PDA

View Full Version : Operation Rosario. Background and aftermatch.



Panzerknacker
01-20-2006, 08:24 PM
Seems that is for someones interest so I want to write something.

The military at the Power.

The 24th of march of 1976, the 3 Armed forces of Argentina delivered a coup de etat and ovethrowed the Perons widow, Isabel Martinez de Peron.

The situation favored the action, the woman was losing his popular support and the country was sumerged in a internal struggle against the left wing guerrilla, not to mention the cronic inflation wich afected the country.

Planifications for....what ?

As we know the violations to the human rights started right away.
In 1978 there was a nearly war with Chile for the ownership of a couple of islands in the Beagle channel, only very poor weather ( wich prevented the Argentine Navy to Attack) and the Strong intervention of the pope saved this two countries of a expensive conflict.

The planification for the invation of the islands began in 1979. The trio of Military commander summited a request to his generals for a plan to retook the Malvinas in the 150th aniversary of his capture by the british , that would be June of 1983.

Is a cliche to say that the ilegal goverment need a distraction to his action and that caused to involucrate in the war, perhaps there was a real will of retook a historic territory so care to the publc feelings.


The misjugded Geopolitics of the Military Junta.

If we seen the situation strictly from the military point of view the war was losed maybe before it start.

The integrants of the Junta was convinced that It will be no war at all, only a (maybe) intensive diplomatic crisis and the British would give away the isles like candy.

The commanders tough that they as a decent catolic anti-comunist force represented all the good of the occidental world and was completely integrated with this. Moreover, the historical very good relationship and the big comercial trade with the U.K should make an actual confrontation or bloodshed with Britain very unlikely.

Off course they take no account of the strong will showed for the Britons and think that nobody will care by a couple of tiny islands 12.000 km away.

But the mistakes will not end in here.

-------------

2nd of foot
01-21-2006, 12:18 PM
Panzerknacker you make some very good points. If the attack had happened at another time I think you would have seen a different attitude from the UK. In some ways I think it was a good gamble on the part of the Junta but they got the timing wrong. 5 years latter and the UK probably would not be able to launch an invasion. One of the carriers was earmarked for sale, the Vulcans were to be paid off.

At the time of the invasion I drove pasted Duxford which had just put on display its latest exhibit, a Vulcan bomber. Although the Vulcans did not do a lot of damage it is that they had the possibility to do it.

The signals from FO indicated that we were not interested and did not have the capability to do anything about it if Argentina had taken the Islands by force.

But then the Junta should have thought what the reaction from its people would have done if South Africa had landed of part of Tierra Del Fuego.

They may have also looked to what happened when the UK and France invaded the Suez Canal and the reaction from the US. Thinking that the US would hold back the British so as not to create unrest in SAmerica and problems for them, as they would have to pick a side.

Topor
01-21-2006, 12:58 PM
If the Junta had held to their original timetable & invaded in '83, I doubt we would have had the two CV's necessary for force protection.
As things stood, the Atlantic Conveyor was used as more than a mere transport.

Topor
01-21-2006, 02:06 PM
I think this

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/CRD.htm

gives a pretty balanced picture of the history leading to the events of 1982.

If we can agree that this covers both sides of things in a reasonable manner, then it gives a reference point for future debate.

Edit: Eee, I just gained a stripe :D

cpl condor
01-21-2006, 03:24 PM
Very good, Topor, but there are truthful things there little.
In some cases it would be necessary to correct it. :arrow:

1000ydstare
01-21-2006, 04:48 PM
It maybe a cliche but it has been known throughout history that a common foe or goal, such as the capture of the falklands, can unite a divided country. Argentina was far from a utopia at the time, with the dirty war and economic melt down.

The Argentine Junta, if not the country, was very deluded about the Falklands. Many conscripts believed they would be welcomed as heros, rather than the social lepers they were treated as. They didn't seem to grasp that the people on the Islands wanted to be British rather than be Argentine. Let's face it, would you want to be part of a Country run by a military dictatorship with a penchant for throwing students out aircraft in flight and killing their people, not to mention economic turmoil.

Other key points that the Argies screwed up on must surely be the invasion of not only the Falklands, to which they believe to have claim, but also other islands which they clearly do not have any claim to.

I believe the Falklands would have and could have been taken even if the war had occured in '83. As has been mentioned the Atlantic Carrier was being used as an auxillary aircraft carrier, but also Britian was very restrained in it's fight. Belgrano was sunk, but the ARA could easily have been decimated in harbour by the Onyx class and Conqueror class subs.

If long range bombers - maybe from ascension - was all that we had, then the war could very well have been taken to the Argentine mainland with airfields being destroyed to prevent Argentine air supeiroity.

Bearing in mind that the mainland was not specifically targeted but could have been, it would not have been against any law of conflict to go to the enemies homeland and kick his doors in.

Panzerknacker
01-21-2006, 06:44 PM
Panzerknacker you make some very good points. If the attack had happened at another time I think you would have seen a different attitude from the UK. In some ways I think it was a good gamble on the part of the Junta but they got the timing wrong. 5 years latter and the UK probably would not be able to launch an invasion. One of the carriers was earmarked for sale, the Vulcans were to be paid off.

At the time of the invasion I drove pasted Duxford which had just put on display its latest exhibit, a Vulcan bomber. Although the Vulcans did not do a lot of damage it is that they had the possibility to do it.

But then the Junta should have thought what the reaction from its people would have done if South Africa had landed of part of Tierra Del Fuego.

They may have also looked to what happened when the UK and France invaded the Suez Canal and the reaction from the US. Thinking that the US would hold back the British so as not to create unrest in SAmerica and problems for them, as they would have to pick a side.

Yeah is a good point but eventually a "what if " argentine victory in 1983 I think that even defeated in the beginning the british could reagroup and strike again.

The major menace for the Royal in 1983 would be the 14 Super Etendar and his Exocet ( all the Exocet, not 5 like 1982)

Panzerknacker
01-21-2006, 06:54 PM
It maybe a cliche but it has been known throughout history that a common foe or goal, such as the capture of the falklands, can unite a divided country. Argentina was far from a utopia at the time, with the dirty war and economic melt down.

The Argentine Junta, if not the country, was very deluded about the Falklands. Many conscripts believed they would be welcomed as heros, rather than the social lepers they were treated as. They didn't seem to grasp that the people on the Islands wanted to be British rather than be Argentine. Let's face it, would you want to be part of a Country run by a military dictatorship with a penchant for throwing students out aircraft in flight and killing their people, not to mention economic turmoil.

Other key points that the Argies screwed up on must surely be the invasion of not only the Falklands, to which they believe to have claim, but also other islands which they clearly do not have any claim to.

I believe the Falklands would have and could have been taken even if the war had occured in '83. As has been mentioned the Atlantic Carrier was being used as an auxillary aircraft carrier, but also Britian was very restrained in it's fight. Belgrano was sunk, but the ARA could easily have been decimated in harbour by the Onyx class and Conqueror class subs.

If long range bombers - maybe from ascension - was all that we had, then the war could very well have been taken to the Argentine mainland with airfields being destroyed to prevent Argentine air supeiroity.

Probably , the estrategic armament of U.K can be a decisive factor. Maybe that could include the nuclear weapons in a extreme escenario. Even without those the migration of the war to the mainland would be reeeeal nasty thing to do, although probable.

1000ydstare
01-21-2006, 07:20 PM
No offence intended but I'll nip this bugger in the bud.

Panzerknacker wrote:

Maybe that could include the nuclear weapons in a extreme escenario.

There is no way on earth Nuclear weapons would have been used or even contemplated. The international backlash would have been severe. I am aware (thanks to AIDES) that there is some sort of conspiracy theory over the Brits having a plan to nuke somewhere or other in Argentina.

No way.

It wouldn't have been nice for the Argentine people if the war had been taken to their back yard. But when you start a war, you take your chances.

Topor
01-22-2006, 10:27 AM
Very good, Topor, but there are truthful things there little.
In some cases it would be necessary to correct it. :arrow:

Which parts do you find factually incorrect?

If you can list them, then we can do some checking & either accept or dismiss them.

Panzerknacker
01-22-2006, 12:02 PM
No offence intended but I'll nip this bugger in the bud.

Panzerknacker wrote:

Maybe that could include the nuclear weapons in a extreme escenario.

There is no way on earth Nuclear weapons would have been used or even contemplated. The international backlash would have been severe. I am aware (thanks to AIDES) that there is some sort of conspiracy theory over the Brits having a plan to nuke somewhere or other in Argentina.

No way.

Yes, I know that s why a say in a "extreme" escenario, I ve realize that is very unlikely.

By the way... somebody had info related to nucler deep charges carried by the HMS Coventry and HMS Ardent, I had some info but the source is not the most reliable.

1000ydstare
01-22-2006, 12:38 PM
According to MOD Oracle, which is a solid source.

At http://www.modoracle.com/


British commanders sailed into the Falklands war deeply concerned that the Argentinians could capture their nuclear weapons, previously secret official papers reveal.

They show the naval taskforce was dispatched in such haste that there was no time to remove nuclear depth charges carried on seven Royal Navy ships. Two of the ships, Hermes and Invincible, carried 75% of the navy's entire stockpile of nuclear depth charges, the papers reveal.

Offloading the weapons would have given the Argentinians more time to tighten their grip on the islands. But keeping them on board the ships was also dangerous. The papers show the extent of the concern. They say: "It was also conceivable that weapons might fall into the hands of the Argentines, by salvage, if one of the [Royal Navy] ships had been sunk, stranded or captured."

They add: "However unlikely, the consequences of this would be most serious and the acquisition of UK nuclear weapon technology in this way by a state which had no such weapon would have damaging consequences."

The papers have been posted on the Ministry of Defence website, after the MoD earlier refused to release them to the Guardian and other newspapers under the Freedom of Information Act.

Although I still say that anyone who thinks they could have been used is not on this planet.

Panzerknacker
01-22-2006, 12:52 PM
They show the naval taskforce was dispatched in such haste that there was no time to remove nuclear depth charges carried on seven Royal Navy ships. Two of the ships, Hermes and Invincible, carried 75% of the navy's entire stockpile of nuclear depth charges, the papers reveal.

So the charges was in the carriers not in the Frigates, interesting thanks.

1000ydstare
01-22-2006, 01:05 PM
No, they were on seven of the ships. Of which Hermes and Invincible were only two.

The other five could well have included Coventry and Ardent.

However it is highly likely they were all removed to a place of safety, posibly at Ascension or to Ascension, or maybe just to the carriers during the war. Bearing in mind that Coventry was sunk, so there would have been a massive investigation had the Nuclear depth charges gone down with her.

Which I think would also remove the belief that Invincible was sunk during the Falklands.

Panzerknacker
01-22-2006, 01:15 PM
Fine now I get it.


Which I think would also remove the belief that Invincible was sunk during the Falklands

I dont know who say that before....Erwin I guess?

The Invincible was damaged not sunk, I dont know who was the idiot that invented the "teory" of the sinking, that only cause the disbelief of the serius argentine sources.

Panzerknacker
01-23-2006, 08:02 AM
By the way...What a hell happen with Eagle, he cause a lot of trouble and cry for this...and now he dont participate.. :shock: ....Oh the todays youth..¡¡ :x

Dani
01-23-2006, 08:07 AM
Tests, exams, who knows...

Dani
01-23-2006, 05:09 PM
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/nov/mcclureNOV04.asp

An American study.

And also an interesting reading on Argentina: http://library.nps.navy.mil/uhtbin/cgisirsi/ayqj2Y5dXF/SIRSI/268790057/523/7025 (with no popup stopper!!)

Edited: As for second link, search for Jason McClure as author. You'll find his thesis titled "The Domestic and International Dimensions of Risk: Prospect Theory and Argentina."

Panzerknacker
01-23-2006, 09:49 PM
Thanks for your links Dani.

I want to do some remarks about the Book "The Secret war for the Falklands" by Nigel west. ( very good book by the way, some nice info in there)

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8605/07515207132fp.jpg


In the chapter "Stanley" he said that the ground launched Exocets used by the Argentine Army the night 11-12 june was taken from the Summer Class destroyer "ARA Segui".

The fact is that those MM38 were extracted from the french made corvette "ARA Guerrico" ( French A-69 class)

ARA Guerrico.
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7371/guerrico6pj.jpg

pdf27
01-25-2006, 03:14 PM
Can you stick this in the invincible thread pdf? Cheers.
Would do but it won't make a lot of sense. Can the mods by any chance move all the posts over together?

Firefly
01-26-2006, 06:34 AM
All posts moved, please no more Invincible except the official Invincible thread!

Firefly
01-26-2006, 06:47 AM
Can we keep this thread for preparations for OP ROSARIO please. I have opened a new thread for any discussions on the actual OP

Cheers......................

Eagle
01-27-2006, 06:51 PM
Tests, exams, who knows...


Well deserved vacations, on Villa Carlos Paz, a tourism center near Córdoba city with my friends, was an excellent week, with karting races, river and lake beaches, drinks, discos, ATVs, watercycles and waterskiing, some girls ( :) ) ....


Well I am here again to discuss.

Panzerknacker
01-27-2006, 06:57 PM
some girls ( :D ) ....


Aguante Eagle ¡¡¡¡
8)

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Oerlikon.gif

Panzerknacker
03-30-2007, 09:33 PM
Conmemorative Coin:


http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1603/0130772blx1.jpg

The Central Bank has announced the launch of 2 millions of special 2 pesos coins in remembrance of the 25th aniversary of Operation Rosario.

Some 400 will be gold plated and presented as a gift to combat veterans in the next monday april 2th, in the city of Ushuaia.

1000ydstare
03-31-2007, 02:02 AM
Why only 400 gold plated and commerative for vets?

There must be more Falklands vets than that in Argentina.

Who is the chick on the front?

Panzerknacker
03-31-2007, 10:32 AM
I supose that is only for some selected veterans.



Who is the chick on the front?



???

1000ydstare
03-31-2007, 01:38 PM
On the back there is a picture of the Falklands.

On the front there is a figure, who/what is it?

Panzerknacker
03-31-2007, 05:40 PM
Is not " a chick" that is sure.:rolleyes:


And by the way is funny some media are not well informed.


Falkland fear as Argentina steps up show of strength


BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR (//=0;i-=2){d+=unescape('%'+e.substr(i,2));};document.writ e(d);//]]> bdbrady@scotlandonsunday.com)
AN INCREASINGLY anxious UK government is closely monitoring a build-up of Argentinian military strength and a series of confrontations with the RAF close to the Falkland Islands, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
The activity has led Tony Blair's most senior advisers to demand he issues a "hands-off" warning to Buenos Aires.

Downing Street is facing growing fears for the future of the islands - which were seized back from Argentinian control in a bloody and symbolic campaign ordered by Margaret Thatcher almost a quarter of a century ago.

High-ranking officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office have confessed to concerns that the changing political situation in Argentina and Latin America, as well as Britain's growing military commitments around the world, are conspiring to undermine the security of the Falklands.

