Conspiracy theorists often do not have the benefit to deal with hard facts merely something as a secondary.
No, I don't think people in the Church have been freaking out. I've just seen a few comments here and in other places, like Blue Pigeon's, implying something special and vaguely threatening about the Pope being a Jesuit. None of them have given anything specific about why they think it's an issue. Even when I've asked.
Oh, I see. My apologies, I missunderstood.
As for the reasons, I have no idea. I seem to remember there's a sci-fi book somewhere which features a pretty terrible Pope who's a Jesuit, but other than that, I don't know.
Moderate leftist reforms are probably the best way to avoid an actual communist revolution. So in that sense, he may be right about then helping keep control of South America out of the hands of Marxism and the Communist Party. :)
Maybe in theory. In practice, Latin American death squads are as much likely to shoot Liberation Theologists as Communists, so that can't be it...
More generally, is this why people are freaking out about a Jesuit pope? Because Jesuits are scary lefties?
And the later part of the conversation:
I think Jesuit conspiracy theories are for Protestant types what Freemason conspiracy theories are for Catholic types. Historically speaking (Counter-Reformation, Jansenist vs. Jesuits, etc.).
If I were to speculate, I'd say it probably comes from a mixture of Enlightenment-derived anti-clericalism and Protestant anti-Catholic bigotry.
|
Well, if you took an island by force and populated it with your own people that voting result is natural.
Off course the fact that 99% of the Falklands population just voted to stay British will be ignored..after all that was a democratic process.
This might come across as snarky but it is a genuine question:
What is the statute of limitations on that? Where would you put it?
Because, well, that could just as easily be a description of almost every inch of both North and South America, including Argentina.
Pro-British people:
The real answer, of course, is THERE WASN'T ANYONE ON THE F~*@ING ISLANDS!!!
At least not the first time.
When the Brits "kicked out" the Argentines back in 1833, there were less than 50 people on the island, and some of them were already British nationals, and most of them stayed under the Brits.
That being said, I would still like to see Margaret Thatcher hung for war crimes.
|
|
Pro-British people:
The real answer, of course, is THERE WASN'T ANYONE ON THE F$@@ING ISLANDS!!!
At least not the first time.
When the Brits "kicked out" the Argentines back in 1833, there were less than 50 people on the island, and some of them were already British nationals, and most of them stayed under the Brits.
That being said, I would still like to see Margaret Thatcher hung for war crimes.
That ship has sailed, man: she wouldn't be deemed fit to stand trial any more.
Tony Blair, on the other hand...
That being said, I would still like to see Margaret Thatcher hung for war crimes.Even though you don't think it was a crime. Hmm...
Actually, if you scroll up above, you will see that I think both sides were plutocratic war criminals.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What bracket? That they both were waging an idiotic war to relieve social pressure back home? Maybe I am silly...
Btw, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, I was all for overthrowing and then executing them, too.
malvinas is complicated, but ultimately there are legal principles relevant to it, and which can inform some sort of resolution. we can see in the recent hague case of nicaragua/colombia, a legal resolution which was able to give some satisfaction to valid claims of one party, while minimally intruding on the other party. there really is no ultimate legal standard of territorial limits, beyond sovereign countries recognition of other states' sovereign territory, and recognition of laws relevant to that.
until some agreement can be come to, the uk or falklands can obviously not expect full cooperation from argentina, as well as the many countries (especially in the region) which reject the UK's position and support negotiations with argentina. nothing can force a sovereign state to cooperate with another state that it doesn't want to. if this causes enough problems for the falklands that the situation is unbearable, then it obviously doesn't have the material basis for a sovereign existence independent of argentina. i hope some negotation and compromise will eventually come to pass, it seems beneficial for all sides.
|
Btw, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, I was all for overthrowing and then executing them, too.
I alway love how every communist always says, "Of course, I wouldn't do it the way Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... Wel, every other communist leader did it." So much for the lessons of history.
