History of Ceuta and Melilla -and why Gibraltar is a colony but they are not

[diegosimeone]

It's also funny that all this started because Gordy cannot read, which I think it's foolish to assume, so instead let's go with the plausible scenario that he's doing exactly what I've been saying he's doing. Nitpicking, changing the subjects, distorting what was said and now he's even replying to some people claiming they were saying what others have... Jeez, what an unberable character...

So let's see what was said:

Let's install people in some place and 300 years later we will ask them if they are still the same people or have converted to the ethnic group that used to or should own that land.

Britsh logic in Gibraltar, the Malvinas and several other places. If they don't approve of our policy, just make their lives a living hell until the message sinks in, i.e. Cyprus.

Oh, and then claim that this is "self determination" and not Imperialism.

Let's cast a vote in Akrotiri and Dekelia and ask them if they wanna be British or part of Cyprus and then flash the results around saying that the people of Akrotiri have spoken... Ridiculous (lackof) logic.

Bold a) Colonialism and Imperialism
Bold b) Hyperbole to prove this point, as the British have been doing this for centuries.
Bold c) Note that it's a simple two letter word called OR. Its meaning usually intends to encompass two different or opposite meanings or in a more simplistic way, it's a two letter word used to link alternatives.
Bold d) It's quite obvious that this refers to BOTH types of situation, otherwise Bold c) would have been redundant and a different choice of word would have been selected.
Bold e) It's quite obvious that this means that the British will defend their right to colonialism and imperialism.

Now this is the reply he gave:

"The Malvinas" you seem to be under the impression that the Argentinians owned or settled the islands. They never did either.

I'm not sure how you could argue that the British were making anyone's lives hell in the Falklands.

As you can see, Gordy either i) completely misses the point, ii) didn't read the post or iii) simply wanted to create a distraction, as the modern British colonialism issue is something that gets him triggered.

As for the bold part, he probably missed the point where the British illegally sunk Argentinean vessels, killing hundreds of people in the process. That's probably nothing for a British supremacist who doesn't care about such insignificant number of casualties, so he's excused about his stated arrogance. Apparently he wants to let people think that the remark I made (see points i, ii and iii for further information regarding his understanding of it) was about some villagers on an island and not a general tendency of an aggressor, ie Britain, towards their victims.


P.S: I'm gonna settle at the Asparagus islands. There's no one there. I'll bring over 50 other people. 50 years later there's gonna be a significant amount of people that were born there, so we will make a referendum if we want to join the UK or not. The answer's probably gonna be no. We'll have nothing in common with the British. Oh, and the name's gotta go too.

I wonder if the British would let us do this though. They might get a bit pissed. But seeing their line of thought, I'm guessing they're gonna let us go through with it. Maybe this will also make other groups of non-British people settle in other uninhabited islands around Great Britain and we can all have our little nations and play diplomacy. Would that be okay? Actually, I don't care what you think. We are settled here and there was no one before us. Dibs!!!

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Wonder what Sir Gordy KCVO, CMG, MBE thinks of this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ld-give-control-chagos-islands-un-court-says/

 

[Henry IX]

1. There are some pretty serious straw man arguments going on here. Just because the British are guilty of imperialism does not make every potential case of imperialism an actual case. Just because imperialism has role in behaviour does not automatically invalidate a specific claim. Reprehensible British behaviour in Cyprus does not justify Argentinian claims on the Falklands or Spanish claims on Gibraltar.

2. There are a series of, often conflicting, factors that establish whether one particular bit of dirt belongs to a specific nation. How one weights factors and determines their meanings will determine one's position. These calculations are usually made with the intention of coming to a specific conclusion, rather than coming to a conclusion based on pre-determined weightings. ALL nationalists are, ultimately, idiots.

3. Nation states are artificial constructs. The creation of a boarder creates the reality of the boarder, the existence of the nation does not predate its creation. Even things like ethnic groups are actually fairly hazy things when you look at them in detail. To state that one nation has a moral right to a specific piece of ground do to it being 'an integral part' of the nation is actually an empty statement.'

5. Geography can certainly provide some 'natural boundaries' to nations but even the meaning and value of a specific bit of geography can be disputed. The river Danube has served as both a boarder and a uniting factor to different groups throughout history. If I look at a map it seems obvious that Gibraltar is part of Spain but that Ceuta and Melilla are not. By the same logic Alaska belongs to Canada and Istanbul to Bulgaria.

