Argentina vows to defend her interests after oil discovery
12 May 2010, 11:48 AM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet i produced evidence of the 'fact's from Maggies own autobiography and you have not managed to back up anything you claim, why would i look to change my opinion based on your heresay alone?
12 May 2010, 11:54 AM
#92
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact remains there is a lot of doubt over the official version of events, just because you choose not to question them doesn't mean I can't
Whatever Paul, you can now write some other smart arsed reply and I hope it makes you feel good about yourself.
12 May 2010, 12:40 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you can't see that Maggie would hardly write anything else then I give up.
The fact remains there is a lot of doubt over the official version of events, just because you choose not to question them doesn't mean I can't
Whatever Paul, you can now write some other smart arsed reply and I hope it makes you feel good about yourself.
The fact remains there is a lot of doubt over the official version of events, just because you choose not to question them doesn't mean I can't
Whatever Paul, you can now write some other smart arsed reply and I hope it makes you feel good about yourself.
'Whatever', is that the best you got Viki!
How about you just put up or shut up. YOU provide something other than hot air to back up your accusation which you made/gave as if it was a fact.
So far i have done so you and yet you have not...
Not a smart ar$ed reply now is it.
12 May 2010, 12:46 PM
#94
Paul, you are wasting your time with F1.
You could line up the entire Argentine government and old junta and have them say it was not a war crime and F1 would not believe them and simply direct them to the book he is going on about.
You could line up the entire Argentine government and old junta and have them say it was not a war crime and F1 would not believe them and simply direct them to the book he is going on about.
12 May 2010, 12:55 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It slighly irks me that if i or indeed anyone esle had made such a bold statement and then not been able to back it up whatsoever then F1 would have gone for the jugular.
So far all we have is that F1 fan read it in a book once so it must be true, Thatcher own memoirs and the FACT that she or her government have never stood trial for this 'war crime' speaks volumes.
Even the Argentine skipper said it was an act of war.
Yet F1 goes blindly on ignoring the facts, uanble to back up what he said, with his own falklands faireytale.
I am sure it is all a Daily Mail, right wing, wop-hating fascist conspiracy that kept this war crime quiet all these years
What next - those nasty SAS bullies attacking the Iranian Embassy out of spite
Last edited by The Zohan; 12 May 2010 at 12:57 PM.
12 May 2010, 01:03 PM
#96
This thread reads like a Hollywood version of history, coming to a cinema near you!
Last edited by SJ_Skyline; 12 May 2010 at 01:04 PM.
12 May 2010, 01:52 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey here is an idea, instead of resorting to all patting each other on the back about how clever you all are why not open your minds and do a bit of research and then tell me there are not a lot of facts surounding the whole Belgrano incident that at least leaves it open to question.
I mean quoting the government report and Thatcher's statement is hardly unbiased evidence, after all Blair says he didnt know about the lack of WMD in Iraq - does that make it the truth?
As for irking you Paul after all your xenophobic immigrant noinsense of the last few weeks all I can say is that is good news.
Was it a war crime, as far as I am concerned yes. My opinion and that is that!
I mean quoting the government report and Thatcher's statement is hardly unbiased evidence, after all Blair says he didnt know about the lack of WMD in Iraq - does that make it the truth?
As for irking you Paul after all your xenophobic immigrant noinsense of the last few weeks all I can say is that is good news.
Was it a war crime, as far as I am concerned yes. My opinion and that is that!
12 May 2010, 03:12 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey here is an idea, instead of resorting to all patting each other on the back about how clever you all are why not open your minds and do a bit of research and then tell me there are not a lot of facts surounding the whole Belgrano incident that at least leaves it open to question.
I mean quoting the government report and Thatcher's statement is hardly unbiased evidence, after all Blair says he didnt know about the lack of WMD in Iraq - does that make it the truth?
As for irking you Paul after all your xenophobic immigrant noinsense of the last few weeks all I can say is that is good news.
Was it a war crime, as far as I am concerned yes. My opinion and that is that!
I mean quoting the government report and Thatcher's statement is hardly unbiased evidence, after all Blair says he didnt know about the lack of WMD in Iraq - does that make it the truth?
As for irking you Paul after all your xenophobic immigrant noinsense of the last few weeks all I can say is that is good news.
Was it a war crime, as far as I am concerned yes. My opinion and that is that!
suddenly your war crime is just that, your not so humble opinion as i pointed out a while ago. Nothing to back it up and when pressed you just resort to insultsl. As for opening our minds, pot and kettle eh!
Suprisingly i expected more from you. I thought you where smarter and better than that.
Ta, ta, i am done here.
Last edited by The Zohan; 12 May 2010 at 03:14 PM.
12 May 2010, 03:30 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul, this is an Internet forum. It is about opinions. As I said dig a little and see what you find. One man's evidence is another man's conjecture. Thatcher saying she did not do it is not really enough for me.
