Bill O’Reilly’s 1982 Falklands War stories called into question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomdstone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
triumphguy said:
Just because a country unjustly invades another’s territory doesn’t give them the right to change the name on all the maps of the world.
Click to expand...
Argentina did not invade the Falklands because the islands belong to Argentina.
 
Darryl and Triumphguy: Actually I largely agree with you and I am very sorry for any misunderstandings.
Argentina did not invade the Falklands because the islands belong to Argentina.
Click to expand...
It looks like it is a matter of law. I know a bit about Argentina. Uruguay was once a part of Argentina. The history is complex.

I know of an English pub in the USA, they have a man’s recreational soccer team, an Argentine or 2 play for them. The Argentines are really good people, will that help me get into heaven? For the most part they are and they have had some tragedy in their history.

But Argentinan soccer stars like Tevez a few years ago, have gone to play professionally in England with people waving Argentinan flags. Maradona wanted to manage a team in England.

So, I see the Argentinan government keeps this active but I was reading the wikipedia articles on the Falklands. It certainly is NOT any kind of a clear cut case. I’m very sorry, they decided to invade back in 1982. That government that Argentina had had the “desparecidos”, the disappeareds, so it is a bit of a sad chapter. Hard to justly cover in a thread such as this.

If I did not say it, wikipedia has a good article on those islands, what positions each of the 2 countries may have. It certainly is not clear historically. No way.
 
Tomdstone said:
Argentina did not invade the Falklands because the islands belong to Argentina.
Click to expand...
They have NEVER belonged to Argentina, or Spain (though they were briefly colonized and claimed by Spain).

falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history25.pdf

And even IF (and they haven’t) ever belonged to Argentina the fact of uninterrupted habitation by the Falklanders since 1833 would give them a right to the Islands.

Argentina was not recognized by Spain until 26 years later in 1859.
 
Path_Finder said:
Darryl and Triumphguy: Actually I largely agree with you and I am very sorry for any misunderstandings.

It looks like it is a matter of law. I know a bit about Argentina. Uruguay was once a part of Argentina. The history is complex.

I know of an English pub in the USA, they have a man’s recreational soccer team, an Argentine or 2 play for them. The Argentines are really good people, will that help me get into heaven? For the most part they are and they have had some tragedy in their history.

But Argentinan soccer stars like Tevez a few years ago, have gone to play professionally in England with people waving Argentinan flags. Maradona wanted to manage a team in England.

So, I see the Argentinan government keeps this active but I was reading the wikipedia articles on the Falklands. It certainly is NOT any kind of a clear cut case. I’m very sorry, they decided to invade back in 1982. That government that Argentina had had the “desparecidos”, the disappeareds, so it is a bit of a sad chapter. Hard to justly cover in a thread such as this.

If I did not say it, wikipedia has a good article on those islands, what positions each of the 2 countries may have. It certainly is not clear historically. No way.
Click to expand...
Good post

I’m a United supporter, and I’ve cheered for many an Argentinian player, including Tevez and Rojo and Angel Di Maria.😃

And I am 100% behind an Argentinian Pope.👍
 
triumphguy said:
Good post

I’m a United supporter, and I’ve cheered for many an Argentinian player, including Tevez and Rojo and Angel Di Maria.😃

And I am 100% behind an Argentinian Pope.👍
Click to expand...
I love this messi family !:curtsey:
 
Path_Finder said:
I am disappointed in Pope Francis’ view on the Falkland Islands but I hope it would be an “evolving view” and he may not understand in full.

mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pope-francis-hard-line-falkland-1762205

But again, it is semantics as to how they are called.

It’s hard to extract the name of the islands, no matter where one’s stance is.
Click to expand...
The pope’s stance is not a particularly Catholic stance, but an Argentinian nationalist stance. It is quite a provincial use of the word ‘ours’ in that sense, for are British Catholics too, who might say exactly the same, and mean exactly the opposite of the pope.
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t think that the story about Mr. O’Reilly’s spin on events has disappeared. For example, there is now a question about his reporting on the LA riots:
salon.com/2015/02/27/bill_oreillys_latest_fabrication_la_riot_attack_called_into_question/
Click to expand...
Oh no, has it come to this? Salon is notoriously slanted left and I don’t believe anything they post. Those riots are very murky to say the least. I hope the left gives this a rest. It seems since Williams was caught red handed in telling falsehoods the left wants to take a conservative down. Tit for tat kind of thing and it is shameful.

Williams was giving news each night and should be truthful with the news. Dan Rather was caught telling a lie about Bush in the elections, he was told it was untrue and if he had dropped it that would have been the end of it, but he kept saying he still believed it. That is what brought Rather down. Demanding a falsehood was true. O’Reilly’s show is not the news, it’s an opinion show, he brings people in on both sides to talk about issues. His audience can believe it or not. He usually backs up his reports with facts though. He is not reporting straight news.
 
oneofmany said:
Williams was giving news each night and should be truthful with the news. Dan Rather was caught telling a lie about Bush in the elections, he was told it was untrue and if he had dropped it that would have been the end of it, but he kept saying he still believed it. That is what brought Rather down. Demanding a falsehood was true. O’Reilly’s show is not the news, it’s an opinion show, he brings people in on both sides to talk about issues. His audience can believe it or not. He usually backs up his reports with facts though. He is not reporting straight news.
Click to expand...
O’Reilly claims to be in the no spin zone. The facts show that this claim is dubious and that he has been putting a spin on things.
 
All news sources can be criticized, Salon is left-leaning, like the Nation, Mother Jones but it does not always make every story they report on wrong. Just like someone can post from conservative sources, a liberal may not like those but it doesn’t mean every story that the Blaze for example does, is wrong.

newsmax.com/Newsfront/Bill-OReilly-1992-Lose-Angeles-riots-Inside-Edition-debris/2015/02/27/id/627380/

It looks like this whole O’Reilly at the LA Riots story is originating now, from the Guardian who yes, are often to the left. It doesn’t mean though that a news publisher can not still print a truthful story. I would try to find fault with the alleged facts.
 
I did read though that a lot of this criticism on O’Reilly is being done to take the heat off of Brian Williams who was obviously caught wrongdoing in reporting the news.
 
Path_Finder said:
I did read though that a lot of this criticism on O’Reilly is being done to take the heat off of Brian Williams who was obviously caught wrongdoing in reporting the news.
Click to expand...
That ought to be embarrassingly apparent by now, for sure.

The two cases are not even comparable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top