War crimes in Malvinas ? [Archive]

1000ydstare

03-20-2007, 02:01 AM

I don't think that anyone was charged with the actual deliberate shooting of a conscript. Although there are a fair few anecdotes to this story.

Many Gurkhas were accused of this sort of thing by anecdote, but that was probably the British Pre War PR machine at its greatest. The Argentines believed they were going to be eaten by the Gurkhas if captured.

However, in the book Green Eyed boys (about the macho culture of one of the Para Battalions) at least one member of the Parachute Regiment started cutting off the ears of dead Argentines, and stored them in his webbing. They were found by the Padre, who was going through his webbing for ammo and grenades, after he died, at the Regimental Aid Post/Dressing Station.

Again anecdotatl evidience popped up, about people seeing live Argentines with no ears, but no actual soldier has ever been presented with no ear, claiming it was cut off.

That the conscripts of the invasion were treated badly remains all too true. Food never got to them, there was however tons of it in Port Stanley. And they were beaten by their officers and NCOs. Anecdotal evidence from horrified Islanders include a grenade being thrown in to a coal bunker by one officer, when a conscript wouldn't come out.

It is fact also, that officers wouldn't hand over their side arms when they were being processed at the end of the war. They needed them for defence, whilst inside the compounds.

Their Padres were a bit ropey too, a little bit too much propaganda of the Junta and not enough pastoral care. British Padres filled that gap.

These sort of stories are going to come out, unfortunetly, they are bred by fear. And the vast majority of Argentines, though they still fought bravely, were terrerfied on those islands.

A lot of young lads, many barely trained (the conscripts were only 3 months in to their year, and many did not know how to use the heavier support weapons or some of the more advanced tactics), faced a profesional war machine.

PR was played (the Gurkhas being one) with pictures of knives being sharpened and bayonets being honed. The exercise at Ascension was broadcast around the world.

One side was heavily blooded, it men and population, galvanised to action but also innoculated to the horrors of war. NI had been raging for some 12 years, The British Army had seen combat almost continously since 1939.

The other side, though galvanised to their goal, hadn't thrown a tea party in anger since their own civil war. Those taht were hardened, had been hardened fighting their own people and weaker opposition.

I think it also fair to say that the Argentine grasp on modern warfare was slightly off. They wanted Queensbury rules, the British were more like maulers. Examples - Belgrano being sunk = war crime?, bayonets being used in Infantry attack = war crime?

On the otherhand made up Napalm was found at Goose Green. Though it is never recorded that it was used by the Argentines, it's presence lends some light on the claims of "War Crime" by the Argentine government.

1000ydstare

03-20-2007, 02:31 AM

Another anecdote ref British War crimes is the story of a medic who shot a wounded POW.

A group of argentines wree emptying a shed of mortar rounds, so they could be housed in it. The mortars rounds were Argentine. Anyway, one case was dropped and went off. The medic on looking at the remains of the conscript simply shot him. The story normally goes along that the other Argies sort of approved inthat there was nothing you could do for him. Again never saw any proof of this.

On South Georgia, the Royal Marines dismantled their own booby traps after the Island was taken (which incidently Argentina has no claim over historically, unlike the Falklands where there is some angle to see such claim). This would be technically breaching the Geneva Convention.

Panzerknacker

03-20-2007, 08:53 AM

Missing the point as you do many times.

I dont give a damn if someone was actually charged, if the crimes actually occurs, that is the really important.

The Gurkhas did not kill a fly in the islands, that is confirmed so I think we can move on about those guys.

I have an extract of the Bramley book, not in english you better search for a translator.

Relatos de crímenes en Malvinas
Testimonios de soldados argentinos:

"Al llegar a la cima nos encontramos con el Cabo Pedemonte que estaba herido. No pudimos auxiliarlo, nos escondimos detrás de unas rocas, y desde allí vimos que los ingleses lo golpearon y le ordenaron que se quitara el casco, tambien le sacaron sus armas y su campera. De pronto, uno saca una ametralladora y le tiran cinco balazos en la cabeza. Nos miramos y pensamos: está muerto."
"Resulté herido cuando me replegaba desde Tumble Down hacia el cerro Dos Hermanas. De pronto vimos venir un helicóptero y pensamos que era un aparato de rescate. Dos de mis comapñeros hicieron señas y ví como les disparaban a pesar de estar con los brazos en alto. ¿Ellos no habían recibido la información del cese de las hostilidades?, pensé. Yo pude esconderme detrás de una gran piedra. Desde allí observé que ese helicóptero estaba ultimando sistemáticamente a los heridos. Lo hacía con verdadera saña."
"Fui combatiente en Darwin, como mimbro del grupo de Artillería Aerotransportada 4. Cuando caímos prisioneros nos alojaron en un galpón. Los ingleses seleccionaron a un grupo de nosotros para que recogiéramos municiones, artefactos explosivos y cuerpos que habían quedado en el campo de batalla. Ese mismo día se produjo una gran explosión y las esquirlas perforaron las chapas. A través de esos orificios vimos con horror a cinco soldados argentinos que habían sido mutilados por la onda expansiva.
Gritaban fuerte, muy fuerte... Inmediatamente fueron ejecutados por los ingleses."

"Encontré otro día a un muchacho de otro Regimiento. Caminaba con la mirada perdida, semienloquecido. Había tenido un encuentro con el Primer Batallón de Fusileros Gurkas del Duque de Edimburgo. Él había conseguido sobrevivir a la feroz matanza que hicieron.

"Como habían pasado varias horas y nosotros seguíamos resitiendo, los ingleses nos intimidaron para rendirnos o bombardearían Puerto Darwin con fuego naval, inclusive con los kelpers que manteníamos prisioneros."
"Al final tuve que firmar un acuerdo por el cual jamás me levantaría en armas contra el gobierno inglés, o de otra forma me fusilarían."
"Yo estaba en Puerto Darwin, prisionero con otros 1.050 argentinos. Fuimos obligados por soldados ingleses a trasladar municiones. Delante mismo de nuestros ojos vimos cuando explotó un proyectil y algunos soldados quedaron despedazados."
TESTIMONIOS DE Vincent Bramley
Paracaidista inglés, Veterano de Malvinas
"...y encontramos a un grupo de cinco o seis efectivos que estaban golpeando a unos "argies"(argentinos) que gritaban. A uno le dieron con la culata en plena cara... A pocos metros otro tipo le clavaba la bayoneta a un "argie". Descargó todo el peso del cuerpo sobre el fusil para que la bayoneta se metiera bien adentro."
"Todos volvimos al claro que acabábamos de cruzar. Nos separamos y esperamos el siguiente desplazamiento. A unos diez metros a la derecha venía un argentino. Le habían tirado al pecho y gritaba sosteniéndose la herida. Un tipo de la Compañia B atravesó el claro y le clavó la bayoneta. A los gritos del argentino, trató de quitársela entes de morir. Nuestro soldado le decía: ¡No grites más hijo de p...!
El enemigo murió en el mismo instante en el que le clavaron la bayoneta. Nuestro soldado volvió a su lugar como si nada hubiera pasado.
A mi derecha tres argentinos lloraban agarrándose la cabeza. ¿Serían amigos del que acababa de morir?"
"Miramos al suelo, era un "argie" herido. Me miraba fijo, tal vez suplicando, preso de dolor.
-¡Apártese!- gritó el sargento Pettinger.
El sargento le apuntó y le pegó dos tiros en la cabeza.
Lo patié como si fuera una pelota de futbol..."
"De pronto se oyó un grito desgarrador. Después de un disparo vimos a un argentino cayendo barranca abajo. El oficial al mando se levantó de un salto cuando oyó más gritos y vio como un soldado moría de un tiro en la cabeza. Un grupo se acercó al lugar. Abajo, nuestros compañeros enterraban a unos argentinos "muertos en combate"(asesinados impunemente), a los que se los había llevado allí con ese fin."
"Los terminábamos de matar hundiéndoles la bayoneta en el ojo, porque sus chalecos eran demasiado gruesos".

http://www.malvinense.com.ar/Relato.htm

1000ydstare

03-20-2007, 01:56 PM

Not sure how it happens in your country panzerknacker, but if no one is charged then the crime didn't happen.

As I said, the reports of POWs being killed were looked into. This included interviews with all those who could have possibly witnessed the killings. This was the vast majority of the two Battalions of Parachute Regiment, deployed to the Falklands (the 2nd and 3rd).

Many Argentine soldiers were also interviewed by British Police. The bodies of Argentine dead were exhumed and examined by forensic specialists.