OK I am really done this time!
OK I am really done this time!
12 May 2010, 03:31 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because i do not trust Blair one little bit, having met and interviewed him (back in 2000) when he was PM i saw him and his spin boys in action thank you. One thng about Maggie, she told it like it was and whiilst i do not really like her i do believe her rather than a leftie journo trying to sell his book
As i have said, so do not make out otherwise. Iif i am wrong i will glady admit it. The ownus is on you to produce the facts that back up your assertion that the sinking was a war crime and you claim to have Maggies words albeit in a biography and i have producer Maggies own words in her Autobiography ststing otherwise.
Finally - why do you not trust nor believe Thatcher yet are happy to believe a leftie Guardian columist?
As i have said, so do not make out otherwise. Iif i am wrong i will glady admit it. The ownus is on you to produce the facts that back up your assertion that the sinking was a war crime and you claim to have Maggies words albeit in a biography and i have producer Maggies own words in her Autobiography ststing otherwise.
Finally - why do you not trust nor believe Thatcher yet are happy to believe a leftie Guardian columist?
Les
12 May 2010, 07:01 PM
#103
f1_fan - even if everything happened exactly as you say it did I'm still struggling to see how this qualifies as a war crime. We were at war at the time, there was no signed peace agreement, the Belgrano was a military not civilian ship. As far as I understand it would not have been a war crime if we had sunk it in Buenos Aires harbour as total exclusion zones have never been intended to limit the arena of action between warring factions and certainly have no bearing on whether an act is a war crime or not.
I similarly don't think Blair is a war criminal. While invading a sovereign nation for the purpose of regime change is a violation of international law without an authorising UN resolution, this is not technically a war crime. Some of the actions during the occupation of Iraq could be argued to be war crimes. The Geneva Convention is very prescriptive in terms of what an occupying power can and cannot do to civilians and prisoners of war - the US has tried to get around this by recategorizing various people as "unlawful combatants", although this was never firmly enshrined in international law, so there was an element of them making it up as they went along.
My own view is that Blair believed wholeheartedly that Iraq did have WMD - he was simply manipulated by Iraqi exiles and dissident factions in the Iraqi regime into serving their purposes - which makes him naive not a criminal.
I similarly don't think Blair is a war criminal. While invading a sovereign nation for the purpose of regime change is a violation of international law without an authorising UN resolution, this is not technically a war crime. Some of the actions during the occupation of Iraq could be argued to be war crimes. The Geneva Convention is very prescriptive in terms of what an occupying power can and cannot do to civilians and prisoners of war - the US has tried to get around this by recategorizing various people as "unlawful combatants", although this was never firmly enshrined in international law, so there was an element of them making it up as they went along.
My own view is that Blair believed wholeheartedly that Iraq did have WMD - he was simply manipulated by Iraqi exiles and dissident factions in the Iraqi regime into serving their purposes - which makes him naive not a criminal.
14 May 2010, 03:08 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
f1_fan - even if everything happened exactly as you say it did I'm still struggling to see how this qualifies as a war crime. We were at war at the time, there was no signed peace agreement, the Belgrano was a military not civilian ship. As far as I understand it would not have been a war crime if we had sunk it in Buenos Aires harbour as total exclusion zones have never been intended to limit the arena of action between warring factions and certainly have no bearing on whether an act is a war crime or not.
I similarly don't think Blair is a war criminal. While invading a sovereign nation for the purpose of regime change is a violation of international law without an authorising UN resolution, this is not technically a war crime. Some of the actions during the occupation of Iraq could be argued to be war crimes. The Geneva Convention is very prescriptive in terms of what an occupying power can and cannot do to civilians and prisoners of war - the US has tried to get around this by recategorizing various people as "unlawful combatants", although this was never firmly enshrined in international law, so there was an element of them making it up as they went along.
My own view is that Blair believed wholeheartedly that Iraq did have WMD - he was simply manipulated by Iraqi exiles and dissident factions in the Iraqi regime into serving their purposes - which makes him naive not a criminal.
I similarly don't think Blair is a war criminal. While invading a sovereign nation for the purpose of regime change is a violation of international law without an authorising UN resolution, this is not technically a war crime. Some of the actions during the occupation of Iraq could be argued to be war crimes. The Geneva Convention is very prescriptive in terms of what an occupying power can and cannot do to civilians and prisoners of war - the US has tried to get around this by recategorizing various people as "unlawful combatants", although this was never firmly enshrined in international law, so there was an element of them making it up as they went along.
My own view is that Blair believed wholeheartedly that Iraq did have WMD - he was simply manipulated by Iraqi exiles and dissident factions in the Iraqi regime into serving their purposes - which makes him naive not a criminal.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sam Witwicky
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
17
13 November 2015 10:49 AM