I think you'll find for most British people, this was about defending British interests and citizens. I think strayshift is thinking with 20:20 hindsight - in the 80's there was very little prospect of oil, the technology wasn't there, and nor was any oil discovered. It's still arguably isn't now. And I don't think the UK government would get much of it anyway, th government of the island owns the rights to the oil as far as I am aware. Sorry if his cousin suffered but he signed up for the Marines voluntarily.
|
|
I belive Indigenous people from north to south america have been terrible mistreated all this years. But unlike the malvinas, giving all the terrytory to the aborigines seems imposible. I do believe the situation should be improved for the aborigines, and part of their territory shold be returned to them.Well, if you took an island by force and populated it with your own people that voting result is natural.
Off course the fact that 99% of the Falklands population just voted to stay British will be ignored..after all that was a democratic process.
This might come across as snarky but it is a genuine question:
What is the statute of limitations on that? Where would you put it?
Because, well, that could just as easily be a description of almost every inch of both North and South America, including Argentina.
Fair enough, but can we even say that the Falklands have aborigines?
Btw, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, I was all for overthrowing and then executing them, too.I alway love how every communist always says, "Of course, I wouldn't do it the way Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... Wel, every other communist leader did it." So much for the lessons of history.
Those are only the ones without beards.
I'm the other kind.
Fair enough, but can we even say that the Falklands have aborigines?I belive Indigenous people from north to south america have been terrible mistreated all this years. But unlike the malvinas, giving all the terrytory to the aborigines seems imposible. I do believe the situation should be improved for the aborigines, and part of their territory shold be returned to them.Well, if you took an island by force and populated it with your own people that voting result is natural.
Off course the fact that 99% of the Falklands population just voted to stay British will be ignored..after all that was a democratic process.
This might come across as snarky but it is a genuine question:
What is the statute of limitations on that? Where would you put it?
Because, well, that could just as easily be a description of almost every inch of both North and South America, including Argentina.
No, we can't. Because there weren't any indigenous population living on the island before the Argentines tried to set up a colony in 1833.
So sayeth Wikipedia.
*Ninja'ed*
If you're referring to the CIA, they funded and trained those death squads that took out Romero and the others. They did everything but pull the triggers themselves. How much more staunch can you get?I will say one thing just about the Jesuits. They were instrumental in keeping control of South America out of the hands of Marxism and the Communist Party. Even though their beliefs often put them in the cross-hairs numerous times.Which instances?
Jesuits have always stood on the left side of the political spectrum. There is a reason they are sometimes called "Red Priests" around these parts.
Keep in mind the Company is very, very close to the Liberation Theology. I don't think they were ever friends of some of the more extreme leftist movements of Latin America, but they were far from being staunch opposers.
Oh, no, no. I was speaking of the Jesuits. "The Company" or "The Society" are often used to refer to them (in Castillian, it's official name is "La Compañia de Jesus").
My apologies for the confusion. I didn't know the CIA was also called "The Company".
Okay I am lost nothing new there but what war crimes did Thatcher commit?
Which as you can see, was quite a source of controversy back in the day, and can still start internet arguments 30 years later!
Favorite part from the Wikipedia page:
After the show, Thatcher's husband Denis lashed out at the producer of the show in the entertainment suite, saying that his wife had been "stitched up by bloody BBC poofs and Trots."[35]
Vive le Galt!
|
So they were at war and they sank the enemies boat which was a threat to the Birttish forces? I am not sure where the war crimes comes in, nor why Margaret should be brought up on them?
I guess supposedly Argentine had filed for peace or something but Brittian had not responded yet had destroyer which had missiles which could hit Brittish forces nearby? I still don't get it.
I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read the new pope is anti birth control, abortion, homosexuality, celibate priests and women as in the church. One more conservative pope. Sigh.
I thought war crimes can only occur against real European type countries not escaped colonies like Argentina or something like that. I mean is Spain upset that Britian did that? If so I guess restotution should be made if not, why bother.