Whilst anecdotal evidence abounded, including stories from inside British units, no scientific evidence or actual eyewitnesses were found of ANY wrong doing.

My reference to other "war crimes" were to show the difference between war crimes and other events that actually happened or were accused of (Belgrano, Bayonet charges, Napalm, conscript maltreatment and the POWs of South Georgia difusin gtheir own booby traps) with the, in some cases, outrageous anecdotes relating to POWs.

One Para, possibly in the book you refer to, was referred to as "line 'em up Louis" for cold bloodedly shooting several POWs. The Argentines who were supposed to have witnessed this cold blooded murder were never found, and no one could supply information as to why a person who deliberatly murdered several POWs wouldn't go the extra mile and remove the witnesses, who were also certainly "expendable".

Practically all anecdotes, from Argentine sides, relating to the killing of POWs refer to pistol shots to the head, usually the back. It is interesting ot note that 9mm pistols are in short supply in many British regiments, compared to practically all officers and many NCOs carrying them in Argentine units. Many officers who could carry either/or chose to carry rifles. Lt Col "H" Jones being one.

NO bodies have been found with "back of the head" shots, with 9mm at close range.

This was all looked in to, with Argentine observation by the very highest of invetigatory bodies this country can put forward. A body that has nothing ot do with the British Military and has, over the years, realeased scathing reports about the way the Military does it's busines.

The book you refer to actually sparked the investigations.

Like I say, most of the war crimes are mere anecdotal stories, no evidence has actually been found. THis includes vast areas beingsearched for bodies and graves not recorded.

ALL Argentine Army bodies were traced, only those bodies lost on the Belgrano and Aircraft crashes have not been traced.

Over 12,000 POWs were taken, The Argentines lost 768 (?) men, of which half(ish) were lot on the Belgrano. These bodies have been traced and accounted for.

Only the dead man who collected ears, has been considered guilty to my knowledge, and he was dead. Again, given the small amount of witnesses, Britain could easily have buried this, rather than investigate. Although he has never been formally given this charge, he was only given a lower level of bravery medal, than the one he perhaps should have been awarded.

Even the anecdotal evidence fo the conscript who attempted to take home his dead brother on in a kit bag (on the QE 2 I think), only to have the body remvoed by British soldiers, has been looked in to.

32Bravo

03-20-2007, 02:30 PM

1000ydstare

03-20-2007, 02:43 PM

Ref Gurkhas and killing flies.

fromhttp://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Mount-William.htm
While the Scots Guards fought on Tumbledown and 2 Para on Wireless Ridge, the Gurkhas had to take Mount William and then pass the Welsh Guards through to take Sapper Hill. The Gurkhas had to wait until Tumbledown was taken, and the problems the Scots Guards ran into meant that the Gurkhas battle began late. The Gurkhas also faced another problem besides time- a minefield nearly a third of a mile square to the north of Tumbledown. The Gurkhas could either go around it to the north or feel their way through it at its southern end. They went through the southern end. The entire Battalion moved out in one long line and as they crossed the saddle separating them from their objective they came under artillery fire, but they never faltered. The Battalion's mortars had set up a firebase near Goat Ridge to give covering fire, while the Battalion's machine guns and Milans went with them. The Gurkhas also brought with them a selection of 0.5in Browning heavy machine guns.

Lt.-Col. Morgan skirted the northern edge of Mount Tumbledown under covering fire of the Scots Guards. He missed the minefield before coming abreast of Tumbledown, having lost eight men to Argentine shelling. The Battalion climbed a small re-entrant to approach the summit and B Company swung off to the left to take the eastern end of the mountain, where they took some prisoners that were part of the reserve company that had been planning a counter-attack. Nearby the Scots Guards were relieved, as they had nearly run out of ammunition.

The next phase was for A Company and all the support weapons to form a firebase on the summit of Tumbledown to support D Company's attack on Mount William, a mile away. The Argentine propaganda now backfired. Stories had been bandied about portraying Gurkhas as semi-human cannibals who never took prisoners and went into battle crazed with drugs. The Argentines on Mount William were already feeling insecure after the fall of Tumbledown and Wireless Ridge. When they realised they were about to be attacked by the Gurkhas, it became too much for them. Almost an entire battalion of Argentines fled Mount William as D Company advanced towards the Hill. Lt.-Col. Morgan's men took Mount William unopposed and his men were bitterly disappointed.

My bold, with suppresive fire (although no records exist of casualties inflicted) the Gurkhas definitly entered battle. That they didn't have to fight as rifleman also , is probably a good thing for the Argentine Battalion. This would almost have entailed their use of their Kukris in hand to hand fighting, rather than the Bayonets of other Battalions.

Argentine propaganda about the British, in the minds of frightened, poorly trained young boys wreaked havoc. This propaganda included British Soldiers as well as British Gurkha Soldiers.

In a topic about "war crimes in the malvinas" we could also bring up the mining of half the Islands with out proper recording of the locations and constituent mines. But that would be childish.

Hard proof of war crimes is required to prove them and prosecute, not mere rumours from the camp fire.

pdf27

03-20-2007, 02:43 PM

He has written another since, from the Argentine perspective, or at least including the Argentine perspective?
Published in the UK as "Two sides of Hell". The Argentine interviews are rather more interesting than the UK interviews, and constitute about the only redeeming feature. Generally a reasonable if somewhat mediocre book.

1000ydstare

03-20-2007, 02:52 PM

PDF, I prefer to use the words...

Dross.

Dire.

Drivel.

Mediore.

Sensationalist.

No evidence, or very little has ever come to the fore to prove many of the points he made. Just like the other book of similar vein - Green Eyed Boys.

Panzerknacker

03-20-2007, 07:36 PM

PDF, I prefer to use the words...

Dross.

Dire.

Drivel.

Mediore.

Sensationalist.

May I add interesting ?

Forgive me for this comparison, but Mengele wasnt convicted fron his crimes, and that did not means he was not guilty. :rolleyes:

I had some bitter discutions with friends about the Belgrano issue, but my opinion remain the same, it was a creditable act of war by the British navy, period.

My intention was to bring debate about , wich in my view is a forgotten chapter of this war, seems that I succedeed.

pdf27

03-20-2007, 07:52 PM

No evidence, or very little has ever come to the fore to prove many of the points he made. Just like the other book of similar vein - Green Eyed Boys.
I was trying to be polite. Besides, "two sides of hell" is a whisker better if only because it is largely composed with interviews with other people - and he can't really sensationalise those all that far without getting rumbled.

1000ydstare

03-21-2007, 01:55 AM

Panzerknacker, I'll put it another way.

Before you can say war crimes were committed then there has to be proof.

No solid evidence has ever come out. Only conjecture and rumour. We know that Mengele was in and around some places, where we know crimes against humanity were carried out. And we know by his position taht he must have had a hand in them, or was criminally negligent of his post.

A lot of time and effort has been expended looking for evidence of British Soldiers commiting war crimes, not just in the Falklands but in the current round of conflict in the Gulf.

No solid, physical evidence has been located about the Falklands.

Campfire stories do not count as evidence.

There is no debate over whether or not they happened. There is no evidence, therefore you are just comeing up with various stories taht float around and putting them forward.

If you wish to discuss these crimes, put forward some examples that you have heard about, but don't get sulky just because others on the site do not believe you or align their views with yours. You can't read a trashy book, which is historically dubious at best, and then expect people to debate over whether it is true or not, when a lot of it is speculation, repeats of rumours and possible repeats of outright lies.

Remember as well as Napalm at Goose Green and the mines laid, Argentina lied to the world about how it wanted to take the islands peacably. Yet the assault on Moody Brook barracks included WP and machine gun stop groups to destroy survivors. Had the Marines been inside the barracks they would have probably been all killed.

Whilst this aim, is not wrong, especially given the length of time it took to take the islands. It certainly smacks of double standards. The Argies lauded their own dead, making them out to be martyrs and doing everything possible to avert the death of their foes whilst claiming they only wanted a peaceful victory, they glossed of the reality.

Also note, that when the Royal Marine defenders finally surrendered, one of the Argintine SF (a rad op I believe) was stopped by his supiorior from shooting the prisoners. He was, in his mind, responding to the fact that the British defending a house had shot a man. Several attempts to get to the man had failed and had resulted in a man being wounded (a medic).

The Argentine soldier believed this to be a bit off, bordering on war crime maybe. The reality was, the defenders counldn't see what was going on, and the Argentines made no effort to inform them (white flag, etc).

There may be hundreds of these similar sort of actions, after Goose Green, Tumbledown, etc. With British soldiers blowing off frustrations, that is not to say though that they were never stopped by collegues in the same way. Or perhaps never got worse than a bit of a shoeing.