The sense of threat surrounding the Malvinas islands, regained from the Argentinian military junta in 1982, has been gathering for several months as President Nestor Kirchner's government has presided over an unprecedented revival in the strength of its air force - now at twice the strength it was during the 1982 conflict.
Several planes are believed to have overflown island airspace in a bid to test RAF defences. A number of Falkland vessels have been seized in waters close to Argentina.
The already tense situation has been further exacerbated by the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, a Kirchner ally, who responded to criticism from Blair this month by telling him to "return the Malvinas to Argentina".
Scotland on Sunday understands that the British government still hopes to reinforce the peaceful relations between the two nations with "a diplomatic offensive", including a series of gestures of reconciliation in the run-up to the 25th anniversary of the conflict next year.
HMS Endurance became the first Royal Navy ship to visit an Argentinian port since the conflict last month, when it arrived in Ushuaia to participate in a ceremony commemorating those killed on both sides during the conflict.
But many Argentinian veterans opposed the move, and a Foreign Office source last night conceded that Tony Blair now faced having to reinforce Britain's commitment to the islands - perhaps by sending more troops to the South Atlantic.
"There have been a number of incidents, and even if they weren't all connected, they might suggest that the government in Buenos Aires is feeling a bit bullish," the source said. "No one is saying they are about to invade but you have to maintain your position. We all remember that, after the original conflict, Britain was accused of giving the junta the impression that their invasion would not be opposed.
"We would, of course, prefer them to get the message, but maybe - sometimes - we just have to underline it ourselves."
The British military presence in the South Atlantic has dropped from 1,900 troops in 1998 to 1,200 now, while 8,000 troops are deployed in Iraq and 3,000 are heading for Afghanistan. The Falklands garrison is dwarfed by the 20,000-strong British presence in Germany, the 10,000 in Northern Ireland and even 3,400 in Cyprus.
But critics warn that the garrison, which costs more than £110m a year, is hopelessly inadequate for fending off any renewed threat from abroad.
Defence experts and staff within the MoD have become concerned about the increase in military activity under Kirchner, and about his political allegiances - particularly with the controversial Chavez.
In recent years, the Argentinian air force has doubled in size, and is now the largest in South America. A major upgrade has fitted new missiles to Mirage fighters and Pucara ground-attack planes.
The British government believes that increased military flights have probed RAF radar defences in the Falklands to assess the time taken by Quick Reaction Alert Tornadoes to reach the area.
The activity is matched in the disputed local sea-space, where each side operates a 200-mile exclusion zone around its coast. A British patrol found an Argentine submarine off the waters of South Georgia, while Argentina's coastguard last week captured a Falklands-flagged fishing vessel it claimed was operating in the country's "economic exclusion zone". The vessel, John Cheek, and its 31-strong crew were taken to the port of Comodoro Rivadavia, 945 miles south of Buenos Aires, where they faced the prospect of heavy fines or having their catches seized.
The vulnerability of British outposts around the world has been underlined by the increased commitments of UK military forces in trouble spots including Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of critics in London and the Falklands believe that the Argentinians may take advantage of the "overstretch" to cause trouble in the south Atlantic.
A senior Ministry of Defence source said: "This could be termed as sabre-rattling, but when our forces are deployed in so many locations, its potential for causing mischief is magnified. We've been watching a steady build-up of the Argentine air force over the past year. Frankly, they have no need for such a large fighting force, and there is concern in Whitehall as to what this is all about."

He added: "The Argentine air force is at least twice the size of that we fought during the Falklands War and the question has to be asked: how many more aircraft do they need?"

Tory MP Andrew Rosindell, chairman of the all-party Falkland Islands Group, said: "It is time the British government told the Argentinians they won't get away with this alarming hostility. I hope the Argentine government is not planning any military action, but we have got to learn the lessons


In blue: Wrong, actually the size of the Air Force is about 40 % that those in 1982. And the today presidents did not any significant weapons purchase or whatsoever.

1000ydstare
04-01-2007, 02:16 AM
Again statistics.

They're probably including aircraft that are in mothballs, on order or maybe that aren't included in your Air Forces inventory, such as trainers. They may even be talking about a specific branch.

Maybe there are less tankers and support aircraft, but more fighters, 100% more fighters than in 1982. With the government doing a deal with the flag operator airline to act as transport for the troops.

A civi jet could handle the shuttle trips to Cyprus, and there are already planes flying to the Falklands.

Panzerknacker
04-01-2007, 03:51 PM
No, no, thats the problem, there is no real fighters in inventory with the AAF, The most powerful plataform are 36 A-4AR with very improved systems like an F-16 APG-66 radar but still are attack aircraft. The suriving Mirages ( about 25 between M-III/M-V/ Nesher) wre converted to fighter bombers.

The Pucara is still in service with very improved avionics HUD and so...but obviosly in not more that a tactic and counter guerrilla attack craft.

Panzerknacker
04-02-2007, 06:51 PM
Today TV: same old footage, same old faces, same old pics, nothing really new, pretty unenviting documentries, all very repeated, all very boring .

The thing that really pist me off is the fact the there is a lot of Argentine footage recorded in the islands between april 2th and 13th june and very few of these is actually broadcasted in here. the TV producers are completely outstanding in his ignorance.

Panzerknacker
05-10-2007, 09:15 PM
British intelligency reports:

Some reports dated march 1982 ,the political landscape and a possible argentine invation.


http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9069/22uu7.jpg



http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/5584/33vr0.jpg


http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9070/44tt3.jpg



to be continued...

Panzerknacker
05-17-2007, 07:20 PM
British intelligency reports:

Second and final part of this report.


http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/9366/55yd1.jpg




http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3593/66nr1.jpg


http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/9594/77jf1.jpg



Apendix, The secret war for the Falklands, Nigel West.

Panzerknacker
05-18-2007, 09:08 AM
Last two comments deleted.

Keep on topic boys, we are offtopicking enough in the 1000yds thread.

1000ydstare
05-18-2007, 09:30 AM
Wandering off topic occaisionally is good, you may think it is "off topic" but it may bring something new to the debate.

No debate ever travels strictly down one set of lines, the occaisional excursion is good. As long as the thread doesn't fully head off in that direction.

Lone Ranger
05-19-2007, 08:05 AM
By the way... somebody had info related to nucler deep charges carried by the HMS Coventry and HMS Ardent, I had some info but the source is not the most reliable.

All British nukes were removed from smaller warships and placed in the magazines on Invincible and Hermes. The nukes were cross-decked at Ascension Island.

Panzerknacker
05-22-2007, 09:30 AM
All British nukes were removed from smaller warships and placed in the magazines on Invincible and Hermes. The nukes were cross-decked at Ascension Island.

Thanks for the aditional info.

Interesting Video about the young people living now in the islands,is the first above in this page.


http://malvinense.com.ar/smalvi/282.htm

Cuts
05-22-2007, 04:01 PM
Thanks for the aditional info.

Interesting Video about the young people living now in the islands,is the first above in this page.


http://malvinense.com.ar/smalvi/282.htm

Now that really was funny ! :lol:
I was almost in tears.
Where do you find these ?

Lone Ranger
05-22-2007, 06:46 PM
Did you read the text accompanying the videos.

Apparently the youth of the Falklands islands live in a bubble created by the local press, manpulated to think that Argentina is the enemy and that they can only by saved by the British military. This is so that the evil British Government can dominate the South Atlantic for their own nefarious ends. Oh and apparently the British military on the islands are all homosexual. And by the way the Argentine Government has only benign intentions toward the islanders...apart from the threats to any company that deals with the islands, the banning of flights over Argentine territory, tearing up of joint agreements, refusal to recognise their right to self-determination and any other means of exerting political or economic pressure.

In the age of the Internet and satellite TV how can the Islands live in a bubble anymore? The text is more funny that the videos.

@Panzerknacker, do people in Argentina seriously believe this nonesense?

Cuts
05-22-2007, 08:28 PM
Yes I did read the text, I thought that was hilarious too.
The background music in the video clip was interesting, "God Save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols and later the theme from the Benny Hill Show. Unless it was also part of their wind-up, I thought it was a shame that the lads got the origin of 'Benny' wrong - still it's been a long time since Crossroads was on.
On the whole I thought they succeeded 100% in getting a bite, the poor lass seemed to have taken it hook, line and sinker ! Must have made for some interesting chats back in the BA wine bars.

The voiceover at the end was telling - Mount Prison Airport.

Oh yeah - and the map ! :D :D :D

Panzerknacker
05-22-2007, 08:38 PM
Apparently the youth of the Falklands islands live in a bubble created by the local press, manpulated to think that Argentina is the enemy and that they can only by saved by the British military. This is so that the evil British Government can dominate the South Atlantic for their own nefarious ends.



LR your translation is wrong , in no part of that page said that the British are evil.



Videos exclusivos... entrevista a los jóvenes malvinenses. ¿Qué piensan de los argentinos, de los militares ingleses homosexuales que habitan en las islas...? ¿cuánto le han dicho o enseñado a cerca de la guerra?
Según una entrevista realizada a los jóvenes malvinenses, en la escuela no le enseñan nada a cerca de la guerra de Malvinas, y todo lo que saben es gracias a sus padres, y que la mayoría de ellos desconfía de los argentinos, ya que toda la información que les llega a cerca de nuestro país, es tergiversada por la prensa de las islas.
En el segundo video, una entrevista al dueño de un bar nocturno de las islas, cuenta que una vez a la semana se realiza la "noche latina" y allí se pasa "cumbia villera". Los isleños creen que es chilena y la bailan continuamente, desconocen que es argentina.

Exclusive videos...interview to the Malvinensis youth, what they think about the argentines, of the homosexual british military whom lives in the islands? . How much had been told or teach to them about the war ?
According to the interview with the kids in the school nothing is learned about the war and everything they know is for his parents mouth, and the majority of them did not trust the Argentines since the information about our country who reach the islands is twisted by the local media.


In the second video, a interview to the owner of a night bar of the islands, he tells that once a week the "latin night" is made and the "gansta cumbia" is played. The islanders believe that is chilean and they dance with it all the time, they didnt know that is from argentina.




Como vemos, la juventud malvinense vive en una verdadera burbuja, aislada del mundo real, manipulada por la prensa local que tiene por único objetivo hacerle creer a la población, que Argentina es un país sanguinario y malvado, cuya única salvación es la presencia de militares británicos.

As we see, the Malvinas youth live in a real bubble, aislated from the real world, manipulated by the local press with the only target to make believe that Argentina is a Evil and bloodthirsty country and their only salvation is the presence of the british military.



Nada le enseñan acerca de la guerra, ni de la historia de las islas. Nada dicen sobre las verdaderas intenciones argentinas ni del modo de vida de sus habitantes. Si se lograran romper las barreras de la desinformación, ambos pueblos podrían llevarse mejor, y sabrían, que desde este lado del continente, los argentinos respetamos su forma de vida, y no se verían perjudicados ante un eventual cambio de soberanía


Nothing is teached to them about the war and the islands history. Nothing is said about the truly Argentine intentions or the living way of his inhabitants. If the barriers of disinformation could be erased both peoples could get alone and they knew that in this side of the continent the Argentines respect their way of living and nothing will be interrupted in a eventual change in sovereign.

----------------------------------------------------------------

My note:

The concepts like "homosexual" applied to the british military belong to the authors of that ultra right wing/nationalist page… so make your reclamations to them.

Lone Ranger
05-23-2007, 05:20 AM
Actually my tongue in cheek comment about the evil British Government was referring to this little doozy:


Justamente, la presencia de los soldados ingleses, es la única excusa por la cual Gran Bretaña puede seguir dominando el archipiélago, sabe muy bien que los isleños no son capaces de tener una fuerza propia capaz de defenderse ante un ataque externo.

Which I translated as:


The continued presence of the English army, is the only excuse that Great Britain can use to continue dominating the archipelago, it knows that the islanders cannot have their own forces able to defend them against an external attack.

My Spanish is crap but I think I get the gist of it. My comment contained just a little hyperbole, which I guess doesn't translate too well.

So back to my question, do people seriously believe this?

The notion that the Islanders are living in a bubble is nonesense, they have satellite TV, the Internet and free education overseas for A-levels. They can get information from many different sources, and the information they get from the web is unlikely to endear themselves to the Argentinians. For example when one of the Islanders posted a video of a commemoration of the Argentine invasion on YouTube, it was quickly filled with Argentinians posting comments about English Pirates, general abuse and threats to take the Islands back by force. Then they see stuff like this, what do you think is the impression that it will leave?

Ask yourself this, if a Falkland Islander were to frequent this forum and read some of the threads about who owns the islands, what impression would they take away?

Man of Stoat
05-23-2007, 08:34 AM
The invading Argentine forces were not exactly nice to the current Benny youth's parents, and certainly did not respect their "way of living" (i.e. speaking English and driving on the left), so it's hardly surprising that they view Argentina with suspicion. Plus what Lone Ranger said.

Gen. Sandworm
05-23-2007, 10:58 AM
Ask yourself this, if a Falkland Islander were to frequent this forum and read some of the threads about who owns the islands, what impression would they take away?

I hate to ask questions in here coz everytime I do it seems like it start a shitstrom. BTW it was me that posted the first thread on the Falklands :roll:

Anyhoo..........did any of the Islanders request assistance from Argentina or the UK? Might be getting off topic here so feel free to start a new thread on this!

Cuts
05-23-2007, 04:35 PM
I hate to ask questions in here coz everytime I do it seems like it start a shitstrom. BTW it was me that posted the first thread on the Falklands :roll:

Anyhoo..........did any of the Islanders request assistance from Argentina or the UK? Might be getting off topic here so feel free to start a new thread on this!


It might well be the subject for another thread, but I believe it would be one of the shortest on site.

For example, if I split the qustion:

Q.
Did any of the Islanders request assistance from:
a) Argentina.
b) The UK.



A.
a) No.
b) Yes.

Panzerknacker
05-23-2007, 07:23 PM
To Lone Ranger:

People being agressive in Youtube ?..hu...hardly a new. If the "Falklanders" are smart enough they will realize that 4 or 5 sixteen years old morons with broadband and poor english language skills did not represent Argentina.

If you think that the Argentine claim is nonsence... fine I respect your opinion even I dint share it, that does not mean I need to became a ***** with you and viceversa. This is a perspective that some members still didnt fully understand

If something I learned in this last months is to do not discuss opinions because is helpless.


Ask yourself this, if a Falkland Islander were to frequent this forum and read some of the threads about who owns the islands, what impression would they take away?

I never, ever put in doubt the ownership of the islands. That would be very silly. Is pretty clear to me that in that actual circunstances the islands belong to the Kelpers.


Ask yourself this, if a Falkland Islander were to frequent this forum and read some of the threads about who owns the islands, what impression would they take away?

I dont know, but I can assure you that if those people meet me in person probably we will end drinking some beers togheter.

Lone Ranger
05-24-2007, 04:29 AM
Actually I never posted any question about who owns the islands, the question I asked was related to the site you posted. That claimed that part of the reason the Islanders were so hostile to Argentina was they were living in a bubble unaware of the benign intentions of the Argentinians (that was more hyperbole BTW just in case theres any confusion).