4. The wishes of the inhabitants is a great principle to determine ownership, except that you need to decide what size of group gets to make the decision. For example: the Turkish speaking population of Cyprus want to be part of Turkey (probably). Is that group allowed to separate from the island or does the entire population of Cyprus get to decide the fate of the entire island? The same argument applies in Northern Ireland, the clear majority of that bit of the island wanted to not be part of the Ireland (sorry), is that a legitimate thing? How about if I want my house to become a separate nation, am I being colonised? There is not simple, straightforward answer to determining what group gets a say and which groups can be overruled by a majority.

5. Historical arguments can be very, very dicey. They all tend to rely on a specific historical arrangement being the 'correct' or 'natural' one and a current nation having a right to what a past version of that nation possessed. Just because the Kingdom of Serbia owned some patch of land in the middle ages does not give it an automatic right to the land - otherwise we should all just give everything back to Rome (or Carthage or Babylon or whatever). Human history is full of conflict and land has changed hands throughout it. There is no single point that is the 'correct' arrangement of ownership.

 

[Nein]

I'll give you a hint, the final British colonisation happened in 1833 at which point the islands were empty, the previous attempts at colonisation by the British, Spanish and an odd private one having all failed. In 1833, Argentina did not even exist.

Argentina declared its independence in 1816, and had been de facto autonomous for several years by then.

 

[diegosimeone]

Nation states are artificial constructs.

Is family also an artificial construct?

 

[Holmes]

Abraham Lincoln said: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
It is fair to assume that Abraham Lincoln has never been to Greece.

Its also fair to point out Lincoln never said that, its not in print by him either.

 

[olm]

As for the bold part, he probably missed the point where the British illegally sunk Argentinean vessels, killing hundreds of people in the process.

Generally sinking enemy warships is very much legal during military conflict.

 

[diegosimeone]

Its also fair to point out Lincoln never said that, its not in print by him either.

It's merely a translation of a Greek comic.

 

[diegosimeone]

Generally sinking enemy warships is very much legal during military conflict.

Maritime
Exclusion
Zone

Ceasefire: UN Resolution 502 .

 

[olm]

Maritime
Exclusion
Zone

I am not aware of UK taking any legal obligation to refrain from attacking Argentine vessels outside the zone.
Looking back in history, in 1915 Germany announced "war zone" around British isles. Obviously they still also attacked British warships outside the zone.

Ceasefire: UN Resolution 502 .

Yeah, about that:

2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502

 

[diegosimeone]

1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities

Why did you omit this one?

Also, were there any Argentinean forces on the islands or within its zone after that was set up? Since the answer is no, why even bring this up?

 

[olm]

1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities

Why did you omit this one?

Also, were there any Argentinean forces on the islands or within its zone after that was set up? Since the answer is no, why even bring this up?

What? Resolution was adopted on 3 April, the day after Argentina launched its invasion. In continuous public violation of the resolution, Argentina illegally kept and even reinforced their occupation forces on Falklands. You can't claim protection from resolution which you are aggressively and publicly violating at the same time.

 

[Holmes]

It's merely a translation of a Greek comic.

A comic book is no place to obtain facts.

 

[diegosimeone]

A comic book is no place to obtain facts.

Who said anything about facts? It's my bloody sig and it's a joke..

 

[Holmes]

Maritime
Exclusion
Zone

Ceasefire: UN Resolution 502 .

Maritime
Exclusion
Zone

Ceasefire: UN Resolution 502 .

Thats a UK sponsored resolution,it gave the UK the lawful right of self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Argentina failed to comply and had sanctions applied.…without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in exercise of its right of self-defence, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”

Second Belgrano was sunk after Argentina was given fair warning.


In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty’s Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty’s Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

Are you getting all your history from greek comic book?.

 

[Holmes]

Who said anything about facts? It's my bloody sig and it's a joke..

Less said about your mis quote the better, and its not funny btw, but humour is subjective,. What is not funny is your inability to get the facts right on Falklands conflict.

 

[diegosimeone]

Thats a UK sponsored resolution,it gave the UK the lawful right of self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Argentina failed to comply and had sanctions applied.…without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in exercise of its right of self-defence, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”

Second Belgrano was sunk after Argentina was given fair warning.


In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty’s Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty’s Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

Are you getting all your history from greek comic book?.

So... https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a253218.pdf

The first zone, announced by Britain on April 7 and to take effect on April 12, established a zone wlth a radius of 200 miles centered on the middle of the Falkland Islands. By the terms of this announcement, only Argentine warships and naval auxiliaries discovered in the prohibited area were to be attacked. On 23 April the British Government amended their announcement to include Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft, which might pose a threat to the mission of British forces in the zone.