I don't want to bash your country, but it does have a habit of producing information that matches what it wants to do, if true info can't be found. These rumours are just one of them.

PS. Belgrano was a warship of a country at war. Conqueror was a warship of the opposition. They met one went under. That simple. Regardless of where she was, which way she was pointing, etc. She was a target.

1000ydstare

03-22-2007, 01:14 PM

Take it this debate is over in the light of no actual facts being available?

Panzerknacker

06-16-2007, 03:06 PM

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.

Sorry man, but unless you are a qualificated doctor....:roll:

I am not a soldier, but given my limited knowlegde in combat situation I think the most logic is to found some medical cares not a cammo dressed Dr Kevorkian.

It might be not a war crime ( some people will dispute that) but is clearly not the most elegant conduct.

BDL

06-16-2007, 03:21 PM

Sorry man, but unless you are a qualificated doctor....:roll:

You don't need to be a qualified doctor to know that someone who's just been stood in the middle of a Bty's worth of exploding 105/155mm ammunition, lost the majority of their flesh and been terribly burned is going to die, and it's not going to be nice either.

I am not a soldier, but given my limited knowlegde in combat situation I think the most logic is to found some medical cares not a cammo dressed Dr Kevorkian.

There's a very good chance that there was no medic within a reasonable time available. The majority would have been either with the frontline troops or at the field hospitals. What difference do you think a Combat Medic would have made anyway? It's highly unlikely that, with the injuries described by the ex-Para, he would have lived even with the best hospital treatment available, never mind a medic with a daysack full of FFDs and a couple of morphine shots.

It might be not a war crime ( some people will dispute that) but is clearly not the most elegant conduct.

No it wasn't elegant conduct, it was war. It was a war we neither started or wanted, but were forced to fight to defend our land and our people from an invading facist dictatorship with a record of real war crimes.

Egorka

06-16-2007, 05:13 PM

Not sure how it happens in your country panzerknacker, but if no one is charged then the crime didn't happen.

Great! I should remember this one next time we talk about rapes of German women by RKKA soldiers in 1945!

Lone Ranger

06-16-2007, 05:47 PM

Labelling the incident at Goose Green as a war crime is simply ridiculous.

In that incident, when the ammunition exploded one man was killed instantly, the other was left burning to death. The flames kept rescuers at bay, if you've ever experienced ammunition burning the heat is beyond description. That one of the Paras shot the guy dead was an act of mercy, leaving him to burn would have been a war crime.

Rising Sun*

06-16-2007, 08:48 PM

Sorry man, but unless you are a qualificated doctor....:roll:

The presence of a doctor does not guarantee assessment or treatment in war. In fact, it may do no more than allow the wounded to suffer in proximity to an advanced or rear medical facility under the triage system where those judged by doctors as beyond recovery are not treated while medical resources are devoted to those who can be repaired and used to fight again.

I am not a soldier, but given my limited knowlegde in combat situation I think the most logic is to found some medical cares not a cammo dressed Dr Kevorkian.

You are confusing mercy killing with the war crime of executing prisoners. The result is the same but the motivation, and justification, is different. One is necessarily acceptable in the realities of war, the other isn't.

Mercy killing can be an unavoidable reality in war, and it is by no means limited to killing the enemy. John Masters in The Road Past Mandalay describes the terrible decision as C.O. that he had to make in WWII to kill several of his own wounded troops, who could not be moved with the column, rather than leave them to be tortured by the advancing Japanese. Nor is it always involuntary. I can't think of any published sources at the moment, but there is no shortage of accounts of wounded soldiers (and civilians for that matter) begging to be put out of their misery, by their mates or the enemy. And of being accommodated.

It might be not a war crime ( some people will dispute that) but is clearly not the most elegant conduct.

War is the most inelegant activity imaginable, with the exception of extermination camps.

Mercy killing has to be carried out with the means available. Robert Graves in Goodbye to All That mentions killing wounded comrades with morphia in WWI. Sufficient quantities of morphia are not always available. Guns are always available to soldiers. And a lot quicker acting than drugs. Which is a reasonable consideration when the aim is to end suffering as quickly as possible.

Cuts

06-17-2007, 12:14 PM

Ok, if we're going discuss about actual war crimes, ie those that contravene the Conventions, how about the Paras that fired on the crew of the helicopter that was shot down over the sea ?

Firing on downed pilots constitutes a serious breach of the 1949 Convention which protects, amongst others, seamen in the water or lifeboats and those aboard aircraft which must make forced landings at sea.

I'm sure we can all agree that those British sldrs should have been prosecuted.

Eddy Ted for mong spelunk.

Panzerknacker

06-17-2007, 02:03 PM

Ok, let say I accept the explanation of BDL.

I only hope that the "merciless killing" is just an insulated incident of the war and the shooting down of unhealty prisoners were not the rule in the British Army.

Rising Sun*

06-17-2007, 07:05 PM

I only hope that the "merciless killing" is just an insulated incident of the war and the shooting down of unhealty prisoners were not the rule in the British Army.

Before taking the moral high ground, it's wise to make sure that you're not just exposing yourself to withering fire.

It's all very well making clever comments about 'merciless killing' and 'unhealthy prisoners', but the problem for you is that your country killed its own soldiers in true 'merciless killings' and showed no sign of mercy to them, and made them decidedly unhealthy. If shooting unhealthy Argentinians was British practice, there'd be a lot more dead Argentines for you to complain about.

"From around 100 former troops who still live in Corrientes, the government collected a total of 10 hours of videotaped testimony. A 200-page report was also produced, containing accounts of different kinds of torture and even cases of murder, and identifying both the victims and the aggressors.

One of the cases of abuse is that of Juan de la Cruz Martins, who weighed 62 kgs when he went to the Malvinas/Falklands and came back weighing just 29 kgs.

In the report, Martins says he was mistreated by a Lieutenant Baroni, and reports the death of one of his fellow soldiers.

Another person to speak out was Oscar Núñez, who told of a blow to his ribs from an officer with the last name Malacalza. He said that the blow and an eight-hour stake-out was the punishment he suffered for stealing a sheep to eat after watching conscript Secundino Riquelme starve to death.

Germán Navarro testified having seen a Corporal Cabrera kill one of his subordinates with a burst of machine-gun fire, after an argument with him.

"It's a complicated issue because in war, international humanitarian law protects combatants against abuse by the enemy, but there aren't any laws against systematic abuse of soldiers by officers of their own side," Vassel said.

.....

"We are the last collective victims of the dictatorship," Orlando Pascua of the Centre of Former Combatants from Corrientes told IPS. He, too, went to Tierra del Fuego to file the lawsuit. The veteran told how he had seen a navy officer order the stake-out of a conscript for an alleged lapse of discipline.

This punishment consisted of tying down the "prisoner" stretched out on the ground with stakes. Sometimes the victim would be naked, and at other times covered with a blanket. He would be left there for eight hours or more in the middle of the southern hemisphere winter, at the mercy of the islands' low temperatures, strong winds, snow, and enemy fire.

"One soldier was staked out on the mainland, before the troops embarked for the Malvinas, for arriving late at the line-up, which shows that it must have been a very clear operational instruction," Vassel said. "That's why we say that the dictatorship treated soldiers in the Malvinas the same as civilians on the mainland."

According to human rights organisations, the abuses visited on civilians during the military regime included 30,000 forced disappearances of political prisoners who had been held in 500 clandestine torture centres around the country.

Pascua pointed out that among the officers who abused their own troops, some are also accused of crimes against humanity involving civilians. They include Captain Julio Binotti, former Colonel Horacio Losito, former navy captains Alfredo Astiz and Antonio Pernías, and former General Mario Benjamín Menéndez.

The statements all agree that the vast majority of the soldiers were hungry and cold. "Conscripts who were doing their military service in the southernmost provinces, with the coldest climates, had adequate clothing, but those who came from the north of the country, where it is much hotter, went to war with the same clothes they used all year round at home," Pascua said.

Likewise, food was short or unavailable for the troops in the trenches. In fact, most of the disciplinary punishments were meted out to conscripts for stealing food or sheep in order to survive. In the worst cases, soldiers actually starved to death.

"What is most abhorrent and appalling is that this was like a planned extermination, because the Rattenbach Report (produced by a military commission presided over by an officer of that name, which investigated the conduct of the armed forces during the war) showed that the invasion was planned over a period of a year and a half," Pascua said.

"This proves that there was no improvisation involved. That's why we are calling them crimes against humanity," the former combatant said. "http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37337

See if you can find any evidence of similar treatment of troops in the British, or any other English-speaking, army.