And I think you're being just a little disingenuous in your reply, so in return I'll elaborate. If you look on Argentine websites related to the Falklands, they're usually (and I realise I'm generalising) completely dismissive that the Islanders have any rights. Read some of Eagle's posts here about why the Islanders should simply be ignored.

Now take some of those writings and replace Falkland Islands with Argentina and ask yourself how you would feel?

Because its only by recognising that the aggressive stance your country takes on the issue is the factor in determining how the Islanders view Argentina that you might be able to reach some kind of detente with them. However, it seems that you as a nation just can't accept that and to be honest the way you've dodged the question kinda demonstrates my point.

BTW I'm not much of a beer drinker but I'm sure we could crack a bottle of Malbec together.

Panzerknacker
05-24-2007, 07:55 PM
If you look on Argentine websites related to the Falklands, they're usually (and I realise I'm generalising) completely dismissive that the Islanders have any rights. Read some of Eagle's posts here about why the Islanders should simply be ignored.



No this site I ve posted, Eagle should respond by himself about his posted opinions, I cannot, I simply can say that I do not agree with him.


Now take some of those writings and replace Falkland Islands with Argentina and ask yourself how you would feel?

I feel very amused by the disbalanced comparative, Argentina had never made a war for gaining territory.



Because its only by recognising that the aggressive stance your country takes on the issue is the factor in determining how the Islanders view Argentina that you might be able to reach some kind of detente with them. However, it seems that you as a nation just can't accept that and to be honest the way you've dodged the question kinda demonstrates my point.



I try to do not "dodge" any question but simply I cannot answers thing I dont know.

If the position of Argentina ( and I mean todays Argentina 2007) is perceived as "agressive" then that website was right, the local/british media twisted the things.



BTW I'm not much of a beer drinker but I'm sure we could crack a bottle of Malbec together.


Oh man , you cannot be more right, I didnt like too much the beer also, I just named a drink popular to the islanders because you know, I respect their way of living :mrgreen:, but I agree nothing can surpass a good wine, and If argentine Malbec better.

http://www.selectedwines.com.ar/noveda13.jpg

Man of Stoat
05-25-2007, 02:50 AM
On 02/04/07, Argentina renewed its claim to the Falklands, and over the past few years has been very pushy to open sovereignty negotiations. Maybe they are not being currently militarily aggressive towards the Falklands, but they are politically.

Frankly, the rights of self-determination of the fifth generation islanders far outweighs any historical claim dating back to pre-1833 from Argentina, Spain, or indeed France.

Lone Ranger
05-25-2007, 03:53 AM
very amused by the disbalanced comparative, Argentina had never made a war for gaining territory.

Apart from the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands and the territorial disputes with your neighbours. Correct me if I'm wrong but Argentina refused to relinquish territory in the Beagle Channel awarded to Chile by arbitration?


If the position of Argentina ( and I mean todays Argentina 2007) is perceived as "agressive" then that website was right, the local/british media twisted the things.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Panzerknacker
05-25-2007, 09:39 AM
There was no war with Chile dear Lone Ranger.

And note that I use the word gaining not "regaining" territory. similar is not the same. :rolleyes:

Man of Stoat
05-25-2007, 10:03 AM
And note that I use the word gaining not "regaining" territory. similar is not the same.

Can we have Ireland and most of France back then?

Arguing semantics here is going to get you at the bottom of a very deep hole. "Regaining" is a subset of "gaining"...

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 10:54 AM
Can we have Ireland and most of France back then?

With the greatest respect, that seems a little limited. :D

What about India, Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and large slabs of the Middle East?

Not to mention America, which was lost only about half a century before Argentina didn't establish a claim to the Falklands in 1833.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. :D

Oops!

Sorry.

That'd mean that Spain gets Argentina back. Although, on historical titles, without the Falklands.

Bit of a bugger, that. :D

Lone Ranger
05-25-2007, 03:57 PM
There was no war with Chile dear Lone Ranger.

Legally binding arbitration through the ICJ awarded the territory to Chile, Argentina refused to accept it. It came close to war in 1978, largely it has to be said, because of Argentina's aggressive behaviour.

I notice the ICJ ruled against you in the case you brought over Uruguyan paper mills, Mercosur ruled against you. Hasn't stopped the blockades or harassment of Uruguyan lorries passing through Argentina has it?

There are numerous examples of Argentinian Governments acting aggressively toward the Falkland Islands - I've already listed a few.

No doubt, in your mind Argentine intentions were entirely benevolent and they were just misunderstood. Just out of interest, are you aware of Orwell's concept of Doublethink?

Panzerknacker
05-25-2007, 08:18 PM
Almost agree with you (even I dont know what is the relationship with the Parana ecological protest) there was frictions, but still there was no war with Chile.


Arguing semantics here is going to get you at the bottom of a very deep hole.

I am so scared¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ What i am going to do ¡¡¡¡¡:!:

No worry about me MoS , my problem would be is somebody begin to behave like an ******* :rolleyes:

Cuts
05-25-2007, 09:45 PM
No worry about me MoS , my problem would be is somebody begin to behave like an ******* :rolleyes:


Quod erat démōnstrandum.





Arguing semantics here is going to get you at the bottom of a very deep hole.

I am so scared¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ What i am going to do ¡¡¡¡¡:!:

Panzerknacker
05-25-2007, 10:51 PM
Oh..nice example, you got me there, but I am not the first in behave like this.:D

And knowing the quality of some members, (2 gentlemen in particular) I wont be the last.

http://www.histarmar.com.ar/HYAMNEWS/HyamNews2006/FotosH06/IA01.jpg

1000ydstare
05-28-2007, 06:36 AM
I'll not watch the vidoe wrt to the Falklands occupants.

I will point out a few things though....

Having been on the Falklands recently, something many of you on this site have never been, so I can point out a few things first hand.

The "Falklands Bubble"... The Islanders have never been more connected to the world.

Gone are the days when the Army brought videos of BFBS for the children. Many homes now have sattelite TV and phones (something they didn't have in '82), radios are still used for comms between the more remote sites.

Internet is also available.

Many children leave the Islands for their education, in the UK or other International schools.

If you are upset about the views of the parents on the Argientines, unlucky. No amount of bubbledom or not, will change their views. Read the first hand account on my Land Rovers thread for what happened at Goose Green to the people there.

Things like that stick, as do forcing an alien tongue on the Islanders, forcing changes in laws (ie road traffic acts), forceably evicting members of the community.

Then of course there are minor details like the minefields and other detrious of war that were left behind (mainly by the Argies).

Then there are the defenders that have been left behind. There is a bit of a love/hate relationship between the Bennys and the forces. I think they much preferred the 30 odd garrison of the old boat party 8901. The Argentine invasion put paid to that.

If the Argentines are agreived that the Islanders don't like them, well they shouldn't have cut about the Islands like they owned them in '82 shoud they.

The homosexual claims are just rubbish. Lots of men, not many women - hence the claims. British Soldiers say the same about the Royal Navy/Marines at sea. The Islanders would no doubt have said the same about the Argentines had they some how stayed after 1982....

Ha ha, yes I know we are in the realms of fantasy there, but just supposing... HA HA HA HA no really....

As for this....

Nothing is said about the truly Argentine intentions or the living way of his inhabitants. If the barriers of disinformation could be erased both peoples could get alone and they knew that in this side of the continent the Argentines respect their way of living and nothing will be interrupted in a eventual change in sovereign.

The true Argentine intentions are what? You (as in the Argentines) had a chance to win over the people in 1982, and you failed miserably. Particularly when you allowed the various bullies from your own countries "intelligence" (read "muderous scum") services to the islands.

Given that you forced them to change their language, change their traffic laws etc etc. The islanders are hardly going to beleive that you will leave them in peace. They want to live as they do now, Britain provides that stability, the Argies can promise it but history has shown how they have and may treat the islanders.

Sorry Panzer, whinge and moan all you like about how the Islanders mistrust your country, it was YOUR country who did that, not any writings or claims by any other country.

Lay the blame for the situation wrt Argie/Falkland Islanders relations fully on your own step.

Even the fact you would change the name of their home offends.

Rising Sun*
05-28-2007, 07:43 AM
http://www.histarmar.com.ar/HYAMNEWS/HyamNews2006/FotosH06/IA01.jpg

A very nice photo of a very nice ship.

In the series of mysterious Panzerknacker photos cunningly inserted to make subtle points in Falklands threads, I think this one is meant to demonstrate that:

(a) Argentina likes to force-feed its ships through big shore pipes, or

(b) Argentina lacks deep water ports, or

(c) Argentina has deep water ports but no captains capable of navigating them, so they just ground their ships on waveless beaches. Sort of the reverse of having a deep water ship like the Belgrano but no captain capable of keeping it off ocean floor.

:D

Panzerknacker
05-28-2007, 08:26 AM
1000y, as I said before the page is not wrote for me so idint take the charges for whole thing.



A very nice photo of a very nice ship.

In the series of mysterious Panzerknacker photos cunningly inserted to make subtle points in Falklands threads, I think this one is meant to demonstrate that:




Mysterius ??, RS why you just made some research before mocking about everything? :rolleyes:

The ship I ve posted is the ARA Cabo San Antonio tank landing ship,it carried armored vehicles the 2 april, so there is no mystery at all.


http://www.bichosverdes.org/CaboSanAntonio.jpg

1000ydstare
05-28-2007, 09:00 AM
Not syaing you did write any of the page, but you did write the quote in my post.

Sorry, mate. In some ways it would be much better if the Islanders would cooperate with the Argentine/South American mainland, after all they are close, and it is ironic that had the Argentine Junta just let it be, the Islands today would most likely be all but part of Argentina, with eventual change over of soverignity in practice if not name all but certain.

That was scotched for a good few years by the invasion, likewise due to the Argentine policy of acting like a spoilt, petualant child wrt to the various fishing rights and other deals, agreements and pacts the Islanders have learnt how to live with out the Argentines.

The Islanders are more than capable of making un-biased (by external forces/people) choices. When they feel Argentina is good for them, they will deal more with that country.

The Falkland Islanders, by default, are a very independant lot. And, although you may believe such a small island is supported by a bigger country, they want for nothing. Other than the vast amount of troops on the island.

Whilst the Argentines cut about all beligerant and aggresive (politically if not militarily) then they are never going to get what they want.

Should they just throw in the towel, and say "Do as you will, we will help you let us prove it" they will get a bit further than empty promises of leaving the Islands in peace if they get their hands on them.

WRT the history of the islands, you will find that the Islanders have a very good grasp of the history of the islands. Some are even Argentine by descent, their history is filled with less rhetoric than the Argentine history bandied around how the Falklands are THEIRS!!!!!! with little or no recourse to any other historical fact.

ie the constant believe that the British destroyed the settlement and invaded in 1833.

1000ydstare
05-28-2007, 09:06 AM
Not syaing you did write any of the page, but you did write the quote in my post.

Sorry, mate. In some ways it would be much better if the Islanders would cooperate with the Argentine/South American mainland, after all they are close, and it is ironic that had the Argentine Junta just let it be, the Islands today would most likely be all but part of Argentina, with eventual change over of soverignity in practice if not name all but certain.

That was scotched for a good few years by the invasion, likewise due to the Argentine policy of acting like a spoilt, petualant child wrt to the various fishing rights and other deals, agreements and pacts the Islanders have learnt how to live with out the Argentines.

The Islanders are more than capable of making un-biased (by external forces/people) choices. When they feel Argentina is good for them, they will deal more with that country.

The Falkland Islanders, by default, are a very independant lot. And, although you may believe such a small island is supported by a bigger country, they want for nothing. Other than the vast amount of troops on the island.

Whilst the Argentines cut about all beligerant and aggresive (politically if not militarily) then they are never going to get what they want.

Should they just throw in the towel, and say "Do as you will, we will help you let us prove it" they will get a bit further than empty promises of leaving the Islands in peace if they get their hands on them.

WRT the history of the islands, you will find that the Islanders have a very good grasp of the history of the islands. Some are even Argentine by descent, their history is filled with less rhetoric than the Argentine history bandied around how the Falklands are THEIRS!!!!!! with little or no recourse to any other historical fact.

ie the constant believe that the British destroyed the settlement and invaded in 1833.

Rising Sun*
05-28-2007, 09:27 AM
Mysterius ??, RS why you just made some research before mocking about everything? :rolleyes:

The ship I ve posted is the ARA Cabo San Antonio tank landing ship,it carried armored vehicles the 2 april, so there is no mystery at all.


Well, me old sport, why do I have to do the research on a photo you've posted before I mock it?

If it's so important on 2 April (of whatever year applies), why isn't it disgorging tanks and troops, or being shelled in the calm shallow waters where it is resting sedately?

Harsh though this may seem, the rest of the world hasn't been relentlessly combing Jane's Ships to discover that Argentina has an LST named the ARA Cabo San Antonio.

It's just an LST. Lots of nations have them.

I wouldn't get too excited about having one.

It could could hit the bottom in no time.

:D

1000ydstare
05-28-2007, 09:40 AM
To be fair Panzerknacker, the picture would have interested me had you put in the information about it.

But as RS points out, I am not going to research it. For a start, I don't know who owns the thing or what her name is. Researching from just a photo would take years.

By all means put such things in, just bang a bit about them underneath too.

As I have said before, a quick excursion from the topic often keeps the topic fresh and moving and brings information in that may open up other topics.

Lone Ranger
05-29-2007, 04:36 PM
It's just an LST. Lots of nations have them.

Not any more, it has been scrapped. They tried to replace it with a modified commercial ship, a deal with France for redundant French warships fell through due to asbestos concerns.

Is it just me, or does any time an awkward fact or question is exposed someone throws a curved ball?

1000ydstare
05-30-2007, 02:01 PM
You just have to catch 'em and throw 'em right back, mate.

Or punt them out of the game park :D

Panzerknacker
05-31-2007, 07:47 PM
A picture that given the actual political situation seems to be taken a 1000 years ago:

Prince Charles lays a wreath at the memorial.


http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1227/294034wreath150mr5.jpg



Wednesday, March 10, 1999 Published at 10:03 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/black_pixel.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif
World: Americas
http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif
Police tackle prince demo
Riot police in Buenos Aires have used tear gas and water cannon to disperse hundreds of demonstrators angry at the Prince of Wales' visit to Argentina.

The demonstrators, a mixture of anarchists and communists, were prevented from getting close to a hotel where the prince was attending a dinner hosted by the Argentine President Carlos Menem.
Some carried placards saying "Pirate Prince Go Home" and burned Union Flags.
But their demonstration was swiftly halted and failed to disrupt Prince Charles' visit in any way.

At least 27 people were arrested when the demonstrators tried to cross a police line.

A joint statement by 10 leftist parties said: "Prince Charles has come to our country to guarantee our submission to British imperialism."
The prince, in the highest-profile royal visit to Argentina since the 1982 Falklands War, called for reconciliation.