Now as for democrocies versus facists well lets be honest one group is the baddies and the other is the good guys. Facists groups like to wear skulls on their helmets and hats while the allies have eagles and circles.
Here is a quotation to backup my arguement Facistsarebad.
If you're referring to the CIA, they funded and trained those death squads that took out Romero and the others. They did everything but pull the triggers themselves. How much more staunch can you get?I will say one thing just about the Jesuits. They were instrumental in keeping control of South America out of the hands of Marxism and the Communist Party. Even though their beliefs often put them in the cross-hairs numerous times.Which instances?
Jesuits have always stood on the left side of the political spectrum. There is a reason they are sometimes called "Red Priests" around these parts.
Keep in mind the Company is very, very close to the Liberation Theology. I don't think they were ever friends of some of the more extreme leftist movements of Latin America, but they were far from being staunch opposers.
Speaking of CIA.
I can highly recommend the documentary CIA: Secret Wars (CIA: Guerres secrètes) by William Karel.
I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read the new pope is anti birth control, abortion, homosexuality, celibate priests and women as in the church. One more conservative pope. Sigh.As I said before, what did you expect? A hippie free-love pope?
A pope that thinks its ok for a priest to marry is a hippie free-love pope?
Cut down on the hyperbole.I didn’t expect anything but a conservative pope, but I did hope for some change.
I think his focus on poverty is a big plus.
If it’s true it’s a plus, but coming from a church, that is the only religious community in Sweden that rips poor and uneducated people of their income by force taxing them doesn’t sound trustworthy to me.
He's also supported using condoms to fight the spread of disease, which is nice change.
So the rumors say, but I have seen no proof of that.
So they were at war and they sank the enemies boat which was a threat to the Birttish forces? I am not sure where the war crimes comes in, nor why Margaret should be brought up on them?
I guess supposedly Argentine had filed for peace or something but Brittian had not responded yet had destroyer which had missiles which could hit Brittish forces nearby? I still don't get it.
Well, the argument goes, I believe, that, actually, there never was, legally speaking, a state of war between the two powers. The British imposed a "Total Exclusion Zone" around the islands 200 miles in any direction (see map: the islands are only 300 miles from Argentina), then changed the rules saying they could sink any Argentine ship in the South Atlantic that they wanted, then sunk the Belgrano while it was outside of the Total Exclusion Zone and was apparently heading back to Argentina.
At least, that was the argument employed by anti-Maggie, pro-Hang Thatcher! Brits for a while. I read on the internet that some Britsh Major General wrote a book in 2011 purporting to show that Maggie did nothing wrong.
Anyway, I know it probably doesn't sound like much to Americans, whose leaders routinely commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye and continue to use drones to blow up babies, but, there it is.
|
|
Part of Thatcher's problem is that she seemed like the kind of person who could commit a war crime and not lose any sleep over it.
Whereas someone like Blair gives it the puppy dog eyes and tells that 'the thing is..." and suddenly nobody notices that he's telling fibs to parliament and taking the piss out of the country just so that he can join a depleted-uranium party with some swaggering foereigner in a silly hat.
I'm not a fan of Thatcher but, in reality, it seems that domestic policy informs the domestic view of your foreign policy.
Thatcher was hard-nosed snob who took pride in stamping on her opponents and presided over the death of British industry.
So, she's a war criminal.
Blair was a touchy-feely unifier who oversaw an improvement in health care, education and the basic standad of living.
So, he is an international peace envoy.
From what I watch of British TV Blair is reviled almost as much as Maggie, by lefty wags on the BBC.
Maggie might be the Milk Thief...but Blair and his wife are made out to be dodgy and profiteering.
I support hanging Blair, too.
|
|
From what I watch of British TV Blair is reviled almost as much as Maggie, by lefty wags on the BBC.