If you can't, you're in no position to criticise a British soldier for doing a mortally wounded Argentinian a most unpleasant but necessary favour.

Chevan

06-18-2007, 02:05 AM

Before taking the moral high ground, it's wise to make sure that you're not just exposing yourself to withering fire.

See if you can find any evidence of similar treatment of troops in the British, or any other English-speaking, army.

Do not make us laugh mate:)
There a lot of cases of brutal treatment of young soldiers in the Britis or any other Englis-speaking army.

http://www.inforos.ru/?id=4919
British parliamentarians insist on the creation of the independent commission for the investigation of abuses in the armed forces. Statements about this were sounded in the course of the session of parliamentary committee on defense, which in straight ether was transmitted on the British television.
The need for the study of this problem arose in connection with the numerous complaints about the mockeries above the recruits in the British army, and also with the results of investigation about the sexual solicitations of senior soldiers to the young.
Furthermore, in a number of the military garrisons VS of Great Britain were recently registered several deaths of young soldiers.
" last years were undertaken effort in order not to leave unpunished similar cases, but mockeries continue, and about them they will quiet until changes the overall level of "- it was said at the session of the committee.
" In armed forces, and especially in ground forces, is similar, they do not understand, until now, that the hierarchy established there leads to the continuation of abuse" - noted one of the parliamentarians.
For this very reason at the session of the committee it was proposed to create the independent commission for complaints of the abuses in the army. Besides this, the parliamentarians propose to increase the minimum age of recruits in the British armed forces from 16 of up to 18 years

http://www.newsru.com/world/05apr2006/dedib.html
the 17 years recruit of Americ Hayer described that two months of mockeries in the British army did end for it by brutal slaughter from the side of corporal, 25- years Lee Orgile, as a result of which it nearly became blind. Child abuse occurred in the last day of the study of the basic course of instruction on the base of Ketterik in North Yorkshire. Hayer, whose father on the nationality Hindu, described that the corporal thrashed by his feet and pressed to it head. As a result he obtained the cut of century and the gap of lacrimal duct, it reports
And now a some for the fun

http://www.mk.ru/blogs/idmk/2005/11/29/mk-daily/65535/
http://www.mk.ru/f/b/mk/86/928546/p-3-1.jpg
"ritual mockeries above our young marines" - under this title left the British publication "World news", which published personnel of the ritual of "dedication" in marines. Video was taken secretly by one of the participants in deystva during May on the base of elite subdivision "42 commando" in the barracks near Plimouth.
Person, who removed these personnel, smelled to powder in Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the seen forms veteran struck the actions of "brothers on the weapon"
. Young recruits the old-timers (one it dressed for a joke in the blue dressing gown of surgeon and other into the form of schoolgirl) forced to arrange a kind of the gladiatorial combat between themselves - in the naked form. The rolled up from the mats tubes, put on to the hands of naked soldiers, served as the instrument of battle.
That of the participants in the duel, who did not maintain battle even it fell, "grandfathers" thrashed.
One of the recruits hardly remained living after these mockeries. However, to slaughter elder "comrades" did not limit, from the recruits of real men. Recruts made it necessary to swallow, without chewing, boiled eggs and the large pieces of meat, to the "causal places" they joined electrodes, they forced youngs to jump from the windows of the second floor. Similar traditional entertainments in the troops are named Sprog Olympics
A similar practice is not something from a number by there emerging for the armed forces of the United Kingdom. In the past year the government, perturbed by an increase in the harassment in the troops, even was ordered to direct into the subdivisions, where serve recruits, independent inspections. This was after in one of prepeared base in the county of Surrey perished several recruits.
If such things are created in Great Britain itself, it is easy to visualize which occurs in the garrisons, scattered on the different corners of peace, removed from Britain.
Several years ago into the metropole brought whole group of injured soldiers, who served on the the Falkland islands- it was "work" of theirs own colleagues. Then under the tribunal burn several ten instigators of slaughter house. In THE MEDIA the information about the harassment in the British parts, which carry service in Iraq, also repeatedly appeared.

I'm always amazing of the british feeling of humore;)
The surgeon and schoolgirl, Sprog Olympic...... ha ha ha.That's a nice;)
So my friend indeed the army harrasment exist in any English-speaking army ( as and any army in the world).
And this is a qiute common situation in a piace time.
Cheers.

Lone Ranger

06-18-2007, 04:30 PM

@Chevan. Whilst there may be a problem of bullying in the British Army, its a problem that has been openly discussed in the free press and they're doing something about it. Its also the case that the problems are not endemic and much of what you're quoting is taken out of context.

In the Falklands, the Argentine army treated its conscripts appallingly. The brutal punishments that were handed out bear no relation to anything referred to above. And this was an Army that was responsible for the murder of 35,000 of its own citizens.

@Panzerknacker. Your remarks about the British Army were insulting and foolish. Your prisoners were treated well, when it came to medical treatment casualties were treated according to need not nationality. Commander Rick Jolly was decorated by both sides for his humanity.

Also, since you claim there was no Argentine "war crimes", the detention of 115 civilians in cramped conditions, with no separate accommodation for woman, no attempt to provide protection against stray fire, in accommodation that was not marked. Use of search lights mounted on a hospital ship. Stacking ammunition amongst civilian shelters. Deportation of civilians. Mock executions.

All against the Geneva convention, all committed by Argentine soldiers.

Panzerknacker

06-18-2007, 09:20 PM

I dont know if you noted but this topic had a question mark, since I am not sure if was actually war crimes. That is the idea to investigate about.

@Panzerknacker. Your remarks about the British Army were insulting and foolish.

What remarks ? BDL almost convinced me, the only thing who is left is the Bramley claims about the executions of prisoners.

But this is foolish, the 35 000 dead figure you ve posted when actually were 9800 desapeared and killed in the dirty war, and a important number were not civilians but guerrilla fighters.

If somebody want to talk about the dirty war in Argentina there is a topic in off-topic militaria.

Any post starting from now wich try to derail the original Topic on this thread with the desaparecidos questions will moved there, If SS Tiger is not available I will move myself.

Rising Sun*

06-18-2007, 09:36 PM

I dont know if you noted but this topic had a question mark, since I am not sure if was actually war crimes. That is the idea to investigate about.

So, given that context and your OP, is this a thread about alleged war crimes in the Falklands, or just alleged war crimes by the British in the Falklands?

Chevan

06-19-2007, 01:58 AM

@Chevan. Whilst there may be a problem of bullying in the British Army, its a problem that has been openly discussed in the free press and they're doing something about it. Its also the case that the problems are not endemic and much of what you're quoting is taken out of context.

Well Lone Ranger.
True althou this problem openly discussed but as it was mentioned in comitete report above - the situation is not improving.
BTW there are only a few cases of harrasement that actually come up to the surface in Media. As we could think the real situation is more worst.
And this is IN PEACE time ,independently of context;)

In the Falklands, the Argentine army treated its conscripts appallingly. The brutal punishments that were handed out bear no relation to anything referred to above. And this was an Army that was responsible for the murder of 35,000 of its own citizens.

.

......actually were 9800 desapeared and killed in the dirty war
Excuse me by why need you to increase the victims of WAR in several times?To present the Argentinian army is the herd of monsters and killers?

Cheers.

Man of Stoat

06-19-2007, 03:47 AM

Interesting how he is steering well clear of the following:

Unmarked minefields laid by the Argentines
misuse of the Red Cross symbol to disguise an ammunition dump
use of unmarked civilian vehicles at Goose Green
placing of potential targets in built-up areas
use of searchlights on a hospital ship
mistreatment of the civilian population (albeit mild in comparison to e.g. World War II)

These are all war crimes, and are proven facts. Strange how he concentrates on allegations which were later investigated under the watchful eye of the press and proved wrong. But, I guess, if he believes it to be true, then it must be!

Lone Ranger

06-19-2007, 04:17 AM

But this is foolish, the 35 000 dead figure you ve posted when actually were 9800 desapeared and killed in the dirty war, and a important number were not civilians but guerrilla fighters.

@Panzerknacker. Interesting, most human rights organisation put the figures of the number of people murdered much, much higher. For example on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War) the figure quoted is 30,000.

In 1976, one of the generals predicted, "We are going to have to kill 50,000 people: 25,000 subversives, 20,000 sympathizers, and we will make 5,000 mistakes." The National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP) researched and recorded, case by case, the "disappearance" of about 9,000 persons, though it was made clear that many more could exist; today, the most commonly accepted estimate by human rights organizations places the number at 30,000.

I only post this because you've disputed the figures I quoted. I believe I'm entitled to a riposte, removing this would be an abuse of Moderator powers.