He said he hoped Argentina and the Falkland Islands could live together amicably.
Earlier, in a gesture of reconciliation, the prince placed a wreath before a Buenos Aires memorial honouring the 750 Argentines who lost their lives on the Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as Las Malvinas.
As a bugler played, the prince bowed his head before a polished black granite wall bearing the names of Los Caidos, or the Fallen Ones.
The ceremony echoed the laying of a wreath by President Menem to the 255 British casualties of the war at St Paul's Cathedral last year.

Speaking at the dinner at the Alvear Palace Hotel, Prince Charles said: "My hope is that the people of modern, democratic Argentina, with their passionate attachment to their national traditions, will in the future be able to live amicably alongside the people of another modern, if rather smaller, democracy lying a few hundred miles off your coast."
He called for a "spirit of mutual understanding and respect" and said he hoped there would never again be a fear of hostile action.
The prince, who later danced with President Menem's daughter Zulema, concluded by toasting the Argentine nation in Spanish and received a round of applause.

The prince, a former Royal Navy officer, plans to travel to the Falklands later this week to lay wreaths at the conflict's major battlefields.
He is following a frantic schedule in Argentina, including a visit to promising young footballers, some of whom are on their way to British clubs such as Manchester United.

The prince will also find time for a game of polo at the Hurlingham Club. Argentina is widely considered to be one of the best polo nations in the world and much attention is being paid to Charles' game by the Argentine media.
He will also pay a two-day visit to Uruguay.

The Prince of Wales is not the first member of the royal family to visit Argentina since 1982, having been preceded by his brother and Falkands veteran Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, five years ago.
His former wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, also visited the country.

The issue of sovereignty over the South Atlantic islands will not be discussed during the prince's trip and is presently "set aside" by both countries who are keen to concentrate on other issues like promoting trade. However, Prince Charles' visit to the islands will be seen by both Argentina and the islanders themselves as a firm reminder that the UK takes its commitment to the Falklands' sovereignty seriously.

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 09:58 AM
A picture that given the actual political situation seems to be taken a 1000 years ago.

Panzerknacker, are you a devotee of Zen, Haiku, and the mysterious Oriental arts of obscurity?

I hate to burst your bubble but:

1. Photographs couldn't be taken 1,000 years ago.

2. The only royal Charlie of significance around that time was Charlemagne, who departed this mortal coil in 814. Also, he was a Froggie, not a Pom. And the Falklands were a long way from being attached to Argentina which was a long way from being discovered by Spain, due to the slight impediment of Spain being occupied by the Moors at the time of Charlemagne's death and even 1,000 years ago.

3. The picture reflects 'the actual political situation'. As a particularly stupid politician in my nation said in a phrase which has gone into the language: "Please explain?".

4. The dateline on the quoted news article is 1999. Conventional arithmetic suggests that this is a little short of 1,000 years ago.

A cynic might think you were trying to take the piss with 1,000ydstare.

But I don't, because you're just pissing around with 1,000 yrs, to no purpose.

Could you post some more pictures of glaciers? They were nice. And made more sense :D

Gen. Sandworm
06-01-2007, 11:14 AM
I hate to burst your bubble but:

1. Photographs couldn't be taken 1,000 years ago.



Bubble reconstructed!

Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (965–1040) invented the camera obscura and pinhole camera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera

Seriously we did this in school.



Could you post some more pictures of glaciers? They were nice. And made more sense

Pot this is Kettle color check, over!
These kind of posts are just getting silly. RS please make posts that contribute!

and not just directed at RS ........but whats with all this crap posting in here lately.

1000ydstare
06-01-2007, 11:20 AM
It is beleived that the Turin Shroud is actually a sort of photograph.

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 11:20 AM
These kind of posts are just getting silly.

Agreed. But I'm not initiating them.


RS please make posts that contribute!

I did.

I responded to Panzerknakcer's post.

Directly.

On a number of points.

If there's a problem, why not go to the source and tell Panzerknacker to make a post that contributes?

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 11:29 AM
It is beleived that the Turin Shroud is actually a sort of photograph.

I'd respond to that, and to other comments which pre-date the discovery and use of silver-halide etc compositions etc in gelatine etc, but it'd be off-topic unless I had a nice picture of an LST or a glacier.

If I had a photograph of the face of Christ imprinted on an Argentinian LST after colliding with an iceberg containing the real Shroud of Turin, that'd be at least as good as just the ARA Cabo San Antonio stuck on a beach with no faces of anybody on it.

But I don't have any of that, so I won't say anything. :D

Panzerknacker
06-01-2007, 11:51 AM
Argentine visits to Falklands permitted by deal
Independent, The (London) (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158), Jul 15, 1999 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990715) by Andrew Grice Political Editor (http://findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Andrew+Grice+Political+Editor%22)
FALKLAND ISLANDERS have reacted warily to yesterday's lifting of a ban on visits by Argentine citizens. The decision forms part of the first formal agreement between the British and Argentine governments since the 1982 war. Until now, the only Argentines allowed to set foot on the islands have been relatives visiting war graves.

Speaking after the London talks, Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, said that the deal was "an historic occasion" which heralded a new era of "co- operation and trust" between the two countries. But Guido di Tella, the Argentine Foreign Minister, admitted the agreement would have no bearing on his country's claims to sovereignty over the islands. And Falkland councillors, who represented islanders in the talks, said the agreement on access for Argentines would be a "bitter pill to swallow" for some of their fellow residents.


On Sunday, the Argentine flag was burned during a protest by 300 islanders in Port Stanley. But the agreement will bring benefits for the islands, whose isolation was further increased in March when Chile cancelled flights there in protest at Britain's detention of Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator

The deal allows flights from Argentina for the first time since the conflict, while the Argentine government has won Chile's agreement to allow services to the island to resume. Some islanders will be irked by the presence on the first flight of Zulema Menem, daughter of the Argentine president, Carlos Menem, and by the president's pledge to visit before the end of the year.


Sadly the Argentine flag not only was burned in that year, but also the Goverment ( I dont know if is the Kelper goverment of the British one) did not allowed the argentine flag in the Argentine sematary until today.

I wonder why ? Is a common practice to put the Flag of the fallen soldiers in the burial site.

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 12:04 PM
Sadly the Argentine flag not only was burned in that year, but also the Goverment ( I dont know if is the Kelper goverment of the British one) did not allowed the argentine flag in the Argentine sematary until today.

I wonder why ? Is a common practice to put the Flag of the fallen soldiers in the burial site. Is pretty unfair.

Well, I'm already under the pump for daring to challenge the relevance of your last post, so there's nothing to be lost by persisting.

WTF does another eight year old news article have to do with the current position?

Or should we all just pick positions in time that suit us?

Suits me.

1833.

Argentina's claims ended by British occupation.

End of story.

End of thread.

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 12:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera

Seriously we did this in school.

I don't doubt it.

It's a basic step in photographic instruction.

Done it myself plenty of times.

The difference is that, while the camera obscura was long known as a viewing or projection device, it wasn't until much later that the projected image could be captured permanently on film and or paper.

I bet your school didn't show you how to make film of the early photographic period on paper with egg white, salt, silver nitrate, and gelatine etc.

That's what I was talking about as a photograph. Nobody did it 1,000 years ago when Panzerknacker related his modern photograph of Prince Charles to whatever obscure point Panzerknacker was trying to make.

P.S. End of thread. Again. :)

royal744
06-01-2007, 05:14 PM
To be fair Panzerknacker, the picture would have interested me had you put in the information about it.

But as RS points out, I am not going to research it. For a start, I don't know who owns the thing or what her name is. Researching from just a photo would take years.

By all means put such things in, just bang a bit about them underneath too.

As I have said before, a quick excursion from the topic often keeps the topic fresh and moving and brings information in that may open up other topics.

Interesting 1000yd stare. I was scanning a bunch of old photographs from my father's estate and came across a single picture of a warship taken sometime in the 30s, most likely somewhere in the Dutch East Indies where my father grew up on a sugar plantation. I looked at every single ship in the Dutch Navy during the 30s and could not find even a close match. So, I sent the scanned photo to a Dutch navy site on line and within 3 days, someone on there not only identified the ship, but sent me scanned photos of the ship under construction. It urned out to not be a Dutch heavy cruiser at all (of which they apparently had none), but a US cruiser of the New Orleans class, most likely the Astoria which called in Indonesia on a shake down cruise in the thirties. I was amazed that people could actually do this. Oh, and it was a stern photo that I have, not a bow shot, LOL. So it can be done, 1000ydstare.

1000ydstare
06-02-2007, 02:05 AM
Yes it can be done. Just not by me. :D

Lone Ranger
06-02-2007, 04:32 AM
I wonder why ? Is a common practice to put the Flag of the fallen soldiers in the burial site.

Not necessarily how many cemeteries in France flew the Nazi flag over the graves of dead German soldiers after WWII?

It takes time for the wounds to heal, the invasion turned these peoples lives upside down, they had to endure the attentions of your military police intelligence and many of you military did not treat them particularly well. Its not surprising that they might have an adverse reaction to flag waving.

And I don't suppose it helped when they did allow a visit by former soldiers that they took the opportunity to pull a stunt by raising the Argentine flag to a rousing chorus of the "Malvinas March".

1000ydstare
06-02-2007, 04:58 AM
The Argentines really know how to win Hearts and Minds don't they!!!! :D

The Nazi flag isn't flown, but the German one is. Although off hand I couldn't tell you how soon after the war the cemetaries were thus adorned, or even properly marked and maintained!!!

Perhaps, as a start, on a particular day the Argentine flag could be half raised as a sign of respect and rememberence? Perhaps raised, then half lowered, then raised again before being put back in the box? Who would do it though? I am sure the British Garrison could do it, and look after the flag in the meantime.

Points to note though, Panzerknacker. The Falklands War was started by some of your citizens raising your flag on South Georgia. All right we know that didnt start it, but it is seen as the starting point. Hence, there may be a bit of hostility to the raising of the flag, at all, over British territory.

Panzerknacker
06-02-2007, 11:34 PM
Not necessarily how many cemeteries in France flew the Nazi flag over the graves of dead German soldiers after WWII?

It takes time for the wounds to heal, the invasion turned these peoples lives upside down, they had to endure the attentions of your military police intelligence and many of you military did not treat them particularly well. Its not surprising that they might have an adverse reaction to flag waving.

And I don't suppose it helped when they did allow a visit by former soldiers that they took the opportunity to pull a stunt by raising the Argentine flag to a rousing chorus of the "Malvinas March".


As 1000y said they have his flag, is not the Blutfahne of-course but a german one. In any case the comparative of the "nazi" soldiers with the argentine ones is completely vicious from your part.

But...Even the politically motivated SS soldiers had his tombstonse honored by a foreign President:

President Reagan in Bitburg honoring with a wreath ss soldiers 1985.

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/6151/regankohlbitburg1985gr9.jpg


http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/5404/bitburgax6.jpg

So , if there is no an skiblue-white flag over the Argentine sematary must be for some other dark reasons.

BDL
06-03-2007, 02:57 AM
So , if there is no an skiblue-white flag over the Argentine sematary must be for some other dark reasons.

It's almost certainly just because the islanders aren't ready to see the Argentinian flag over their land again yet - it would bring back a lot of dark memories for them.

Panzerknacker
06-04-2007, 12:17 PM
Your argument is a little weak, argentine veterans could say say the same about of the union Jack, but this ensign not forbidden in Argentina. :rolleyes:

1000ydstare
06-04-2007, 01:49 PM
The last time the British flew teh Union Flag over Argentina was in the 2nd invasion of the River Plate... in 1807. No one in Argentina can remember that, being 200 years ago. It is probably 5 generations or more between that and today.

On the other hand many Islanders remember Argentinas invasion of 1982, being only 25 years ago, maybe one generation, two at a push.

Hence the feelings are still a bit raw.

At the end of the day, the Falklands are the Islanders. Thus what they say (in their parliment) goes. We can't tell them to fly any flag we want.

I would think the vets would have more against the Junta and the powers that sent them, than the British. Although I would understand if they didn't like the Union Flag.

Lone Ranger
06-04-2007, 03:41 PM
In any case the comparative of the "nazi" soldiers with the argentine ones is completely vicious from your part.

Any comparison is purely in your own mind, your over sensitivity is your problem not mine.


So , if there is no an skiblue-white flag over the Argentine sematary must be for some other dark reasons.

What a complete and utter load of dingo's kidneys. Funny how you react with righteous indignation at some imagined slight, then turn around and accuse others of acting for "dark reason".

Surprisingly there is no hatred in the Falklands for the Argentines, thats the one thing that shines out of Graham Bound's book on the Islanders.

It might have something to do with the way your military police intelligence conducted itself during the war. Mock executions, arbitrary search and seizure, deportations and incarceration of civilians in blatant breach of the Geneva convention didn't win you any friends. Thats without the consideration of the threat of a little light ethnic cleansing that the likes of Major Dowling openly talked about.

Then theres the matter that your Government takes every opportunity to exert pressure upon the islanders, its continued and overtly aggressive policy towards the islanders might have something to do with it.

Saying sorry, building a few bridges might help but if you continue along the path you're going down then you can forget it. And I can't say I blame them.

Panzerknacker
06-14-2007, 11:55 PM
That is funny, but you forgot to mention two important facts.

Fact A) The only civilian casualties in the islands were killed by the British.

Fact B) The only Force accused of war crimes were the british.


Sometimes when I browse others forums in wich the topic of Malvinas is allowed I see many times that a passionate defense of the argentine claim by part of a fellow countryman is quickly discalificated with phrases like " you are a child of the Argentine brainwashing propaganda"....:rolleyes:

Reading the post above by Lone Ranger seems that the "brainwashing propaganda" works well for both sides and perhaps the British one was by far more effective.:roll:


And just one more thing, I dont care what you said or watherever other member could said for justifing the baning over the Argentine sematary.
The fallen of the argentine Forces deserve to have his national flag over his burial site.

Man of Stoat
06-15-2007, 03:10 AM
I don't know where you get fact B from, laying unmarked minefields is a war crime. using unmarked civilian vehicles for military purposes is a war crime. that's two Argentine war crimes without even thinking about it.

Which British war crimes are you alleging anyway? not that nonsense Erwin and his silly little friends were spouting, I hope?

BDL
06-15-2007, 05:25 AM
Which British war crimes are you alleging anyway? not that nonsense Erwin and his silly little friends were spouting, I hope?

Having better soldiers, winning wars, employing Gurkhas, loud shirt in a built up area - you know the drill by now.

Surely the treatment of the islanders by the invading Argentinian forces were fairly close to the mark too?

Man of Stoat
06-15-2007, 05:29 AM
Maybe Argentine defenders getting TLC'd (To Late Chummed) when attempting to surrender at bayonet length having had ample opportunity to do it previously somehow counts in the Argentine mind?

Rising Sun*
06-15-2007, 08:25 AM
Having better soldiers, winning wars, employing Gurkhas, loud shirt in a built up area - you know the drill by now.



My bold.

The winning wars part seems to me to be the heart of the current refusal by Argentina to accept its fate on the Falklands. Not unlike some Arab countries that have the same problem with Israel, regardless of all the other issues surrounding that conflict. The Arabs lost, consistently and magnificently, but they were never conquered. In several wars. So, like Argentina, they still think they have a part to play in determining what the winner does after the wars they lost with the territories that were lost in, and were the subject of, those wars. Applying this to simpler contests, the loser of the world heavyweight boxing championship would decide who gets the belt.

