into Argentinians society or move back to England.

Back to England? They've probably never been to England.

[The Huskar Social Union]

No its on your part to prove what you said as that is how an argument works, back up your points and claims. YOU have yet to give evidence for your argument, so i dont have to do jack shit other than sit back and laugh as you continue to desperately reach for things to try and cobble together a somewhat coherent point, to which you are failing miserably.

So back up your damn shit, or do you not understand the concept of "burden of proof"?

...

Ah.. i said nothing about this? Nothing at all, you are the one talking about commemorating dead soldiers with a mass, i made no mention of it what so ever, so to be frank, what the fuck are you talking about?

EDIT: Also the Falkland was not a religious war which you seem to believe it was given some of your posts, neither was the Troubles solely a religious war.

The line of argumentation was following. One poster said the Church should commemorate both sides of the war. I replied that why should both sides, and that it would be not logical if there was no Catholics there. After you jumped with this.

I said therfore to give some figures how many catholics were there in the British army back than.

You said there were no cahotlic on the British side first and you failed to prove this. You dont get to then go around and say "well show me otherwise" when you brought no damn evidence forward in the first place to back you up. Also i am not talking about mass commemorations i never mentioned them at all, so im not even arguing that point, someone else is, i am talking to you about this point.

You again also seem to have this mistaken notion the Falklands war was a religious war because you keep bring religion up time and time again, in fact you brought Catholicism into this current argument first:

Because the Argentinians are faithfull to the Church, while UK always hostile. If I was pope Francis I would order Catholic bishops in UK to make a mass for the fallen Argentine soldiers, as part of a provocation. The UK gov could not do anything.

It is not a religious war, it is a territorial war.

[The Huskar Social Union]

If one accepts the Argentine argument that the Falklanders are not a native population and are in fact an implanted British population, then no "liberation" can possibly have taken place.

Actually it can. The liberation of the land is important. The British living there could integrate into Argentinians society or move back to England.

They dont have to do jack shit, the Falklands are their homes.

Anyyyway here is great Argentinian patriotic song:

Marcha a las Malvinas Argentinas

Yeah its clear what your intentions are, being that you have no inclination of having a serious debate, this is a waste of fucking time.

[Godular]

Anyyyway here is great Argentinian patriotic song:

Marcha a las Malvinas Argentinas

Crappy debate tactics 101: when your point is shown for the crap it is, propaganda propaganda propaganda!