Double standards about the Falklands by pro-British ownership folks.
Something I notice a lot is that a lot of the people who defend the ownership of the Falkland Islands by the British is that they are often anti-zionists who criticize the West Bank settlements and Russia occupation on Crimea and Ukraine. Which to me make them have double standards because they are criticizing something they do.
The common argument is "The people in the falkland want to be British", but the same can be told of the West Bank settlers and the people in Crimea, of course colonists want to be part of the country otherwise they wouldn't be colonies, that's like the entire point and I don't know if this is done on purpose to distract or they really aren't aware of this basic logic flaw.
The Falklands were owned by Argentina from the 1820s up to 1833 and the British literally kicked out the people there, and then settled it. That's no different from the events mentioned before.
Now let's reply all the common lies/ misconception that the pro colony people have about.
Lie / Misconception number one:
"The British owned the falklands before Argentina was a country"
False, Argentina as an independent entity owned the falkland from the 1820s to 1833 where the British took it from Argentina by force (you can look it up in the falklands timelines)
If you talk about before times, then it was also under the viceroyalty, but this is irrelevant, the entire premise is that Argentina owned it as an independent state.
Lie / Misconceptionnumber 2:
"Argentines are colonizers anyway, they are Italian and Spanish"
This is a half truth, but not a truth. First of all, the Spanish origin population from the country originally mixed with the natives, because the Spanish way of conquista was extremely different from the French, Belgians or the British. So when the country was new the population was very small but it was mixed, just like the rest of Latin America, mestizos were people of both spanish and native ancestry who were often subject to the Spanish crown. The Italians and Spanish later are immigrants that further mixed with them, that's why a really large amount of Argentines have indigenous ancestry, it's considerably high in places like Jujuy for example, with the lowest in Buenos Aires (if you don't believe me just check the 23andme page and search "Argentinian" you will see that most have at least a small degree of Indigenous ancestry, denying land for mixing is like saying that Palestinians mixing with arabs also lose their right to land).
With that said, I think that morally you really cannot be anti-zionist settlement, and anti-russian occupation while supporting the British claim. Unless your support is because you prefer one group over another (for example you like the British and dislike Argentinians, but also dislike Russians); however this would be a personal preference and not a moral nor logical argument. You either are against colonialism and land theft of you aren't.