World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
No they didn't. You have gone from misrepresentation to straight out lying now.
The UK twice offered Argentina to take the matter to the International Court of Justice. Twice Argentina refused and instead STARTED A WAR. Then got is arse kicked and have been bitching about it ever since.
Still couldn't find any citiation to your statement, but I did find this ...
https://www.ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/
It is literally in the Wikipedia article you keep linking all over this post.
So I guess that proves you didn't read your own sources. You just cherry picked and misrepresented sections of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
I'm not sure that this link really helps your case, given these key points from the description:
The parts you quoted were about self-defense and stopping the fighting, not about the ownership of the islands.
I quote it because it also talks about negotiations that should be begun when it comes to the ownership of the islands, in lieu of continuing the fighting.
I'm already on record about stating that the fighting was wrong, though I don't know how long anyone would expect a nation to wait for a diplomatic solution.
This press release from the UN goes into more detail on the basic structure of what I'm arguing about: https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
(I really shouldn't bother with attempting nuanced conversation on the Internet, it never ends well.)
Negotiations are great, but surely you realize that Argentina shouldn’t expect (or want) to gain sovereignty over the Falklands?
No, quite the opposite actually. I believe they have more of a claim to the islands than anyone else, via Spain's ownership of said lands that Argentina inherited when they gained their independence from Spain, as well as the proximity to Argentina, and finally to the fact that Great Britain was speaking with Argentina about turning them over, before the stupid war was started.
Now, having said that, IANAL, so don't know what the law would say about that. Really don't think we'll resolve the issue here on Lemmy.
I fail to see any tangible benefits of ceding islands inhabited almost exclusively by British and French people to a former Spanish colony, but perhaps you know more than I do.
Considering the French had already ceeded/gave the islands to Spain (which Argentina then inherited from), your comment does not hold weight.
How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit. Can you even name one?
IANAL, but based on what I've read, my understanding that 'historical precedent' is legal and can be argued for in international court of law, when it comes to these kind of issues. It is why it is mentioned so often.
I’m asking for practical advantages, not an interpretation of international law.
I'm speaking of ownership via interpretation of International law, so our conversation is not compatible it seems.
I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
So, just to be clear, you believe that whatever happens should follow the letter of some international law, even if it is disadvantageous to virtually everyone involved? I’m not, nor was I ever, arguing with your claim of legal precedent, and your argument does not make my question “incompatible”; I’m not sure how you convinced yourself of that. It’s a question, and not something you must agree to for the conversation to move forward.
It also talked about the starting negotiations to discuss the future of the Islands, aka return them (because I doubt they would have gone with a timeshare/co-op plan.
There's been other UN discussions on the matter as well: https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
Why return or timeshare/coop, why not sovereignty under British support which is happening right now. And which the people staying there demand.