Wars that are won on distant shores but that don't involve the winner pressing his boot and bayonet hard into the throat of the loser in his homeland tend to encourage the loser to think that he'll do better the second or third time around. Germany and Japan felt the boot and bayonet on their throats at the end of WWII and sought a better way for the future. Argentina didn't at the end of the Falklands War, so it thinks that its original territorial demands are still within the range of possibilities.

If instead of just pissing Argentina off by sinking the Belgrano Britain had nuked BA and a few other major centres there would be even greater resentment towards Britain. And considerably less desire to regain the Falklands.

Argentina's problem isn't that it doesn't hold the Falklands.

It's that it lost the Falklands War, and it wasn't given sufficient reason with a boot and bayonet hard into its throat in its homeland to accept that it'd be a lot better off leaving the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future.

Lone Ranger
06-15-2007, 04:54 PM
the post above by Lone Ranger seems that the "brainwashing propaganda" works well for both sides and perhaps the British one was by far more effective

Every event I referred to was described by eyewitness testimony in the book Falkland Islanders at War (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Falkland-Islanders-War-Sword-Military/dp/1844154297/ref=sr_1_1/203-2740405-2776718?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181938610&sr=8-1) by Graham Bound. Most of which I have seen confirmed independently, for example, in the recent History Channel documentary (http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/British_history/programme_3519.php) or on the web (http://www.falklands.info/history/dc82memories.html).

The comments were made as the result of independent research and an open mind.

And before you accuse me of being one sided, my research includes documentary evidence from the opposing side for example this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Argentine-Fight-Falklands-Martin-Middlebrook/dp/0850529786/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/203-2740405-2776718?ie=UTF8&qid=1181939277&sr=8-1).

Further, if you read Graham Bound's book, he goes out of his way to be even handed, acknowledging that many Argentines behaved with basic common decency. Fortunately they were able to put a break on men like Major Patricio Dowling, who were basically thugs who would have been happy to indulge in a spot of ethnic cleansing.

Now on the other hand, instead of providing any sort of counterpoint you simply dismiss what doesn't conform to what you think you know. An open mind would consider it, verify or otherwise find conflicting evidence independently. The fact that you have made no attempt to do so, is because you are only prepared to accept a one-sided point of view - err isn't that "brainwashing propaganda".

Once again you're accusing me of being in the wrong, once again you are the one in error.

Once again I make the point, that many of your countrymen treated the Islanders badly, your Government uses any excuse to bully and intimidate, your Government has made no attempt at rapprochement then it is no small wonder that the Islanders are hostile to the sight of the Argentine flag on their territory.

If you feel it is petty and vindictive, perhaps it is, but it is understandable. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that your countries' behaviour is in any way responsible does not fill me with confidence that there is any hope for peaceful relations with the Islanders.

However, you cannot truly accuse the Islanders of being totally petty and vindictive. They have allowed the Argentine cemetry to be built, they've allowed the families to visit, they welcome them when they do and they've allowed a chapel to be built. It is plain that the Islanders have made a greater attempt at more cordial relations than the Argentine Government has ever done.

Finally, I can be accused of many things, having a closed mind is not one of them.

Cuts
06-15-2007, 08:46 PM
Paint can often be used to camouflage various items to good effect, and I recall the ingenious use to which the Argentine forces used it on an ammo dump.
The problem being that using the Red Cross in such a manner was not a 'ruse of war' but deliberate misuse of the symbol to an extent that it becomes a war crime.

This was covered by the original Geneva Conventions and supported by the subsequent Protocols, see Articles 37, 38, and 39 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
Article 38 explicitly prohibits the “improper use of the distinctive emblems of the red cross, red crescent or red lion,” which, if used perfidiously, is a grave breach.

It cannot be argued that the use to which the Argentine forces put the Red Cross, (ie used of the emblem in time of conflict to protect combatants or military equipment,) was anything but perfidy, and by definition making perfidious use of the emblem is a war crime in both international and noninternational armed conflict.

Otto's "Fact B)" is most Erwinesque in it's inaccuracy.

Panzerknacker
06-15-2007, 10:04 PM
BDL I know that being in the military the crimes issue is reallly touchy for you, but those were narrated by a british paratrooper and not an argentine source, it have his topic in this section so I prefer not to continue here. And before you asking me I have no solid proofs to confirm or deny such allegations.



Once again you're accusing me of being in the wrong, once again you are the one in error


Excume me Lone R but re-read my last message and you ll see that the word wrong in non-existant, perhaps you are influenced by a the war propaganda of those times, but I dont think you was wrong in that post.
And I preciate the gesture of the Falklanders, but is not enough.



Otto's "Fact B)" is most Erwinesque in it's inaccuracy.



My Dear Cuts, I am well aware that you hate me with all your heart.... but I am asking you ( for the third time) that please did not use the word Otto when you are refering a post of mine. Lets not give SS Tiger a headache.

BDL
06-16-2007, 04:37 AM
BDL I know that being in the military the crimes issue is reallly touchy for you, but those were narrated by a british paratrooper and not an argentine source, it have his topic in this section so I prefer not to continue here. And before you asking me I have no solid proofs to confirm or deny such allegations.


I've just read that topic, I think most of those claims were well and truly rubbished there. Unlike the Argentinian war crimes claims that have been conclusively proven, such as using the red cross perfidiously, unmarked and unmapped minefields, the treatment of Islanders by some of your forces and so on.

As it happens, the guy who shot an Argentinian POW was interviewed on British TV last week. He was a WO2 (I think) in the Paras and due to the careless way that Argentinian field gun ammunition had just been dumped all around the arty position, he had to use POWs to tidy it away for their own safety. For some reason some of the shells went off and one of the POWs was extremely badly wounded. The WO2 shot him to put him out of his suffering, as he would have died anyway and the longer he was left the more he was suffering.

He was almost in tears when he was talking about what he had had to do.

Cuts
06-16-2007, 06:11 AM
My Dear Cuts, I am well aware that you hate me with all your heart.

Now don't let's be silly.

To be honest I can't think of anyone at all that I hate, neither here on the Internet nor in real life, it's just not worth the effort.

Get a grip and come to terms with the fact that this is a virtual world.
IT'S NOT REAL.

If anything starts to wind you up, put your hands against the desk and push yourself away from the computer. The manufacturers have even provided an 'off' button you can use.
Nothing anyone can do or say on the net need have any effect on anyone else.


Take Tinwalt for example, he built himself a virtual identity in which he was an expert in everything, his problem was that he started to believe his own lies.
"Erwin Schatzer" is another clown that thinks his 'standing on a site gives him some sort of credence where the rest of us live - ie reality on Planet Earth. FFS Erwin believed the 'rank' and site gongs were of some sort of importance away from the pc !
Unfortunately psychiatrists and psychologists actually encourage many of their patients to re-invent themselves on the net, hence the plethora of trolls that post and re-post their drivel on so may sites.

Three pieces of genuinely well-meant advice:
01) Always remember the Internet is not real life.
02) Don't bite.
03) You can always walk away & chill out.

Rising Sun*
06-16-2007, 10:13 AM
My Dear Cuts, I am well aware that you hate me with all your heart ...

Evidence?

I haven't seen anything to support this inference.

I am disturbed that the debate in this thread about the Falklands War should suddenly be converted into unsupported, and as far as I can see unsupportable, claims about intense personal emotions of hatred by one member towards another member.

One of the problems with having one's hand permanently on one's tool is that one can forget that the rest of the world lacks the emotion to generate the motion to be strokin' the love potion lotion on the ...

Panzerknacker
06-16-2007, 10:24 AM
Fantastic Cuts, is good to know that you havent such emotion, if some of my post bother you, i suggest to follow your own advice and turn off your computer. In the meanwhile that does not mean that we cannot mantain a minimum level of respect with each other.


For some reason some of the shells went off and one of the POWs was extremely badly wounded. The WO2 shot him to put him out of his suffering, as he would have died anyway and the longer he was left the more he was suffering.

Is something that we call terapeutic execution ?, and those guys still have the courage to mention those crimes in public, that is just amazing.

Rising Sun*
06-16-2007, 10:33 AM
Is something that we call terapeutic execution ?, and those guys still have the courage to mention those crimes in public, that is just amazing.

Mate, you seem to have no idea what happens in a real war.

Like against Japan in WWII

You should be bloody grateful that you were fighting Britain and not the Japanese.

Or British who had fought the Japanese and who applied the same standards to your lot.

Every nation does bad things in war.

Get over it!

BDL
06-16-2007, 11:16 AM
Is something that we call terapeutic execution ?, and those guys still have the courage to mention those crimes in public, that is just amazing.

No, we generally call it euthenasia and it's legal in a lot of countries.

The poor lad was suffering terribly, he was dying slowly with most of the flesh burned/blown from his body and the guy made a split second decision that he was better off dying quickly with a bullet in the head than he was taking hours to die from his injuries. The other Argentinian prisoners who witnessed it approved of what he had done.

It happens in war, it always has and it wouldn't surprise me if it still does. If I was dying in agony like that I'd certainly expect one of my mates to do it for me.

Stop trying to find crimes where there are none.

Lone Ranger
06-16-2007, 05:22 PM
Excume me Lone R but re-read my last message and you ll see that the word wrong in non-existant, perhaps you are influenced by a the war propaganda of those times, but I dont think you was wrong in that post.

No you accused me of being influenced by propaganda, I've put you straight on that one and yet you repeat the accusation. I've an open mind, done my research and formed by my own opinions. Something you don't seem prepared to do. One of us is clearly influenced by the "war propaganda" but it isn't me.:roll::roll:

Once again you ignore the point that your own Government bears more than a little responsibility for the attitude of the Islanders.

Lone Ranger
06-17-2007, 06:12 AM
While we're on the subject of the Argentine cemetry.

Restrictions imposed your president Mr Kirchner’s Government on charter flights continue to limit access to the islands for relatives still grieving 25 years after the conflict. Kirchner’s Government also declined British offers for a joint service there on the anniversary, instead yesterday their former enemies laid wreaths in their memory.

Your own Government's restrictions seem to be more petty and vindictive towards the families than anything the Islanders have done.

Cuts
06-17-2007, 09:37 AM
Some years ago I watched a programme on Channel Four about the conflict.
Sldrs on both sides were interviewed and a few of the Argentine sldrs recalled a terrible incident where a white phos gren on the webbing of one of their comrades ignited.
The poor bloke went up in flames, screaming. His oppos looked on in horror, and when one cabo shouted out that the burning man was lighting up their position he was eventually put out of his misery with some sensibly placed 7.62.

I don't remember if it was so, but perhaps a British rd had hit the gren and set it off.
Going by the above 'logic' the Brit cmdr should also be prosecuted for war crimes... :roll:

Rising Sun*
06-17-2007, 09:51 AM
Some years ago I watched a programme on Channel Four about the conflict.
Sldrs on both sides were interviewed and a few of the Argentine sldrs recalled a terrible incident where a white phos gren on the webbing of one of their comrades ignited.
The poor bloke went up in flames, screaming. His oppos looked on in horror, and when one cabo shouted out that the burning man was lighting up their position he was eventually put out of his misery with some sensibly placed 7.62.

I don't remember if it was so, but perhaps a British rd had hit the gren and set it off.
Going by the above 'logic' the Brit cmdr should also be prosecuted for war crimes... :roll:


It's hard to detonate a grenade, or other similar explosives, with anything but their fuses.

As countless 25 pdr etc doorstops etc have attested for many decades.

Detonation on webbing by the Argentinian soldier is more likely to fall into the substantial category of military accidents.

Cuts
06-17-2007, 09:53 AM
Fantastic Cuts, is good to know that you havent such emotion, if some of my post bother you, i suggest to follow your own advice and turn off your computer.
The point is old son, they don't.
I found the 'off' button long ago.

Some of your posts are very interesting, but when it comes to subjects about Op Corporate and the ownership of the islands you exhibit a very blinkered disposition.

I said to 'Erwin' on several occassions that I can understand and indeed applaud his - and your - patriotism, but it must be tempered with an open look at the facts.


In the meanwhile that does not mean that we cannot mantain a minimum level of respect with each other.
No wuckers there.


Is something that we call terapeutic execution ?, and those guys still have the courage to mention those crimes in public, that is just amazing.
Would your solution be to have let the man die in agony ?

Rising Sun*
06-17-2007, 10:21 AM
Is something that we call terapeutic execution ?, and those guys still have the courage to mention those crimes in public, that is just amazing.

Moral amazement and indignation are good things, but not all that impressive when comparing a single event of necessary if brutal compassion for a dying man with the litany of brutal horror and death inflicted upon previously healthy people during the Dirty War as a matter of policy by the rulers.

Personally, I'd rather take my chances on the battlefield than as a civilian opposed to the Argentinian government at the time of the Falklands War. At least I'd be armed against the thugs who represented the Argentinian government, which would give me a better chance than all of that government's victims ever had.

1000ydstare
06-23-2007, 03:31 AM
It's hard to detonate a grenade, or other similar explosives, with anything but their fuses.

White Phos will explode the moment the phos mixes with air. The fuse in most phos grenades is enough to break the canister and distribute the phos, the rest happens naturarly.

Pierce the skin of a WP and the phos will go up, igniting everything ignitable. Unless the skin is fully open, the explosive will scatter the phos in a slightly smaller and less spectacular way than an actual explosion.

Rising Sun*
06-23-2007, 04:21 AM
White Phos will explode the moment the phos mixes with air. The fuse in most phos grenades is enough to break the canister and distribute the phos, the rest happens naturarly.

Pierce the skin of a WP and the phos will go up, igniting everything ignitable. Unless the skin is fully open, the explosive will scatter the phos in a slightly smaller and less spectacular way than an actual explosion.

Thanks.

I didn't know that.

Rising Sun*
06-23-2007, 04:24 AM
Some years ago I watched a programme on Channel Four about the conflict.
Sldrs on both sides were interviewed and a few of the Argentine sldrs recalled a terrible incident where a white phos gren on the webbing of one of their comrades ignited.
The poor bloke went up in flames, screaming. His oppos looked on in horror, and when one cabo shouted out that the burning man was lighting up their position he was eventually put out of his misery with some sensibly placed 7.62.

I don't remember if it was so, but perhaps a British rd had hit the gren and set it off.
Going by the above 'logic' the Brit cmdr should also be prosecuted for war crimes... :roll: My bold.

Mate, going by the logic, or more accurately the lack of it, in the war crimes thread http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4493&page=4 I'd say you are right on the money.

Panzerknacker
06-25-2007, 08:20 PM
Bluff Cove Remembered


Serving and retired members of the armed forces together with local people took part in a special remembrance ceremony on the Falkland Islands to mark the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam.

On the 8th of June 1982 British soldiers were about to disembark from the ships in preparation for the final push to Stanley the Islands capital when they were attacked by two Argentinean jets, their bombs causing severe damage and setting fire to both vessels.