By April 30 Britain had redefined the prohibited area as a Total Exclusicn Zone and stated that: "Any ship and any aircraft, whether military or civil, which is found within this zone without due authority from the Ministry of Defence in London will be regarded as operating in support of the illegal occupation and will therefore be regarded as hostile..

On 7 May, the BrItish extended the zone to include all Argentine warships or military aircraft more than 12 miles from the coast of Argentina.


The ship was sunk on the 2nd of May, outside of this zone. Your wikipedia link is missing all that legal stuff.

The British whole "legality over the sinking" situation was played down to a silly remark that the 200 radius limit 'expired on the 1st of May'. So you either can claim the MEZ was in place and the British violated it or that the British acted like a spoiled child and attacked a ship just because it could prove that it wasn't illegal based on a minor gap in the documentation... Either way, no one but imperalist British can claim that this attack was justified.

 

[pharaomatic]

I much prefer the referendum approach to the invade and conquer approach that some others seem to prefer.

And I'm not British btw.

With regard to OP, nice post about Ceuta and Melilla, guessing you're in the later stages of primary education atm?

If you want to improve on your writing, a few things you should look out for.

As a historian, it is very possible to write about sensitive subjects like Gibraltar, but be aware that you are stepping in a minefield and atm you sound very much like a pro-Spanish trumpet and easy for a readers to dismiss in that regard. Also, as you are aware of, writing about Gibraltar here steals focus from what you want to write about, Ceuta and Melilla.

People will usually look to you for unbiased information, at least in my part of the world, so you'll need to practice looking a bit out of your own nest.

Best regards, a historian w degree.

Let's install people in some place and 300 years later we will ask them if they are still the same people or have converted to the ethnic group that used to or should own that land.

Britsh logic in Gibraltar, the Malvinas and several other places. If they don't approve of our policy, just make their lives a living hell until the message sinks in, i.e. Cyprus.

Oh, and then claim that this is "self determination" and not Imperialism.

Let's cast a vote in Akrotiri and Dekelia and ask them if they wanna be British or part of Cyprus and then flash the results around saying that the people of Akrotiri have spoken... Ridiculous (lackof) logic.

 

[Holmes]

So... https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a253218.pdf

The first zone, announced by Britain on April 7 and to take effect on April 12, established a zone wlth a radius of 200 miles centered on the middle of the Falkland Islands. By the terms of this announcement, only Argentine warships and naval auxiliaries discovered in the prohibited area were to be attacked. On 23 April the British Government amended their announcement to include Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft, which might pose a threat to the mission of British forces in the zone.

By April 30 Britain had redefined the prohibited area as a Total Exclusicn Zone and stated that: "Any ship and any aircraft, whether military or civil, which is found within this zone without due authority from the Ministry of Defence in London will be regarded as operating in support of the illegal occupation and will therefore be regarded as hostile..

On 7 May, the BrItish extended the zone to include all Argentine warships or military aircraft more than 12 miles from the coast of Argentina.


The ship was sunk on the 2nd of May, outside of this zone. Your wikipedia link is missing all that legal stuff.

The British whole "legality over the sinking" situation was played down to a silly remark that the 200 radius limit 'expired on the 1st of May'. So you either can claim the MEZ was in place and the British violated it or that the British acted like a spoiled child and attacked a ship just because it could prove that it wasn't illegal based on a minor gap in the documentation... Either way, no one but imperalist British can claim that this attack was justified.

Did not use wiki. I used https://www.amazon.co.uk/Legal-Order-Oceans-Documents-International/dp/1841138231
The Legal Order of the Oceans: Basic Documents on the Law of the Sea

International waters in time of armed conflict, enemy combatants are lawful targets.

UK in formed Argentina 9 days prior to sinking Belgrano it would not be restricted to the exclusion zone in its military conduct of liberation of the Falklands from the illegal occupation.

Lets ask the Argentine's, on shooting UK ships in international waters.
"Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack,'' "When they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I would say we were anxious to pull the trigger.''

On his sinking:
“It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine’s attack, are not a crime … The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.” Belgrano’s captain, Hector Bonzon 2007

Ministry of Defence in Argentina has stated its sinking was "a legal act of war'' and declined to seek compensation through the ICC and declined to support private criminal cases through the ICC, which failed in 2010

 

[Henry IX]

Is family also an artificial construct?

No.

If you test the genetics of a population they will fall into clusters of similarity. These clusters are what we call families. They are real and based on an outside thing. Nations only exist so long as we mostly agree they do.

That is not to say there are not aspects of family that are social constructs (e.g. adoption) but rather that as a category they exist independently of their social existence.