Now the figures I quote from are from organisations independent of both Argentina and the UK. Why would you only be prepared to accept "official" figures posted by the Argentine Government? Also interesting was the way you provided the excuse that most were guerillas. Does that make the murder of innocent civilians for having the wrong politics acceptable?

Now, returning to the topic, since you claimed there were no Argentine war crimes in the Falklands would you care to address the points put to you.

@Chevan. Two points.

1. I addressed your allegations putting them into context. There has been a problem of bullying in the British Army, its being dealt with. Now for some reason you've introduced this as a counterpoint to Argentine army abuse of its own soldiers in the Falklands. Does this mean that you view it as somehow acceptable?

2. I've never claimed all of the Argentine Army were thugs and killers. I've acknowledged on other threads that many behaved with basic human decency. So given that I already have a track record here of recognising that why do you seek to take this down a rabbit hole?

Rising Sun*

06-19-2007, 07:16 AM

Panzerknacker

As they all raise specific issues directly relevant to war crimes in the Falklands War, could you let us have your responses to posts #24, 28, 29, & 30?

Rising Sun*

06-19-2007, 07:44 AM

Do not make us laugh mate:)
There a lot of cases of brutal treatment of young soldiers in the Britis or any other Englis-speaking army.

As there is in many armies. Not least yours, although generally they don't speak English :D.

Some apparently brutal treatment is no more than very harsh but appropriate and good training which has to be done to make good soldiers and to weed out those not suitable for some units. Some people may be hurt, physically or mentally, in that process. This is most unfortunate but it is not the purpose of the exercise. Some brutal treatment is just very bad behaviour and bullying of no training or military value which should be stopped and the offenders punished.

However, if you go back to my quoted piece about the Argentines, it was to do with things like staking out their soldiers naked in freezing temperatures and starving and shooting their own soldiers to death.

I'm not aware of any English-speaking army doing this, or condoning it, in training, barracks or the field at the time of or since the Falklands War.

The points you made about problems in the British army don't equate to such conduct. Some of them just reflect the inability of many soft and cuddly civilians to appreciate the realities of how armies need to train men to endure war and to kill in defence of the civilians who get all prissy about nasty men being toughened up to protect them. Being the same soft and cuddly civilians who will get all nasty about deficiencies in training if their army gets rolled and the enemy ends up on the civilians' doorsteps.

Unless you can find evidence of English-speaking armies starving and shooting their soldiers to death in the field in that era (and I very much doubt it as I served in one of them a dozen years earlier where we were trained for a shooting war and punishments could be severe but, unless the soldier had some very rare and undiagnosed medical condition, not life-threatening), they have different standards to those applied by the Argentinian army in the Falklands.

Man of Stoat

06-19-2007, 07:56 AM

Comparing naked rollmat wrestling to starving and shooting conscripts is a bit of a trite comparison, no?

Go to the QM and return your "straws, for the grasping at, L35" immediately. ;)

Rising Sun*

06-19-2007, 08:27 AM

Comparing naked rollmat wrestling to starving and shooting conscripts is a bit of a trite comparison, no?

One would think so, but in Argentina there has been a bit of confusion due to a translation problem They do naked rollmops wrestling. :D

Which just confirms suspicions about there being something fishy about the Argentinian position in this thread. :D

Rising Sun*

06-19-2007, 08:02 PM

Panzerknacker

I fail to see why my post questioning your inconsistent positions on the mercy killing of a wounded Argentinian and the killing of 9,800 of your countrymen by your army is now post #44 in the Los Desaparecidos thread.

My post was squarely on topic in this thread and responded to your post #25 where you chose to question the number killed in the Dirty War.

My post was not dealing with the Dirty War or the disappeared but with the inconsistency of your positions expressed in this thread. For that reason it should have stayed here.

If you're going to be consistent with moving my post, you should move your #25 to the Los Desaparecidos thread. Then nobody reading this thread will have any idea what subsequent posts responding to it are about. Just like nobody reading my post that you moved to the other thread will have any idea why it is suddenly talking about issues which have nothing to do with that thread and which were not raised in it.

By deleting my post you have altered the post numbers so that my post #30 now asks for a response to a question in post #30, which does not raise any question because #30 originally was the post which is now #44 in the LD thread.

I don't mind looking like an idiot when I do it myself, but I object to having my posts moved into irrelevant threads by somebody else to make me look like an idiot.

Panzerknacker

06-19-2007, 08:27 PM

Rising Sun*

06-19-2007, 09:16 PM

Sorry man but I will not allow the poisoning of this thread mixing up the two topics , I you think I am out of line moving your post you can send a complain to Gen.Sandworm or WW2admin.

Any other complain about this subject please by Private message to the names above.

I think they've probably got better things to do than sort out minor squabbles.

I've made my point.

You've made yours.

That's the end of it.

Others can judge which of us has more merit in our position.

Chevan

06-20-2007, 01:44 AM

@Panzerknacker. Interesting, most human rights organisation put the figures of the number of people murdered much, much higher. For example on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War) the figure quoted is 30,000.
And what is the "independent human right organisations" and who do sponsor them?How do you think? And why those the "most of himan right organisations" keep the silence about violence above the civils during recent attack of Lebanon and the in the Iraq?;)
And when has the Wiki been the "reliable source"?

@Chevan. Two points.

1. I addressed your allegations putting them into context. There has been a problem of bullying in the British Army, its being dealt with. Now for some reason you've introduced this as a counterpoint to Argentine army abuse of its own soldiers in the Falklands. Does this mean that you view it as somehow acceptable?
This is not the conterpoint for the critic of the Argentinian policy.This is just my respons to the Rising Sun who clamed the any English-speaking army as a holy;)
Just kidding....

2. I've never claimed all of the Argentine Army were thugs and killers. I've acknowledged on other threads that many behaved with basic human decency. So given that I already have a track record here of recognising that why do you seek to take this down a rabbit hole?
Indeed my point was not agains whole British Army too.
As i said the harrasment in Army is the bitch of all armies including Russian( and i know a some of worst cases too from my personal army experiece).

I just wish to notice you the problem of you one-side point toward the Argentinian gov.
The victims of dirty war is not only the single resault. You simply ignored the fact that the the Agrentinians had the right to save its own state from the civil war by the all of the methods ( although it was a brutal methods).
In fact in in the comparition with the possible victims of civil war in Argentine the 9800 "dissapeared" is not too much, believe me.
We clearly know it now when in the "democratic" Iraq perished MUCH MORE people every week then it was during the "brutal ruling of Saddam".
So my point is the EVERY state has its own rights to protect its living interests despite of the possible victims.
From this prospect the Dirty war was not so dirty as it try to present in western media.
At least the Argentinians could save the own state from a desintegration and bloody civil war.

Cheers.

Man of Stoat

06-20-2007, 03:37 AM

Hmmm... funny how the moderation buttons are jumped for whenever a discussion doesn't go PK's way...

Chevan

06-20-2007, 03:37 AM

Some apparently brutal treatment is no more than very harsh but appropriate and good training which has to be done to make good soldiers and to weed out those not suitable for some units. Some people may be hurt, physically or mentally, in that process. This is most unfortunate but it is not the purpose of the exercise. Some brutal treatment is just very bad behaviour and bullying of no training or military value which should be stopped and the offenders punished.

Well i see the most amazing ( and cynical) justification of army harrasments;)
Its interesting what should say the human right organisaitions and parents of the young soldiers who lost the health of thrashings or got the damage of mental from the sexual harrasement of senior soldiers and officers.
What the parents of those kids must get as explanation- it was for them to be "good soldiers".
From what aims the two idiots has dressed as surgeon and schoolgirl during this "procedure" - to make the good soldier and educate the "patriot of Britain" from those guys?

However, if you go back to my quoted piece about the Argentines, it was to do with things like staking out their soldiers naked in freezing temperatures and starving and shooting their own soldiers to death.

I'm not aware of any English-speaking army doing this, or condoning it, in training, barracks or the field at the time of or since the Falklands War.

Mate when the British army without any doubt shoted the traitors during the WW2 it was not the reason to call it as the crimes right? Coz this was the war FOR the fate of Britain.
So why if the Argentinians shoted its own traitors ( it not a fact they were innocent) you have a biased point?;)

The points you made about problems in the British army don't equate to such conduct. Some of them just reflect the inability of many soft and cuddly civilians to appreciate the realities of how armies need to train men to endure war and to kill in defence of the civilians who get all prissy about nasty men being toughened up to protect them. Being the same soft and cuddly civilians who will get all nasty about deficiencies in training if their army gets rolled and the enemy ends up on the civilians' doorsteps.