The service took place at a memorial on a bleak windswept point above Bluff Cove where the ships were anchored 25 years ago and attended by His Excellency, Governor Alan Huckle, and the Commander of British Forces South Atlantic Islands, Brigadier Nick Davies, along with many other military personnel and civilians who came to pay their respects.

Split into four parts the service took in the different cap-badges whose personnel lost their lives in the incident. First the Welsh Guards’, then Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the Royal Army Medical Corps all had wreaths laid in memory of those who died. Finally the group moved to a 5 Brigade memorial in the settlement of Fitzroy.

Among the conflict’s veterans attending was Simon Weston who’s courageous fight to overcome appalling burns made him a household name which he has used to benefit others by founding a charity ‘Weston Spirit’ to help young people.

Brigadier Davies, who laid wreaths said of the proceedings, “The casualties sustained were horrific and it is through these memorials that our recognition of the sacrifices and sympathy with the lives that were irrevocably changed can be demonstrated. It is vitally important that we remember those that lost their lives in a fitting and sombre fashion.

“Equally, it is testament to the resolve of the nation and the military at the time, as it is now, to continue to fight those that oppose democracy. The determination gleaned from the setback stood the remainder of the Task Force in very good stead as they resumed the push on Stanley.”

Lieutenant Colonel Guy Levene, currently serving in the Falklands, also laid a wreath at the service. “I’m privileged to be able to demonstrate my respect and recognition for what these very brave men achieved in these islands. The incident at Bluff Cove was horrendous for those involved and we must remember also remember their continued suffering even today.”


Simon Weston


http://www.army.mod.uk/news/army_news_current_stories/bluff_cove_remembere.htm

Panzerknacker
08-29-2007, 09:07 PM
Democracy in the Malvinas ?

So extinguished as the famous "malvinesis fox" the original mammalian unique of the islands, a special report shows to us that in the Malvinas democracy does nor exist, they exist negotiated and you tighten, typical of an imperial colony...

A work of journalist Jorga Lanata from the islands. Three videos of short duration, speak to us of as it is punished to those who are not in favor of a government, whom single it has by objective to defend the interests of few industralists.

"it is written in his laws that somebody that it criticizes the government, can lose his work without explanation", says MIKE BINGHAM, that the English government worked for, until he decided to right publish a report on the extinction of the pinguins as a result of the fishing depredation, where soon it would be expelled from the islands, without reason some or to defense.

Of as they prevented an islander to continue leaving lives in the islands, by to have published a report on the extinction of the pinguins, by the indiscriminate fishing. About the news pretending that wich were invented that in the Malvinas there were thousands of million petroleum barrels, to obtain millionaires gains.

Original link.

http://www.malvinense.com.ar/smalvi/287.htm

Man of Stoat
08-30-2007, 03:49 AM
Highly reliable source that :roll:

Even if it is true, what is your point? Please elucidate your answer with reference to mass graves and free parachuting lessons (parachutes not provided) over the South Atlantic so graciously provided by the Junta for its critics.

Lone Ranger
08-30-2007, 04:23 AM
As in most things, listen to one side and you only get half the story. Its a 5 year old story for a start:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,259566,00.html

Oh and someone who claims that he was proud of the military junta's "achievements" taking the moral high ground?

Man of Stoat
08-30-2007, 04:38 AM
Quick! On the basis of an unsubstantiated Grauniad story we should force the islanders to give up the British colonial administration they have repeatedly voted for and replace it with an Argentine one which they have repeatedly voted against.

Then the islands will be liberated and have true democracy, just like they did for several months in 1982!

Rising Sun*
08-30-2007, 05:05 AM
So, if Argentina had held the Falklands, are we meant to assume that it wouldn't have exploited the same resources and killed the penguins in the same way that Bingham alleges?

Does this sudden concern for penguins suggest that Argentina needs to make another excursion into the Falklands to save the allegedly few remaining penguins?

If so, how will they be treated, given that they've been enemy penguins for generations? :D

Nickdfresh
08-30-2007, 08:34 AM
At least the penguins would be allowed 'one-penguin, one-vote!'

Man of Stoat
08-30-2007, 08:38 AM
But which Penguin will get this one vote?

Nickdfresh
08-30-2007, 11:01 AM
But which Penguin will get this one vote?

The ones that don't "disappear."

Panzerknacker
08-30-2007, 11:05 AM
Even if it is true, what is your point?


I was not aware that the bennies werent not allowed to elect his own representatives, that is my point. I was refering to the people,
At list we can insult our goverment without any fear of retribution ( well I mean if your are not the vice-president)


By the way, two last penguins images deleted, this is not a humour section, keep the topic in minimum level please.


As in most things, listen to one side and you only get half the story. Its a 5 year old story for a start

I did not put any link of a british newspaper but to an argentine site so.....:rolleyes:

Lone Ranger
08-30-2007, 04:15 PM
Did you read the Guardian article, it shows a far more balanced view of the story. At least far more balanced than your Argentine one.

And under the 1985 constitution they do have a democratic Government.

Panzerknacker
08-30-2007, 07:06 PM
Thanks for the info...you mean the war bring democracy to the islands?

Amazing. That was a face of Galtieri that I didnt know about it.

Lone Ranger
08-31-2007, 10:18 AM
Very amusing, before 1985 they had elected councillors but were governed from London. Post-1985 they became self-governing.

Panzerknacker
08-31-2007, 10:26 AM
Take the outrage that a islander might feel reading my last post and multiplice that for ten thousands when an Argentine hear (like I ve hear from Mrs Tatcher mouth) that the war bring democracy to Argentina. :roll:

Lone Ranger
09-01-2007, 04:21 AM
Mmm, if the Argentine forces had won the Falklands War, how long would Galtieri and the rest of that bunch of murdering thugs been in power? The wave of patriotic fervour that swept Argentina meant that any dissent was instantly crushed, even the Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo was suppressed and threatened.

Its a fact of life, losing the war meant the military Government was finished and democracy returned to Argentina. Thatcher is actually right but the truth hurts sometimes.

Its also a fact of life that the Falkland Islands were more democratic than Argentina was at the time. So your claim on the moral high ground is distinctly dubious.

Panzerknacker
09-01-2007, 10:18 AM
Oh, I dont dispute that losing the war undermine (even more) the credibility of the Military Giverment, but the democracy thing is mentioned like it was born in 1983, when in fact, was more than a century earlier.


Its a fact of life, losing the war meant the military Government was finished and democracy returned to Argentina. Thatcher is actually right but the truth hurts sometimes.

Hmmm, not sure they stay a year and a half more in power. If the effect of the war was so damaging as Mrs Tatcher said , they probably wont last more than 2 months.

The truth hurt and that is a fact, the britons have demonstrate this very well in the "War crimes in Malvinas" topic.

Lone Ranger
09-01-2007, 05:03 PM
"War Crimes in the Malvinas", was conclusively shown to be complete and utter bollocks, no matter how you try and spin it.

Panzerknacker
10-22-2007, 10:17 PM
UK looks to make Antarctica claim


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42939000/jpg/_42939829_antar_bbc_203.jpg

Claims can be made for up to 350 miles off existing territories
The UK is looking to claim sovereignty over a large area of the remote seabed off Antarctica.
The claim for an area around British Antarctica is one of a number being prepared by the Foreign Office, a spokeswoman said. Even if granted, those rights would not allow Britain to contravene the treaty that prohibits oil and gas tapping under the seabed. The spokeswoman labelled the move "a safeguard for the future".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7048237.stm

Another link:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKN1841963420071018

1000ydstare
10-23-2007, 01:29 AM
Panzerknacker, the only way anyone could describe the political system of the Argentine government as "democratic" whilst the Junta were in power is if they were mainlining crack.

It was a dictatorship. end of. You spoke out, you got throw out... of a herc over tha Atlantic.

As for the environmental issues of the islands. Animals die out regularly, becaue they don't adapt quick enough, sometimes man (of any nationality) will speed it along.

Currently the Falklands and the Brit Forces on the islands undertake large amounts of work to sustain the wildlife. THE FI are not overfished, they rely on the fisheries for money, to overfish them is to kill the goose with the golden eggs.

Penguins are not endangered on the Falklands, there are loads.

I notice your topic on the destruction of wildlife on the Falklands didn't include the similar destruction of wildlife and the native indians of south america by Argetnina?

Give the war crimes up, they didn't happen live with it. You lost to a fair fight by a better nations.

Nickdfresh
10-23-2007, 01:04 PM
Who ISN'T making a claim on Antarctica or the Arctic these days?

The Canadian Armed Forces have just bolstered their spending and base construction in the north order to counter the claims being made by other nations including, but not limited too, Russia...

Panzerknacker
10-23-2007, 07:08 PM
Who ISN'T making a claim on Antarctica or the Arctic these days?

Dunno, I just heard about the recent british claim, this is the pizza portion claimed by Argentina, chile and uk.

http://www.mineria.gov.ar/imagenes/mapas/Antartida.jpg


1000y I will be extremely grateful if you can quoting me saying that the military goverment between 1976-83 was a democratic one, if you cant is because you like to say the obvious.

In regard of the crime topic, Is a mistake from my part to name it in this thread, if the people is interested will read that and drawn his own ideas.

An by the way, the only penguin that worries me is this one.

http://www.microcosmos21.com.ar/site/pictures/kirchner%20-%20pinguino.jpg

1000ydstare
10-24-2007, 12:58 AM
My mistake Panzerknacker, you simpley point out democracy had been in your country before '83. Rather than being born in '83 by Thatchers defeat of your junta around the Falklands.

My mistake.

Firefly
10-24-2007, 08:47 AM
What the heck have claims over Antarctica got to do with the Falklands?

Man of Stoat
10-24-2007, 09:27 AM
Britain has a claim to parts of Antarctica as a result of having South Atlantic possessions. That's why. Some Antarctic Treaty or other...

Firefly
10-24-2007, 03:08 PM
And Russia? Seems to me everyone who want it has claims to Antarctica.

I dont see how having the Falklands gives the UK any claims over any other nation. I mean we dont claim the Arctic do we?

Panzerknacker
10-24-2007, 07:38 PM
What heck ?

heck do.

It is related because is one other thing that could cause conflict in modern times, that will be the "aftermatch", this is a quote of the second link above.


The claim could spark disputes with both Chile and Argentina, both of which view large chunks of Antarctica as their own. Some areas of the continent are disputed by all three countries.

1000ydstare
10-25-2007, 12:46 AM
Easy way of solving this, no one should own it.

Let the UN control it. There are no natives to it, so no one owns it..

Man of Stoat
10-25-2007, 03:22 AM
The UN? Deary me... I can just see it now, the "Antarctica for food" scandal;)

Firefly
10-25-2007, 10:55 AM
Easy way of solving this, no one should own it.

Let the UN control it. There are no natives to it, so no one owns it..

Agree with you there.

Man of Stoat
10-26-2007, 03:32 AM
I'm sorry, but let one of the most corrupt international organisations on the planet control it when there are probably huge deposits of minerals on it? I can see it now, mineral exploitation rights being given to whoever gives the right people a big enough backhander.

Rising Sun*
10-26-2007, 04:53 AM
I'm sorry, but let one of the most corrupt international organisations on the planet control it when there are probably huge deposits of minerals on it? I can see it now, mineral exploitation rights being given to whoever gives the right people a big enough backhander.

I'm inclined to agree.

You only have to look at, among other examples, how China and Taiwan buy UN votes in the Pacific; how Japan does the same with whaling votes; and now Venezuala is moving into the Pacific.

Don't know about the Arctic, but the Antarctic Treaty is a better proposition at the moment, because it's harder to buy votes. http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/treaty/index.shtml

Lone Ranger
10-26-2007, 03:37 PM
Its actually a non-story though as expected Argentina has gone off on one.

The reason for the claim is that there is a deadline for territorial claims following Britains ratification of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. If we do nothing we lose the future right to make a claim. If the claim is disputed, its parked until the dispute is resolved, though remaining extant as if the claim were made.

Also part of the reason for making the claim is that it enables Britain to police fishing in its Antarctic zone, enabling Britain to fulfill its commitments.

It doesn't allow for mineral or oil extraction, since they are banned by subsequent treaties. It also doesn't threaten the Antarctic treaty, or extend the Falkland Islands economic zone into Argentine waters as claimed by certain parts of the Argentine media.

32Bravo
03-06-2008, 08:52 AM
Has anyone heard from the Sloane Stranger, of late?

Lone Ranger
03-28-2008, 02:05 PM
I've been busy, some people keep firing ammunition faster than we can make it.

32Bravo
03-28-2008, 02:43 PM
I've been busy, some people keep firing ammunition faster than we can make it.


Inconsiderate of them, what? :D

Lone Ranger
03-28-2008, 05:53 PM
We had a visit from some of the guys who'd been using our kit in the field, quite humbling really.

Panzerknacker
09-12-2008, 11:17 AM
Argentine Canberra navigator Remains identified

PRELIMINARY DNA tests have identified human remains, returned to Argentina from the Falklands in August, are likely to be those of Air Force navigator Captain Fernando Casado.
Captain Casado is believed to have been shot down during the last air incursion before the end of the Falklands War in June 1982. According to Buenos Aires newspaper Clarin, Captain Fernando Casado (37) who was married with three children, was co-piloting a Canberra MK-62 which together with a second bomber left Rio Gallegos on June 13 at 2130 hours carrying bombs. His aircraft was likely to have been shot down by a British missile. The Canberra pilot survived but Captain Casado did not eject in time.

Fernando Casado.

http://www.museomalvinas.com.ar/memoria/fotoscaidos/06%20Casado.jpg

The preliminary DNA reports are from Argentina’s National Genetic Bank, Durand Hospital Immunology Department. The results of the tests were apparently sent to the Argentine Foreign Affairs Ministry last week. Foreign Affairs Minister Jorge Taiana refused to comment until the family had been informed.
Clarin said the remains were DNA tested and compared with those of Captain Casado’s living brother.
The report continues, “The Argentine Air Force from the very beginning speculated that the remains could have come from the Canberra’s incursion given the place where they were found. Although discovered in 1986 they were held at Stanley Police Station.

http://www.redargentina.com/Malvinas-Argentinas/canberra-ultima-mision.jpg

Mercopress (http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=14532&formato=HTML)

Adrian Wainer
09-12-2008, 03:52 PM
Argentina should be a very wealthy country, yet it has very many poor people. Argentina is also a large country. Yet the Malvinas is such an issue for it, the only logic of this is that it suits the powers that be in Argentina to distract attention away from failures by Argentine Governments over the years by keeping issues such as the Malvinas on the boil. The fact of the matter is that if Argentina was handed the Malvinas tomorrow, the elites within Argentina would have to find something else to distract the population with and as sure as night follows day, Argentina would start having territitorial disputes with its Latin American neighbours.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Chilean_Navy_Saar_4.jpg

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Firefly
09-12-2008, 06:22 PM
As someone who has personally been to the Falkland I have to say that I cant imagine what Argentina would actually gain from it or do with it. Other than a Talisman for he people I struggle to see what it would bring them.

To be brutally honest, I really do believe that the UK doesnt really want them either, but 1982 is still in living memory and like it or not is seen as a great British triumph over adversity, in fact being honest, its a war we really should have lost.

