Verbal

I'm surprised it's so few, but I'll take your word for it. I love the alpine rationale (!) for the rest of the list though. By his logic, Poland was responsible for the holocaust.

It's a bonkers list, pap. For a start, Kosovo and Bosnia were countries on whose soil other countries (Serbia) committed mass murder. Libya and Afghanistan do not, as you say, even come close. However, Iraq is the exception. The US-backed war it fought with Iran probably did exceed the million mark by some distance.

Okay detective, who WAS responsible?

An acquaintance of mine won an Oscar on Sunday night. It was for one of the minor categories admittedly - documentary short. The film was called 'Saving Face', and was about a plastic surgeon who repaired the damage to women's faces after acid attacks in Pakistan. Judging by your (admittedly bizarre) logic, I would have been dissuading her from making it. The problem with you is you have a disordered mind and a tourrets-like posting style, so arguing with you is impossible. I'll leave it at that.

I don't hate anyone, not even feeble minded mini-me's, who are just mildly amusing in ways they'll never be capable of understanding. Now why don't you behave like you're older than eight and go back to the point of the thread.

I see the gormless glutton and the wannabe-turkey woman-hater are double-teaming on the student again. Stick to the argument, geniuses.

Actually the UN didn't. No surprise that you did though.

You're trying to understand something that doesn't really exist to anything like the degree you might think it does. I was in Argentina many times in the eighties, and, aside from the military, never encountered anyone who had more than a passing opinion on the subject. At the time, many Argentinians were FAR more concerned with the lethal behaviour of one of the most bloodily oppressive regimes on the planet. The prospect of being picked up by the notorious secret police, cruising in their Ford Falcons, was far more of a threat than British and local politicians' d ick waving over the Falklands - and of course the most important outcome of the war for most Argentinians was the fall of the junta. Don't confuse flag-waving Peronistas with Argentinians as a whole.

All I can go on are the words on the pages, hypo - some of the best unintentional comedy from you in ages.

Keep going - please tell me you're joking. If not, some advice: it's not them, it's you.

How do Indian families react to you any differently to people on here? And why would that be, I wonder? Still, dribbling on about your 'real world experience' was an excellent joke. Well done.

I hope for his sake that he's not one of those involved in the serial criminal activities which seem to have become deeply rooted in the culture of NOTW. Waving his pay packet at the NOTW's victims suggests he's lost his bearings, so who knows? Today's revelations about what went on in Jackanory's office were truly shocking - the intimidation and corruption of police officers investigating a murder linked to NOTW-hired investigators.

This thread is bigger than Jesus.

I noticed this rather late, but it's heartening to see that the Liebherrs have withdrawn all their business from Iran after the 'authorities' started routinely to use heavy-duty cranes in the mass hangings of its citizens, including children. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/24/idUS221761+24-Aug-2011+BW20110824

West Ham also owe the bulk of the stage payments for Tevez, which I find pretty amazing. They kick in this year apparently.

Yet again, I repeat: the generally accepted definition of 'indigenous' is those peoples who occupied lands before colonisation. Why is 'black' in inverted commas by the way?

Good. Then I don't have to say go away. Your response to cat's point about you former employer hacking into a dead girl's phone is to wave your huge wage slips at him? Good grief.

As in all things to do with the Falklands, it's complicated. While not part of the EU, the islanders are full citizens of the UK and therefore of the EU. They are also able to opt in to large lumps of the EU. As the recent discussions there have shown, things change (in ways that we cannot always predict!), and to repeat my point, if self-determination is the guiding principle (and it seems a good one to me) it can't be changed in order to arrive at only one answer.

Bugger.

You're not really following the argument I was making - that self-determination should mean just that, regardless. From the beginning, I've been saying no one, apart from the penguins, is 'indigenous' - it's just a silly 'argument'. As for immigration, if the islands were, as everyone seems to expect, to fill with migrants following the supposed oil rush, the composition of the population would certainly change, whether they're Argentinian or whatever. The changes that the islanders propose to make to migration policy are not specifically anti-Argentinian.

But have you read the Stratfor emails pap? Interesting that they claim that the Israelis' actions to hobble the nuclear programme have been so successful.

Then why did you raise it? As I said earlier, there are no indigenous people there. I'm glad we agree. And I repeat: self-determination is the issue here, and if it holds now, it must hold in the future, no matter what the constitution of its population. Right? Or is it to be self-determination so long as there is only one answer?

Not really. Do you really want to drag this thread down to personal insults?

I'm terribly bothered.

I'm just answering the questions you asked. My original point was that self-determination is a perfectly good principle so long as it is held consistently, even when circumstances change. And no, it's not 'my' accepted definition, but THE accepted definition. The idea that 'British' Falkland Islanders are somehow indigenous is silly.