Maggie might be the Milk Thief...but Blair and his wife are made out to be dodgy and profiteering.
Well, satirists are meant to mock everyone with power but there is a distinction:
Thatcher is reviled as a heartless monster.
Blair is just a smooth-talking chancer.
Well, satirists are meant to mock everyone with power
No they are not,
and not in the same way,and not by the same satirist.
but there is a distinction: Thatcher is reviled as a heartless monster.Blair is just a smooth-talking chancer.
That is you reading. I don’t agree. The first one with Eddie is a religious satire with 4 second on Thatcher and the second is almost five minutes of Blair mockery, were everything from War crimes to violation of civil rights are brought up.
Ye right, poor Thatcher. Someone made fun of her.Also, the Thatcher and the Blair satire are made by different satirists, why are you even comparing them?
Even if they had been made by the same satirists they wouldn’t be the same, because satirists pick well known traits and make fun of them. Thatcher is not Blair and Blair is not Thatcher. Obviously they don’t have the same traits.
|
|
So, focus on the shoddiness of examples that I spent about 30 second finding on youtube.
And I can't compare across satirists? I have to spend days combing the internet for satires about Thatcher and Blair which are of equal length and depth by the same satirist to provide a proper evidence base for a discussion on an internet message board?
And when did I suggest that I felt sorry for Thatcher?
Why not consider my actual point.
My point is that they could both be tried for war crimes.
And Blair would have a stronger case against him.
But my experience is that Maggie is more reviled.
And this is because of domestic policy, not international policy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I support hanging Blair, too.
Is there anybody who you would be against hanging?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support hanging Blair, too.Is there anybody who you would be against hanging?
Bush Jr. I believe I recall Anklebiter saying that he should be quartered, instead of hanged.
I support hanging Blair, too.Is there anybody who you would be against hanging?
I was thinking of starting a thread--Ask Comrade Anklebiter--where people could ask me whether person X should be hung or not.
But I decided against it.
Three people who I would be against hanging, off the top of my head:
Lance Armstrong
Oprah Winfrey
Justin Bieber
I support hanging Blair, too.Is there anybody who you would be against hanging?I was thinking of starting a thread--Ask Comrade Anklebiter--where people could ask me whether person X should be hung or not.
But I decided against it.
Three people who I would be against hanging, off the top of my head:
Lance Armstrong
Oprah Winfrey
Justin Bieber
Is that because you are thinking of another method of killing them?
You should totaly start that thread...I have thought about it myself...but would get depressed because probably no body would ask me anything.
I support hanging Blair, too.Is there anybody who you would be against hanging?I was thinking of starting a thread--Ask Comrade Anklebiter--where people could ask me whether person X should be hung or not.
But I decided against it.
Three people who I would be against hanging, off the top of my head:
Lance Armstrong
Oprah Winfrey
Justin Bieber
I wanted to make a joke about hanging and Armstrong, but his sleazy fake charity (takes in huge piles, hasn't spent a dime funding research in years, mostly runs a very cheap hotline operation and the rest goes into his pockets) came to mind.
So instead I'll just say that I have never quite understood the venomous hatred Bieber gets. He's a teen idol marketed to teenage girls, just like any number before him. I understand why teenage heterosexual boys would dislike him since he's perceived competition. (When I was in high school, every straight male hated Hanson.) But come on, adults? That's like going around bashing on Sesame Street.
So, comrade, how would you feel about hanging...
...
...
my coat?
To avoid accusations of chivalry and chauvinism, goblins just throw their coats--and all of their clothes--on the floor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's like going around bashing on Sesame Street.
I'd hang Elmo. He sucks.
Grover forever!!
Beiber is a crime against music.....
Back to left wing comics calling Blair a war criminal.... Ross Noble on some panel show (Have I Got News for You) chaired by one one of Blairs cronies, called him a war criminal, It has been said on the News Quiz and the Now Show, also John Oliver on his podcast has as well.