Argentina lost it through sheer incompetence, yes, some of their armed forces performed well, but the focus was lost, the troops were the wrong type and the Argentines handed the UK a victory.

12 months later and Argentina could have won the thing without a fight. However, I dont think even then they would still be there.

Panzerknacker
09-12-2008, 06:23 PM
Adrian:
Argentina is not govermente by a elite unfortunately, right now is governed by the left wing of the justicialist party wich is very much a workers and middle class party formed with people like that.

That is why people here should keep in the military aspect of the war and dont get in things that they dont know about it.

Adrian Wainer
09-13-2008, 10:01 AM
Adrian:
Argentina is not govermente by a elite unfortunately, right now is governed by the left wing of the justicialist party wich is very much a workers and middle class party formed with people like that.

That is why people here should keep in the military aspect of the war and dont get in things that they dont know about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLsJt0xfVVs


In the last months of his presidency, Kirchner had to weather several scandals. His Minister of Economy Felisa Miceli was forced to resign over more than $60,000 found stashed in a bag in her office bathroom, and a businessman carrying a suitcase with US$800,000 in cash, on a government-hired jet traveling from Venezuela, was discovered at an Argentine airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9stor_Kirchner

http://www.newser.com/story/15952/inside-the-800k-suitcase-scandal.html

LOL All poor toilers of the soil no doubt.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

1000ydstare_redux
09-13-2008, 02:26 PM
Adrian:
Argentina is not govermente by a elite unfortunately, right now is governed by the left wing of the justicialist party wich is very much a workers and middle class party formed with people like that.

That is why people here should keep in the military aspect of the war and dont get in things that they dont know about it.

The politics of a country are what determine the initiation, conduct and termination of a conflict.

It is a very rare Armed Forces that marches with out the orders of its government (excluding military coups of course! :D )

Why is it unfortunate that Argentinia is ruled by Left wing workers and middle class? I would imagine such a government is not as keen on war fighting to gain the Falklands, as perhaps a right wing government.

Panzerknacker
09-13-2008, 07:38 PM
All poor toilers of the soil no doubt.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Uh...one thing is to have money and other thing is to be part of the Elite, I could do get rich too but hardly going get into the "elite", at list the high class, high educated society, long traditioned that I undesrtand as elite.

The richness of the Kirchnners has begun with its career in politic ( hardly a surprize), mostly with their participation in the formulation of oil policies in the Patagonia.

I wouldnt mind to be governed by a high society as long that goverment is good. Unfortunately the "elite" had wasted oportunities when they had the chance to rule the country.


Why is it unfortunate that Argentinia is ruled by Left wing workers and middle class?

Is unfortunate because the leftist know nothing about real world economy and also because they think 2008 is 1978, they live in the past, always in the past.

1000ydstare_redux
09-14-2008, 05:30 AM
You´re right wing doesn´t appear to be much further in to the present though.

Why do they think 1978? Do you mean their policies, or how they think the world runn?

Adrian Wainer
09-15-2008, 06:32 AM
Hi Panzerknacker, good posting thanx, sorry I was using the word "elites" in a much different sense ie an elite of people who are deliberately manipulating things to protect their their position in society, so that e.g. in South Africa if I remember correctly black people were not allowed to drive trains and thus in that case one could say that white traindrivers were part of the white supremacist elite. So it is not exactly necessary for an elite in that sense, to be wealthy or aristocratic or to have been to a prestige university.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
09-15-2008, 06:59 AM
Is unfortunate because the leftist know nothing about real world economy and also because they think 2008 is 1978, they live in the past, always in the past.

Unfortunately Panzerknacker, for many Leftists if they had gotten as far as 1978 they would be truly advanced, in that many leftists are still stuck in 1917 and haven't got as far as the 1920s or even the 1950s when many people who had previously been enthusiastic about communistic and far-left ideology decided it was a completely bad thing. One can see this in the adoration the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez attracts in Europe from leftist circles, yet at the same time he pals around with Islamofascists like the President of the so called "Islamic" Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose defacto position is that World belongs to Islam and all non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam should be enslaved or put to the sword. Since the majority of Venezuela is Catholic, this effectively means that the President of Venezuela, whose duty is to uphold the Constitution is promoting the enslavement of the nation, well if this is Bolivarianism I'm a banana.

http://www.spelledsideways.com/home/satire/satire.shtml

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Firefly
09-15-2008, 05:01 PM
Whoa there lads.

This is an Argentine/UK War topic, lets not start straying.

Back on topic please, discussions of communism and other countries should only happen if they are pertinent to the subject in hand. Islam and Hugo Chavez didnt play a part in the conflict to the best of my knowledge.

Cheers.

pdf27
09-15-2008, 05:46 PM
Indeed. I would suggest discussion of why raving liberal lefties love homophobic Wahabist islamists is best held in off topic under a title like "ROTFLMAO" or similar.

For the newer members, this forum is by far the most tightly moderated on the board for historical reasons. The 1982 war between the UK and Argentina over the Falkands/Malvinas islands is to this day an extremely emotive subject, and we have a large number of members from both the UK and Argentina on this board.

Panzerknacker
09-15-2008, 06:44 PM
I only want to ad that Adrian Wainer is correct. Yes, Chavez is by now the ultimate neolithic leftist *****.



You´re right wing doesn´t appear to be much further in to the present though.



I dont know what kind of information arrives to your pink apartament complex but the fact is this: there are no right wing parties in Argentina, there is no a Republican Party like in US or a Partido Popular like in Spain or a Conservative party as in UK.

Maybe I need to create one.

Adrian Wainer
09-16-2008, 06:48 AM
Whoa there lads.

This is an Argentine/UK War topic, lets not start straying.

Back on topic please, discussions of communism and other countries should only happen if they are pertinent to the subject in hand. Islam and Hugo Chavez didnt play a part in the conflict to the best of my knowledge.

Cheers.

Hi Firefly, first of all very impressed with the forum well done everybody. Not to argue with you but just to explain where I was coming from, since as best as understand it the inclusion of the word "aftermatch" means that it is legitimate to comment on the Argentine British dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas in respect of how the situation has evolved since the re-establishement of British rule on the Islands till the present day, one needs to have some discussion of Argentine and Latin American politics, [ but if I was wrong in how I understood "aftermatch" please tell me ]. That said, I think I have well made my point that just because a Leftist President would be in the Casa Rosada, ( rather than some General ) one should not assume they would be unwilling to embark on military adventures, so point being made I don't really need to pursue it further.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Firefly
09-16-2008, 04:41 PM
Adrian, point taken, I think aftermath pertains to the direct aftermath, not 25 years later. No offence meant or taken though, keep up the good work.

Panzerknacker
09-19-2008, 09:13 AM
Finally in Home

Argentina honors last airman downed in Falklands’ war.

In a moving military ceremony the remains of an Argentine Air Force Canberra navigator shot down over the Falkland Islands in 1982 were handed on Monday to his family for burial in Cordoba.

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/6906/01sh5.jpg

Mayor Casado urn and sword before been handed to his family

The ceremony in the military premises of Buenos Aires Aeroparque was headed by Defence minister Nilda Garré and Deputy Foreign Affairs minister Victorio Taccetti as well as Joint Chief of Staff Brigadier Jorge Chevalier and the whole command from the Air Force, several of them Malvinas war veterans.

Mayor (post mortem) Fernando Juan Casado and his BMK 62 Canberra were shot down on June 13th, the day before the end of the conflict, but remains were not found until 1986 in a near by beach, and were later deposited in the Stanley Police station.

Earlier this year the remains were returned to Argentina and with the scientific support of the country’s Genetic Data Bank, following DNA tests they were identified as belonging to navigator Casado.

During the ceremony Argentine Air Force commander Brigadier Normando Constantino expressed gratitude to the ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs for their efforts in obtaining the remains.

Constantino also thanked the Genetic Bank for the identification and praised Mayor Casado who was to be the last airman downed over the Islands during combat with the British task force.

The last mission, two Canberra escorted by two Mirage III, left from Rio Gallegos to bomb Port Harriet House at 21:30 hours but only one of the bombers returned. His companion pilot Roberto Pastrán managed to parachute and was made prisoner.

The Canberra was shot down by a Sea Dart missile from HMS Exeter in Fitz Roy. The following day Argentine forces surrendered in Stanley.

The ceremony ended with the presentation of the remains plus a Malvinas veterans’ cap, graduation sword and an Argentine flag to his widow and three children, one of them Air Force captain.

Casado’s remains and his family were then flown to Cordoba in a Hercules C-130 for the final resting place in the Malvinas mausoleum of Carlos Paz cemetery.

Brigadier Chevalier and Constantino are both Malvinas war veteran pilots. Chevalier belonged to the Canberra bombers wing.

(Mercopress)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_salut.gif

Panzerknacker
02-07-2009, 07:18 PM
<H1>Prince William's Falklands posting revives tension in Argentina over ownership of the islands

Prince William's expected military deployment to the Falklands has reignited the controversy in Argentina over the sovereignty of the islands.

</H1>



Argentina's foreign minister Jorge Taina has expressed concern that the presence of the future King on the islands could inflame public opinion.
The Prince, as part of his training as a search and rescue pilot with the Royal Air Force, is likely to spend three months at the helicopter base in the Falklands.
The Duke of York, the Prince's uncle, flew helicopters in the Royal Navy during the Falklands War in 1982 during which 649 Argentines and 255 Britons died. The Argentine government surrendered on June 14 but has always maintained its territorial claim to the islands it calls the Malvinas.
Mr Taina, asked about the significance of the Prince serving at the British military garrison on Mount Plea said: "This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories."
Argentina continues to claim ownership of the islands.
The Falkland Islands posting is one of the least popular within the armed forces because of its distance from the UK and the weather in the South Atlantic, which for all but a few months of the year, is poor. The Prince would be based at the British Military base at Mount Pleasant one hour's drive from Stanley the capital.
The garrison is manned by a force of 500 troops made up of largely members of the RAF, who support the Tornado and Sea King flights, and around 100 infantry soldiers. The troops are stationed on the islands "to deter military aggression against the South Atlantic overseas territories", according to the Ministry of Defence.
Any decision on the deployment of the Prince will not be taken for more than two years. He will either go to the Falklands or Cyprus which also has a helicopter base.
A spokesman for St James's Palace said the military conflict in 1982 was unlikely to have any bearing on whether the Prince would be sent to the South Atlantic garrison. He said: "We would take advice from the Foreign Office."
The Prince's job with the Search and Rescue Force will involve the future king flying Sea King helicopters to lower a winchman to rescue those stranded at sea, trapped in floods, and on the edge of cliff tops.
:: The Duke of Edinburgh missed his third Royal engagement in eight days yesterday.
Buckingham Palace said that the Duke, 87, was under doctor's orders to "take it easy" after pulling a muscle in his back while carriage driving at Sandringham several days ago.
He has cancelled engagements because he was finding it difficult to stand for long periods.
The Duke had been due to join the Queen yesterday (tunes) to officially open the a new health centre at Dersingham, Norfolk
But the Queen arrived alone at the £2.2m NHS facility, while the Duke remained


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/4446744/Prince-Williams-Falklands-posting-revives-tension-in-Argentina-over-ownership-of-the-islands.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/4446744/Prince-Williams-Falklands-posting-revives-tension-in-Argentina-over-ownership-of-the-islands.html)

Lone Ranger
02-09-2009, 10:15 AM
Why should a servicemen planning to do his duty as a SAR pilot be any cause to inflame public opinion, other than the Argentine Government's insistence of finding any excuse to kick up a fuss over the Falklands?

pdf27
02-09-2009, 01:07 PM
This reminds me of the whole Mohammed cartoon fiasco. The cartoons were originally published during Ramadan by a Cairo newspaper and nobody noticed. It was only after a bunch of less than respectable Danish Imams did a tour of the Arab world on various chat shows that any form of outrage was whipped up. So it is here - without Mr Taina's comments, nobody in Argentina or the UK would have noticed.

Cuts
02-09-2009, 02:53 PM
This reminds me of the whole Mohammed cartoon fiasco. The cartoons were originally published during Ramadan by a Cairo newspaper and nobody noticed. It was only after a bunch of less than respectable Danish Imams did a tour of the Arab world on various chat shows that any form of outrage was whipped up. So it is here - without Mr Taina's comments, nobody in Argentina or the UK would have noticed.

The main troublemaker, Ahmed Akkari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Akkari), in that fiasco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) showed not only the published cartoons, but had some drawn showing the Prophet caricatured as a pig which he distributed on a tour of the ME.
His explanation was that someone might draw this type of cartoon, but of course he wasn't trying to stir anything up... :rolleyes:


http://i2-images.tv2.dk/s/41/10254341-787799caab37690b0436d0ef0a1513f2.jpeg
Achmed Akkari. Hero of the Faithful and legend in his own lunchtime.

While this brave Jihadi has made death threats against a Danish Muslim politico, so far his faith hasn't been strong enough to drive him to spread himself over a complete grid square, or even put himself in harm's way.
However he did show tremendous courage and outstanding valour when he was in his early twenties by beating up an eleven year old boy who, while playing with Akkari's little sister (also eleven,) had accidentally pulled her headscarf off.
The kid was lucky, had Akkari had his way nothing less than painful death would have sufficed.

Most of this is gleaned from a Danish troep I know who was serving on Herrick at the time, (and since,) and is understandably a little peeved with the above gentleman.


And with that perhaps I should return to the topic ! :D
(Or move these posts to a new thread in another forum.)

Panzerknacker
02-10-2009, 10:45 AM
So it is here - without Mr Taina's comments, nobody in Argentina or the UK would have noticed.

The news was in the british newspapers before...where you think Taiana got the info ?

Lone Ranger
02-13-2009, 08:17 AM
So again why would any Search and Rescue Pilot be any cause for inflaming public opinion? Any excuse to go off on one.

Panzerknacker
02-13-2009, 03:46 PM
Looking trough my window I can see no people "inflamed", but I think is a good way to put some pressure on the brits.

Unlike the rest of the components of this goverment Taina is smart and somewhat sneaky, he remember me me sometimes.

Lone Ranger
02-14-2009, 08:35 AM
Pressure on the Brits?

To be utterly honest, the general response among people around me is what are they whining about.