Unless you can find evidence of English-speaking armies starving and shooting their soldiers to death in the field in that era (and I very much doubt it as I served in one of them a dozen years earlier where we were trained for a shooting war and punishments could be severe but, unless the soldier had some very rare and undiagnosed medical condition, not life-threatening), they have different standards to those applied by the Argentinian army in the Falklands.
I/m not deny the Argentinian army had a different behavior in that period- but i think its wrong to compare the one of the best army in the World - the British army with the ancient traditions with relatively young Argentinians.
Thue this army is not standart for the imitation, but it has the right to be.Whatever does somebody like it or not.
Cheers.

Rising Sun*

06-20-2007, 06:38 AM

Well i see the most amazing ( and cynical) justification of army harrasments;)
Its interesting what should say the human right organisaitions and parents of the young soldiers who lost the health of thrashings or got the damage of mental from the sexual harrasement of senior soldiers and officers.
What the parents of those kids must get as explanation- it was for them to be "good soldiers".
From what aims the two idiots has dressed as surgeon and schoolgirl during this "procedure" - to make the good soldier and educate the "patriot of Britain" from those guys?

I don't condone anything that is not reasonably directed towards proper training aims or that inflicts unnecessary physical or mental distress on soldiers.

I haven't said anything approving thrashing young soldiers; sexual harassment by seniors, officers or for that matter equals or subordinates; or anything that is not reasonably directed towards proper training objectives. Because I'm opposed to that in any service, and in particular in the Australian services where there have been several suicides and other deplorable and avoidable incidents caused by bad treatment of service people by individuals, groups and the military system as a whole.

But it has to be remembered always that armies are training people to kill and to endure war and battlefield conditions. It’s not like running discrimination sensitivity sessions in the public service to make sure that, for example, no fat sheilas get upset because they misconstrue a tub of butter accidentally left out of the tea room fridge as implied criticism of fat people.

Mate when the British army without any doubt shoted the traitors during the WW2 it was not the reason to call it as the crimes right? Coz this was the war FOR the fate of Britain.
So why if the Argentinians shoted its own traitors ( it not a fact they were innocent) you have a biased point?;)

I don’t recall anything in this thread about Argentinians shooting their own traitors. The only specific instance I gave was in post #22:

Germán Navarro testified having seen a Corporal Cabrera kill one of his subordinates with a burst of machine-gun fire, after an argument with him.

That’s just murder. As for what the British or anyone else did in WWII, it’s irrelevant as we’re talking about what happened in a different world in a different war in 1982.

I/m not deny the Argentinian army had a different behavior in that period- but i think its wrong to compare the one of the best army in the World - the British army with the ancient traditions with relatively young Argentinians.
Thue this army is not standart for the imitation, but it has the right to be.Whatever does somebody like it or not.
Cheers.

I disagree.

Panzerknacker constantly makes the point that Argentina owns the Falklands by ancient title. Argentina has been a republic for some 170 or so years. That’s a lot older than the various nations created and extinguished and altered in Europe over the same period. Germany didn’t even look like existing when Argentina declared its independence from Spain. Also, Argentina was occupied by Spain previously and derives its military traditions from Spain, which was a mature European monarchy at all relevant times, and a superpower for much of that time. Argentina is not a young country, nor are the sources of its military traditions young.

At the time of the Falklands war the Argentinian army was just different to Britain’s, in five main ways. First, the army was an extension of a military dictatorship. Second, the way their army treated their own civilians. Third, they way they treated their own soldiers. Fourth, they way they conducted the war. Fifth, the way they treated civilians in occupied territory.

But I’d better not get into any of those things or I might poison this thread, so I’ll just content myself with saying that armies run by military dictatorships have a rather worse history of misconduct compared with armies run by healthy democracies. The problem isn’t the army but the dictatorship which runs it, because a regime which doesn’t recognise or isn’t forced to recognise human rights for all will produce a military with the same attitude. Which is more likely to produce war crimes according to international standards which are routinely ignored by military dictatorships in their internal military activities.

Lone Ranger

06-20-2007, 05:56 PM

And what is the "independent human right organisations" and who do sponsor them?How do you think? And why those the "most of himan right organisations" keep the silence about violence above the civils during recent attack of Lebanon and the in the Iraq?;)
And when has the Wiki been the "reliable source"?

So many questions. I never claimed Wiki was reliable but it was a convenient example. There are others, for example Amnesty International, which I'm pretty sure has been equally critical of the situation in the Lebanon and Iraq.

I just wish to notice you the problem of you one-side point toward the Argentinian gov.

One sided? Now thats an interesting point you make! Panzerknacker who started this thread, now wishes to limit it to alleged war crimes committed by the British Army.

simply ignored the fact that the the Agrentinians had the right to save its own state from the civil war by the all of the methods ( although it was a brutal methods).

It absolutely had no right to resort to the methods it chose to use. That should never be acceptable in any state.

Panzerknacker

06-21-2007, 12:32 PM

One sided? Now thats an interesting point you make! Panzerknacker who started this thread, now wishes to limit it to alleged war crimes committed by the British Army.

And how is that ? :rolleyes: , nobody is handcuffed here.

If the people here are more willing to talk about the alleged british war crimes in Malvinas must be because those are of a more direct nature of the allleged argentine ones.

For example planting mines is relative impersonal compared with shooting prisoners.

Lone Ranger

06-21-2007, 04:42 PM

And how is that ? :rolleyes: , nobody is handcuffed here.

In which case, can we expect an answere on posts #24, 28, 29, & 30 soon? :roll:

Interesting, that in the eyes of Panzerknacker planting a few unmarked minefields is somehow a lesser crime than shooting a man in agony. Its a novel moral compass you have.

Panzerknacker

06-21-2007, 05:05 PM

The executions related by Bramley had nothing to do with the so called "mercilees killing", is another one. I quote that is spanish, I will translated .

And I dont think that planting mines is a lesser crime...I dont consider it crime at all.

In which case, can we expect an answere on posts #24, 28, 29, & 30 soon?

Sure let me quote all this and you get you answer.

And by the way, I will provide soon more evidence of another case of british soldier shooting unarmed argentine prisoners.

Lone Ranger

06-21-2007, 05:10 PM

And I dont think that planting mines is a lesser crime...I dont consider it crime at all.

The Geneva convention, even in 1982, begs to differ.

Panzerknacker

06-21-2007, 08:13 PM

Your prisoners were treated well, when it came to medical treatment casualties were treated according to need not nationality. Commander Rick Jolly was decorated by both sides for his humanity.

Well, there was cases they didnt.

Also, since you claim there was no Argentine "war crimes"

I dont remember said that...I said that the actions of the argentine forces has been distortionated by some kind of propaganda. I will say there is no or there was none I have knowledge.

the detention of 115 civilians in cramped conditions, with no separate accommodation for woman, no attempt to provide protection against stray fire, in accommodation that was not marked.

Well if so, I think was a violation, not really a crime, I remember saw some images of a deportive center in New Orleans in Katrina times when people was mantained togheter without separation of genders, nasty but nessesary under those circunstances.

Use of search lights mounted on a hospital ship.
Stacking ammunition amongst civilian shelters. Deportation of civilians

I have found no information of those in argentine/ spanish language sources I can not confirm or deny suchs acts.

Mock executions.

Man....you should not even mention that, what about real executions performed by british soldiers, And there is account of those facts from the two sides, in one case you have the Bramley book confirmed by 5 argentine witnesses, other the incident with the wounded after the explotions of the shells ( I will give that as merciful killing allright) also confirmed with argentine witness and they dont fully agree the merciful caracterization and now I find another:

I could put here the outraged words of the Captain of the submarine ARA Santa Fe but I dont even need that to confirm this crime, just read the accout of a british sailor.

Things went wrong however because of one trigger happy Marine! Basically, the submarine was listing to port and possibly going to turn over. The Crew were down below with Colin Tozer and Royal Marines watching them v. carefully. On the fin (bridge) was JC with Chris "guarding" and the Arg. CO. As the submarine went ahead in the final stages of the manoeuvre the Arg. CO. called down the hatch into the dimly lit interior and one crew member started winding off on valves (presumably doing what he had been told). The Marine guarding him promptly shot him though the head (!) and then ran up the hatch still shooting his pistol shouting "It's going to sink" - "Get me off". Obviously off his rocker - all had gone so well. No dead - one Argentinean with leg shot off just above knee by an AS12 missile and a couple of "walking wounded". Now, however, one of their Prisoners of War while helping us has been shot.

The source is here.

http://www.hmsbrilliant.com/hmsb.cgi?page=dsection3

And that is just beatiful, the Argentine militaria who did not kill any civilian or prisoner is portrayed in several sources as nearly neandertal monsters.

But off course the British military with 3 separated incidents of executions with head shots on unarmed prisoners were merely freedom fighters.

Rising Sun*

06-21-2007, 10:00 PM

Man....you should not even mention that, what about real executions performed by british soldiers, And there is account of those facts from the two sides, in one case you have the Bramley book confirmed by 5 argentine witnesses, other the incident with the wounded after the explotions of the shells ( I will give that as merciful killing allright) also confirmed with argentine witness and they dont fully agree the merciful caracterization and now I find another:

I could put here the outraged words of the Captain of the submarine ARA Santa Fe but I dont even need that to confirm this crime, just read the accout of a british sailor.

Mate, Blind Freddie could see what happened in that case, without knowing anything more about it. It was a terrible misunderstanding.

But, given your distorted interpretation of an awful accident as the brutal execution of a POW, here's a more complete account.

The only fatality was an Argentine Chief Petty Officer who was sadly shot while the submarine was being moved under supervision. A skeleton crew of Argentines had been on board, each member with a Royal Marine guard who had instructions to prevent the boat being scuttled. Commands were to be passed down in both Spanish and English so that both could understand. The particular order to blow tanks reached Chief Petty Officer Artuso and his guard only in Spanish. As the Argentine sailor complied with the command, the Royal Marine thought that he was about to scuttle the boat and so he shot him. Artuso was buried with full military honours in the graveyard that holds Sir Ernest Shackleton and many others who have died in the harsh climate of South Georgia.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/sg1.html

If the Argentinians had not made the mistake of relaying the order in Spanish, your man would not have been shot.

I don't propose to blame them alone for the man's death as, like most accidents, there were several factors involved without any one of which the accident would not have occurred. It is equally wrong to blame the British marine alone for the death. It is utterly absurd to present the accident as the murder of a POW by the marine.

I await your predictable response that the above quote is just a cover-up by the British who, [sarcasm on] true to their murderous souls, carefully arranged to kill a prisoner of war in front of other members of his crew but by a minor oversight in carrying out their scheme they forgot to kill all the Argentinian witnesses, thus proving that not only were they committed to killing as many Argentinian POW's as possible but also they were hopelessly incompetent at it [sarcasm off].

Rising Sun*

06-21-2007, 10:44 PM

I have found no information of those in argentine/ spanish language sources I can not confirm or deny suchs acts.

ROFLMAO :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Strange how you were able and happy - nay, jubilant -to rely on an English source for the alleged Santa Fe murder, but now the only sources you have access to are argentine/spanish language.

But off course the British military with 3 separated incidents of executions with head shots on unarmed prisoners

Evidence?

( not to mention the accidental death of 3 women)

And your point is?

I'm concerned that by raising this you might poison this thread by raising the matter of 'own side' civilian deaths caused by the British army, which seems a little inconsistent with your rapid transfer of my earlier post about 'own side' treatment of civilians by the Argentinian army, which I note you haven't answered in the other thread, either. Along with the questions posed earlier in this thread.

Should I infer that this is because there aren't any Argentine/ Spanish language sources on these matters?

However, as you've raised 'own side' British civilian deaths, surely it's only reasonable to explore the same issue involving Argentinian deaths?

Panzerknacker

06-21-2007, 11:36 PM

I dont know how is in Australia but in here we are not jubilant when we remember a fallen countryman.

There is no a murderous soul in the British Army but there was one in the Marine who killed Artuso. No warning, no even a shot in the leg, just BANG ¡¡..a 9 mm bullet in the skull.That was his award for colaborating with the British. That is execution and a flagrant war crime.

I'm concerned that by raising this you might poison this thread by raising the matter of 'own side' civilian deaths caused by the British army, which seems a little inconsistent with your rapid transfer of my earlier post about 'own side' treatment of civilians by the Argentinian army, which I note you haven't answered in the other thread, either. Along with the questions posed earlier in this thread.

Not poisoning anything, those deaths were accidents, but if is so important to you, I going to edit that part.

Rising Sun*

06-22-2007, 12:21 AM

I dont know how is in Australia but in here we are not jubilant when we remember a fallen countryman.

You weren't remembering a fallen countryman.

You were jubilant because you thought you had evidence of a British war crime.

There is no a murderous soul in the British Army but there was one in the Marine who killed Artuso. No warning, no even a shot in the leg, just BANG ¡¡..a 9 mm bullet in the skull.That was his award for colaborating with the British. That is execution and a flagrant war crime.

I don't think you grasp the realities of war, or of the situation on the Santa Fe.

Presumably the Argentine navy works on the same basis that applies in other armed forces, which is to try not to co-operate with the enemy when captured and to cause it problems where possible. The British would naturally be suspicious that the crew might attempt to scuttle it to deny access to the dock or otherwise to impede landing British forces. I don't know what specific instructions or agreements existed between the British and Argentine commanders, but the arrangement to relay orders in English and Spanish makes it pretty clear that the British wanted to know what was going on to avoid the sub being scuttled. The presence of an armed guard for each member of the crew should have made it pretty clear what was going to happen if it appeared that an attempt was made to scuttle it. I suspect that it would have been made very clear to the Argentinians before the exercise started that any attempt to scuttle it would result in instantaneous death.

Should a crew member have attempted to scuttle it, the question then is whether the person is a prisoner or a re-activated combatant. I think the latter.

But in this case, much as you are incapable of recognising it, it was just a terrible accident.

You can't begin to imagine how tired I am of hearing that idiotic view that police or soldiers or anyone else should have shot someone in the leg. It's a myth that doing so automatically (a) disables someone and (b) avoids death, as you'll discover in a minute or two if you sever the femoral artery. Moreover, unless someone is wearing tights, it can be difficult to know exactly where the target area is.

As he was a collaborator, what penalty would Artuso have received for such a crime in Argentina?

As he was a collaborator, was he a prisoner of war or had he defected to the British?

Chevan

06-22-2007, 03:18 AM

So many questions. I never claimed Wiki was reliable but it was a convenient example. There are others, for example Amnesty International, which I'm pretty sure has been equally critical of the situation in the Lebanon and Iraq.

Amnesty International?
Well could you find even single case when this organisation defended the civils peoples perished during the Israel bombing in Lebanon?i/m not/ The everything that i could find was the olny the common words about the guilty of Hisbolla- nothing more.
Or could you find even the tiny of critic of presents coalition troops in the Iraq?

It absolutely had no right to resort to the methods it chose to use. That should never be acceptable in any state.

Really they has no right to use the such methods?;)
And what about treating the prisoners in Aby-Grabe and Guantanamo prisons?
And a tens of CIA secret prisons in Eastern Europe?
Are you sure they do not use a such methoids inside?i/m not, especially when it come to the surface the several death cases that ONLY were discussed in Media.
And BTW did you see the photo of treatment from Aby-Graib? It's interesting, believe me ;)
It is strange why if the Argentinians treated its political opponents ( who used the terrorisyt methods de facto) - this is a wrong violence toward the " own people" but if we treats the "suspected peoples with terrorists" - this is all OK ,this is "war agains terrorism".;)
Don't you think its funny?

Lone Ranger

06-22-2007, 04:59 AM

Well could you find even single case when this organisation defended the civils peoples perished during the Israel bombing in Lebanon?

Certainly, here is one link (http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Middle-East-and-North-Africa/Lebanon). Quite a few more here (http://www.amnesty.org/airesults/search?sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=iso-8859-1&client=eng&proxystylesheet=eng&site=default_collection&lr=lang_en&q=lebanon)

And what about treating the prisoners in Aby-Grabe

Abu-Ghraib, utterly wrong, the perpetrators are in prison, their officers demoted and reprimanded. Quite rightly so. However, it was not officially sanctuioned

Guantanamo prisons?

Utterly wrong, it should be closed down.

And a tens of CIA secret prisons in Eastern Europe?

If they exist, utterly wrong.

Don't you think its funny?

Perhaps, a language barrier but I have no idea what you are on about.

Lone Ranger

06-22-2007, 05:16 AM

Well if so, I think was a violation,

A violation of the Geneva convention is in fact a war crime. But you just carry on ignoring everything that you don't like to hear.

I have found no information of those in argentine/ spanish language sources I can not confirm or deny suchs acts.

Isn't that convenient.

Man....you should not even mention that, what about real executions performed by british soldiers,

Side stepping and not too neatly.