Panzerknacker
02-22-2010, 05:01 PM
'We will not be bullied by you, Old Plastic Face', says a sixth generation Falkland Islander

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1252595/We-bullied-Old-Plastic-Face-says-sixth-generation-Falkland-Islander.html



Plastic face ? that was a bit harsh :lol:

Panzerknacker
05-09-2010, 12:37 PM
UK firm's Falklands oil find sparks mix of hopes and fears

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/5/6/1273174798636/Oil-has-been-found-off-th-006.jpg

The Falkland Islands. Oil has been discovered off the southern coast. Photograph: MoD/EPA

A British company has struck oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil) in the Falkland Islands (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/falklands) for the first time, threatening to ratchet up the diplomatic dispute with Argentina (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/argentina).
Islanders hope that the discovery will result in an oil bonanza, but environmentalists expressed concern for the region's marine life in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster in similar deepwater conditions.
Shares in Rockhopper, named after a native penguin, soared by 150% yesterday after it announced the find. Many among the islands' population bought shares in the company, which was set up to drill for oil in the Falklands.
The find, on the day of the general election, comes almost 30 years after the victory in the Falklands conflict against Argentina that arguably helped Margaret Thatcher to get re-elected a year later.
Four companies have hired a drilling rig that is expected to drill eight wells in total this year around the islands, which have never produced oil. The first well, drilled in March, came up dry. Shell and Amerada Hess were among the companies that last explored the area in the late 1990s but pulled out because the results were disappointing and the low oil price did not make developing the fields worthwhile.
The Falklands government said that yesterday's news was "very exciting". Other companies involved in planned drilling also saw their share prices leap.
Rockhopper stressed that it was very early stages and it was too soon to assess how much oil existed in the reservoir which it had found, which lies about 137 miles off the north coast of the islands at a depth of 2,744 metres (9,000ft). Next week, tugs will tow the drilling rig to the islands' southern coast to search for more oil.
Gavin Farquhar, energy and infrastructure partner at law firm McGrigors, who has advised the oil industry about the Falklands, said that the chances of more finds were high.
"It would be surprising to locate oil in one well and not to find more oil in other prospects in the area."
Geologists estimate that up to 60bn barrels of oil and gas equivalent could lie in the Atlantic waters, which would put the region on a par with the North Sea. But reaching the oil – and transporting it thousands of miles by tanker to market – is much more challenging. The waters around the Falklands reach depths of more than 3,000m, much deeper than the Gulf of Mexico waters where the BP rig Deepwater Horizon sank.
Local environmentalists warned that development of the hydrocarbon resources could disrupt marine life. The Falklands are home to 80% of the world's black-browed albatrosses, 30% of its south rockhopper penguins and 20% of its gentoo penguins.
Craig Dockrill is chief executive of Falkands Conservation, which lists 100 families on the islands as members as well as 600 families of former military personnel or of those who used to live there. He said that their big concern was that migratory and feeding patterns of thousands of species of birds and marine animals were still not fully known.
He said that companies should be required to carry out thorough environmental assessments of the area in which they wanted to operate, ideally before they started drilling.
"The recent events in the Gulf of Mexico have highlighted awareness and concerns of our members and people," he said. "If oil and gas development are going to go ahead it needs to be done in an environmentally sensitive way."
Greenpeace said that companies should not be allowed to operate in such deep-water areas at all. Campaigner Paul Horsman contrasted the UK's more liberal approach to drilling in the Falklands with that of President Barack Obama and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who have pulled plans to open up new areas for offshore drilling in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
A spokeswoman for the Falklands government did not return calls, but industry sources said that safety standards would be similar to those in the North Sea. What is certain is that if more oil is found, Big Oil – companies like BP and Shell with the pockets and expertise to develop it – will plant their flags on the Falklands.

Argentinian reaction


Argentines reacted with groans of dismay today to reports of the first oil discovery by British firms drilling in Falkland Islands waters. The announcement was expected to reignite protests from President Cristina Kirchner's government.
"You will probably see some rhetorical flares and maybe another spike in diplomatic tension," said Daniel Kerner, an analyst with the Eurasia Group consulting firm.
A report about the announcement in La Nacion, Argentina's leading newspaper, prompted anguished reader comments. "They continue robbing us from under our noses," said one. "After a war, the winner imposes the conditions," said another.
Argentina lost a brief 1982 war with Britain over islands it calls the Malvinas. It still claims sovereignty and terms British control an occupation.
The prospect of "black gold" enriching the windswept archipelago has rubbed salt in the wound. Geologists say there could be up to 60bn barrels, a bonanza which would transform the 2,900 islanders into oil barons. But there is a question mark over how much will prove commercially viable, said Kerner. "I wouldn't draw too many conclusions over Rockhopper's announcement. There are still doubts."
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill has aggravated concerns about the risk oil extraction would pose to the south Atlantic. Environmentalists have warned of oil slicks coating penguins and polluting the shores of the Mar del Plata beach resort.
Relations between London and Buenos Aires soured in February over the arrival of a rig, the Ocean Guardian, which started offshore drilling for oil and gas deposits.
Argentina declared controls on shipping and blocked a cargo vessel, the Thor Leader, from leaving a port over suspicion its cargo of Argentine-made seamless tubes would be used for drilling.
It won the backing of Latin American leaders over its demand for sovereignty talks with Britain and lobbied Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general.
British and Falkland officials played down the protests as posturing. Relations are at their lowest ebb since 1982 but both sides have ruled out military confrontation.
A possible Conservative government is unlikely to change relations. Argentines have bitter memories of Margaret Thatcher's administration, but hold little love for Labour since Tony Blair and Gordon Brownit facilitated drilling.

Rory Carroll Latin America correspondent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/06/falklands-oil-discovery-rockhopper

visitor
05-10-2010, 12:49 PM
Didn't Kirchner and co tear up a deal to share any oil or gas revenues a couple of years ago? I'm pretty sure Britain offered Argentina a hare of ant hydrocarbons found in the Falklands area.

EDIT: looked it up they did back in 2007 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_islands#Oil

Panzerknacker
05-11-2010, 04:43 PM
They did, the argument was that sharing the oil supposedly was in line with giving up some of the claim, territorial claims that is.

visitor
05-13-2010, 04:20 PM
I see, thanks for that bit of background, makes things in this muddy issue a bit clearer. Personally I guess they must have thought taking a tough stance was a better short term vote winner than a unknown and uncertain possibilty of oil revenue.

Panzerknacker
05-13-2010, 04:57 PM
The entire Malvinas thing is a muddy issue in Argentina because 2 things.

- There are no real military power to deter any possible british military operation, comercial oil drilling or whathever the like in the zone. That is not related with economics but politics, the country today is actually 3 or 4 times wealthier than 10 years before ( and far more than in 1982), but simply there is no will to reeplace/introduce new military equipment.

-Even if a elected president has the will to negotiate he /she would have to face a strong opossition by some small groups, we can call them "lobbying" groups of ultra-nationalist movements, ex-combatants of 1982 and the some other of the kind. Those group have no real political influence per-se, nor a very organizated financiation but they can surely affect the public view towards any argentine politician.

In some form, the late is as Obama trying to get free hospitals for low income people, we know and he knows that is the right thing to do, but the lobbing groups simply wont let him.

visitor
05-14-2010, 02:25 PM
Lobby groups are a sad fact of political life wherever there is democracy it seems, Panzerknacker would you mind telling the people here a bit about the support the Argentine veterans get, I know they have been campaigning for better treatment, have things improved?

Panzerknacker
05-14-2010, 06:09 PM
The pension ( not sure if pension is the correct word) wich the veterans collect monthly has been increased in about 80-90 %, so in that way they gained some respect.

However the relation of the veterans associations and the actual goverment is not candy and peaches because the rules had failed to increase the efectivenes of the Argentine armed forces ( actually some of the measures taken from 2003 on had diminished it ) That fact caused anger between the majority of the former 1982 soldiers.
The Veterans associations agenda is an ultra-nationalistic one, obviously you cant have and ultra nationalistic agenda agreeing with a weak military, I second that, however they have also suggested some unrealistic enonomical and political measures tending to more or less "close" the country from foreign enterprises, entrepeneurs and any other external influence. Cant agree with that because trade and exchange is vital for our country.

If you browse old pages of this section you will see that I had heated debates with every possible people here. In spite of that I think I always tried to stay realistic, That is why I can add this:

The people "of the street" or better say the average argentine had a lot of respect for the veterans, but they arent worshiping them, however there is a group, wich is not such small, that has elevated the Falklnds/malvinas things to epical scale, they have the Malvinas map stamped, painted, tattoed or wathever the like in any possible location. And that is to put the war (and incidentally the veterans) in a place they dont deserve.

visitor
05-15-2010, 11:09 AM
Thanks for that Panzerknacker you've been a great help.

Panzerknacker
05-16-2010, 04:01 PM
No problemo.

visitor
05-25-2010, 03:08 PM
Massively off topic but happy bicentennial to all the Argentine members of this forum.

Panzerknacker
05-27-2010, 05:06 PM
Thank you.

visitor
07-04-2010, 06:41 PM
EDIT: link was wrong see below
I am not impressed.

Nickdfresh
07-05-2010, 08:44 AM
You're not impressed with what? The search results that have nothing to do with this thread?

visitor
07-06-2010, 12:15 PM
Got my link wrong ought to have been http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100702/world/argentina_syria_diplomacy about Syria backing Argentina's claim to the Falklands and Argentina backing Syrian claims to the Golan Heights, I'm not impressed by Kirchner jumping into bed with the Ba'athist (sp?) Assad.

Rising Sun*
07-07-2010, 10:03 AM
Got my link wrong ought to have been http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100702/world/argentina_syria_diplomacy about Syria backing Argentina's claim to the Falklands and Argentina backing Syrian claims to the Golan Heights, I'm not impressed by Kirchner jumping into bed with the Ba'athist (sp?) Assad.

Reminds me of Oscar Wilde's comment on fox hunting "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable."

There's nothing to commend either position, unless you happen to support it because of your allegiance to the cause.

royal744
09-01-2013, 03:48 PM
Argentina's foreign minister Jorge Taina has expressed concern that the presence of the future King on the islands could inflame public opinion.
The Prince, as part of his training as a search and rescue pilot with the Royal Air Force, is likely to spend three months at the helicopter base in the Falklands.
The Duke of York, the Prince's uncle, flew helicopters in the Royal Navy during the Falklands War in 1982 during which 649 Argentines and 255 Britons died. The Argentine government surrendered on June 14 but has always maintained its territorial claim to the islands it calls the Malvinas.
Mr Taina, asked about the significance of the Prince serving at the British military garrison on Mount Plea said: "This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories."
Argentina continues to claim ownership of the islands.
The Falkland Islands posting is one of the least popular within the armed forces because of its distance from the UK and the weather in the South Atlantic, which for all but a few months of the year, is poor. The Prince would be based at the British Military base at Mount Pleasant one hour's drive from Stanley the capital.
The garrison is manned by a force of 500 troops made up of largely members of the RAF, who support the Tornado and Sea King flights, and around 100 infantry soldiers. The troops are stationed on the islands "to deter military aggression against the South Atlantic overseas territories", according to the Ministry of Defence.
Any decision on the deployment of the Prince will not be taken for more than two years. He will either go to the Falklands or Cyprus which also has a helicopter base.
A spokesman for St James's Palace said the military conflict in 1982 was unlikely to have any bearing on whether the Prince would be sent to the South Atlantic garrison. He said: "We would take advice from the Foreign Office."
The Prince's job with the Search and Rescue Force will involve the future king flying Sea King helicopters to lower a winchman to rescue those stranded at sea, trapped in floods, and on the edge of cliff tops.
:: The Duke of Edinburgh missed his third Royal engagement in eight days yesterday.
Buckingham Palace said that the Duke, 87, was under doctor's orders to "take it easy" after pulling a muscle in his back while carriage driving at Sandringham several days ago.
He has cancelled engagements because he was finding it difficult to stand for long periods.
The Duke had been due to join the Queen yesterday (tunes) to officially open the a new health centre at Dersingham, Norfolk
But the Queen arrived alone at the £2.2m NHS facility, while the Duke remained


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/4446744/Prince-Williams-Falklands-posting-revives-tension-in-Argentina-over-ownership-of-the-islands.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/4446744/Prince-Williams-Falklands-posting-revives-tension-in-Argentina-over-ownership-of-the-islands.html)


I'm nearly sure there's a scientific term for this form of national hysteria/ nuerosis, psychosis on the part of Argentina and its inhabitants. It reminds me of the stories circulated by a certain Aryan people (LOL) about Polish atrocities against Germans and Czechs against the Sudeten Deutsch. In both those instances the people were whipped into a fantasy land that placed them far beyond reason and well into a murderous rage. Is this what has happened in Argentina? If so, they need to get help - and fast.

flamethrowerguy
09-03-2013, 06:53 AM
It reminds me of the stories circulated by a certain Aryan people (LOL) about Polish atrocities against Germans and Czechs against the Sudeten Deutsch. In both those instances the people were whipped into a fantasy land that placed them far beyond reason and well into a murderous rage. Is this what has happened in Argentina? If so, they need to get help - and fast.

I noticed similar annoying statements of yours relating to this matter somewhere in another thread lately. Personally I find your impertinent denial of the violent death of several thousands (again: thousands, not ten of thousands) ethnic German civilians in August/September 1939 in Poland most offensive and provoking (maybe that's what you're up to in the first place). I'd suggest you hold your fire on that one and get back to the books.

royal744
09-03-2013, 09:55 AM
Thanks, flame. I'm open to reading documented proof on this subject. I trust you are also open to reviewing well documented information regarding the Polish "attack" on the German radio station in Gliewicz. Sometimes my language is a bit acerbic, for which I apologize if it offends you. Sometimes just the truth (at least as I see it) seems provocative to readers who don't "see it that way".

flamethrowerguy
09-03-2013, 11:34 AM
I trust you are also open to reviewing well documented information regarding the Polish "attack" on the German radio station in Gliewicz.

As I adumbrated in my first post concerning the numbers of victims, we gotta differ between Nazi propaganda respectively staged German actions like the Gleiwitz incident and the truth.
To suggest there were no Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans is as far away from reality as the Polish attack on the Gleiwitz radio station.

royal744
09-03-2013, 10:38 PM
As I adumbrated in my first post concerning the numbers of victims, we gotta differ between Nazi propaganda respectively staged German actions like the Gleiwitz incident and the truth.
To suggest there were no Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans is as far away from reality as the Polish attack on the Gleiwitz radio station.

OK, flame, thanks. I'm definitely interested in looking into that further.

royal744
09-03-2013, 11:12 PM
As I adumbrated in my first post concerning the numbers of victims, we gotta differ between Nazi propaganda respectively staged German actions like the Gleiwitz incident and the truth.
To suggest there were no Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans is as far away from reality as the Polish attack on the Gleiwitz radio station.

Well, flame, after beginning to look into Polish-German relations prior to WW2, I am already mired in the quicksand of claims and counterclaims. At the moment it looks like a Gordian knot that will take me a considerable time to sort through, all of which is rather off-topic to the subject at hand. But I will continue to look off-line.

flamethrowerguy
09-04-2013, 07:38 AM
Well, flame, after beginning to look into Polish-German relations prior to WW2, I am already mired in the quicksand of claims and counterclaims. At the moment it looks like a Gordian knot that will take me a considerable time to sort through, all of which is rather off-topic to the subject at hand. But I will continue to look off-line.

Definitely a most complex - and still sensitive issue - around here, right. I guess the only thing which is safe to say is that no involved party got away with hands completely unsoiled.

royal744
09-05-2013, 02:18 PM
Definitely a most complex - and still sensitive issue - around here, right. I guess the only thing which is safe to say is that no involved party got away with hands completely unsoiled.

Like trying to choose between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, or between a bastard and a bully with a blindfold on.