Blah, blah, blah....in one case you have the Bramley book confirmed by 5 argentine witnesses

Extensively investigated by Scotland Yard with no evidence found. The names of these witnesses?

also confirmed with argentine witness and they dont fully agree the merciful caracterization and now I find another:

Really, so what exactly did these "Argentine" witnesses say?

I'll not bother replying on the Santa Fe incident, that was more than adequately dealt with elsewhere.

And that is just beatiful, the Argentine militaria who did not kill any civilian or prisoner is portrayed in several sources as nearly neandertal monsters.

Again no-one has betrayed the Argentines as Neanderthal monsters, just some of them. Like Major Patricio Dowling, whose behaviour was so bad that the Argentine "Governor" sent him home.

But off course the British military with 3 separated incidents of executions with head shots on unarmed prisoners were merely freedom fighters.

By all means carry on with this hyperbole but you make yourself look foolish.

Panzerknacker

06-22-2007, 10:54 AM

A name of argentine witness wich I remember is name Jose Carrizo he was shot in the head twice and lost some grey matter and a eye but manage to survive. I think there are others.

You have not portrayed us as Monster but others do that.

Foolish ? Hiperbole ? dont think so, more foolish is to said that a point blank shot in the head is an "accident".

Most of this histories are in spanish so I need to translate before posting here.

In the meanwhile I let you a image of the "ears collector" Stewart McLaughlin, who according to ltn Mark Cox cut 24 argentine ears.

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/9579/infrec4f1xv2.jpg

McLaughlin was killed in action by a mortar shell.

http://www.clarin.com/diario/96/05/26/infrec4.html

A rough translation of above link with babelfish :

Scouse" McLaughlin was one of the most seasoned parachutists, was a "corporal one", maximum rank of the sergeant majors, and fought wounded in its back, but it died in the battle practically beheaded by a mortar. When lieutenant Mark Cox found her body, he recognized it by his equipment, and he tried to rescue some food that was in its knapsack. The surprise was that one of its ammunition pockets was full of human ears. The second that found them was John Week, ordered to make the documentation of the battle.

In different interviews it was said that there were twelve pairs of ears collected by McLaughlin, a quite high amount if one remembers that 29 Argentineans in the battle died. But nobody really counted them.

Vincent Bramley saw an alive prisoner, with its hurt leg, to that it needed the two ears. DES Fuller, another parachutist, was witness of another similar episode.

The fact was enough so that McLaughlin was not decorated postmortem. But their companions justify their action saying that the Argentineans "no longer needed" their ears.

"What another class of atrocities you describe in your book?"

Atrocities are a word very hard to use. The corporal McLauglin mutilated bodies of died soldiers, and probably one or two that they were alive but who they were going to die. That I know, were no other atrocities committed by the British forces. There were violations of the Convention of Geneva by the Argentine forces, but these things always happen in the war.

"The Argentine committed them? "

I do not believe that the Argentineans have committed atrocities in Longdon. We must recognize that the Argentine troops were surpassed by the amount of British forces, that always were more successful and professional than the Argentine military. The system of defense and communications of the Argentineans very was fractured by the ferocidad of the British attack in Goose Green and Longdon, and they could not organize a resistance. It had not welded British captured. Therefore, there were no atrocities. But what happened it is that the day of the invasion, a British helicopter was demolished in waters of San Carlos and the Argentine forces shot with machine guns on waters, I believe that was Regiment 12. In the battle of Goose Green, two British officials were died by machine-gun fire when they took a white flag, and that is a treason act.

"But the British wanted to execute an official of their own army that hid during the battle by fear. "

He could be executed. One hid between rocks during the battle. He never exposed himself to no horror. But he could not clearly support the tension of the beginning of the battle and genuinely it was a psychiatric loss.

"It can execute it in a martial judgment? "

Not in the British Armed Forces of these days. This was cancelled in World War I and nothing is punished with death.

I really dont need to add nothing, I just will try to find time to translate the Bramley narration.

Chevan one of you message has been moved to Off Topic militaria, please leave this exclusively to the Malvinas theater of operation.

Rising Sun*

06-22-2007, 01:04 PM

Foolish ? Hiperbole ? dont think so, more foolish is to said that a point blank shot in the head is an "accident".

I don't know where to draw the line between a perverse refusal to accept glaring facts and just plain stupidity, but I think you've crossed that line.

Despite my posts on the Santa Fe issue, you persist in maintaining that it was an execution of a POW rather than a terrible accident, caused in part by Argentinian failures. If you can't see that it was an accident, you lack not only objectivity but common sense.

There is no point debating these issues further with you as you have a closed mind which is unreceptive to anything except that which reinforces your own absurd interpretations, which always present Argentina as the eternal victim of British aggression and war crimes, from the original occupation of the Islands until now.

If your benighted attitude is representative of majority Argentinian opinion at present, Argentina has a long way to go before it can begin to understand its, and Britain's, history on the Falklands War. And reality.

1000ydstare

06-24-2007, 03:48 AM

Jesus wept.

Panzerknacker, all the points you have raised have been investigated by many and all angles looked at.

The Marine who shot the Submariner, did so because of a cluster. ie he was told to shoot him if he attempted to scuttle, the command reached him only in spanish, the guy started blowing tanks.

It was an accident and it happens.

YOU may not consider the actof laying unmarked/mapped minefields as no big deal, the Geneva Conventions sees things differently.

The WO2 who shot the wounded conscript is still walking free, because it was investigated and seen as the only thing to do.

Your claims it was not his finest hour, I disagree. He did it in full view of his comrades and the Argentine prisoners. He would know he could go down for it. Yet in front of him lay a mangled screaming corpse in waiting, not losing much blood because what blood vessels were open were immedialy sealed again by the heat of the blast, bones on display as the flesh had been ripped off by the blast. His life slowly seeping from capillaries. The wounded man, had nothing in front of him but a long and agonizing death.

Did I mention it was going to be long and agonizing?

There would not have been anything to do, even had he got to a hospital (the best Argentina or Britain could provide, not a field hospital) he would have died in pain, after a prolonged period. I have a feeling if you ask the soldier in question, he would have happily gone to prison for a bit, if only to punish himself for doing what he did.

War crimes on the Falklands were few and far between. And the Argentines (unfortunatly) defintitly carried out more actual and almost "war crimes".

As has been mentioned before, the Argentine hierachy were a key point in this. They didn't value human life, so why should their army?

32Bravo

06-24-2007, 06:10 AM

It's a very simple matter to criticise with, hindsight and from a desktop, the person that didn't have the luxury of remaining detatched. I don't know the full story of this incident but, as it is described by 1000yds, I would hope that if I was in the situation of the person that was shot, that someone would have the courage to do the same for me. In my opinion, this is a justifiable mercy-killing. If the Brit that did the killing had truly beeen motivated through hate or sadism, he could have left him to suffer, he could have left him to die a pro-longed and agonizing death.
If it was simply a killing for killing's sake then he could surely have found good reason to kill others. The circumstances of the action speak for themselves and, under those circumstances, it was a noble deed, and one with which the Brit will have to live with for the rest of his life, poor man.

Panzerknacker

06-24-2007, 02:44 PM

War crimes on the Falklands were few and far between. And the Argentines (unfortunatly) defintitly carried out more actual and almost "war crimes".

Yes, sure, shooting people in the head, cutting ears to the wounded, making prisoners to manipulate unestable artillery shells, executing prisoner wounded after the explotion of shells, executing seamen inside a submarine, etc,etc.

I am probably not very objetive here but i am sure that those were crimes, because they are.

I don't know where to draw the line between a perverse refusal to accept glaring facts and just plain stupidity, but I think you've crossed that line.

Despite my posts on the Santa Fe issue, you persist in maintaining that it was an execution of a POW rather than a terrible accident, caused in part by Argentinian failures. If you can't see that it was an accident, you lack not only objectivity but common sense.

There is no point debating these issues further with you as you have a closed mind which is unreceptive to anything except that which reinforces your own absurd interpretations, which always present Argentina as the eternal victim of British aggression and war crimes, from the original occupation of the Islands until now.

Is a shame to realize that you have lost your usual charm.:cool:

If your benighted attitude is representative of majority Argentinian opinion at present, Argentina has a long way to go before it can begin to understand its, and Britain's, history on the Falklands War. And reality

Coming from you I ll take that as a compriment. :rolleyes:
I any case I am not so pretentious to represent 38 million people.
Beside that I dont think so, most of the people follow the peronist party and I going to vote for Union Popular.

1000ydstare

06-24-2007, 03:42 PM

The British PoWs on South Georgia co-operated with the Argentines by defusing their own booby traps laid on the docks... didn't have to, but did.

The Argentine PoWs moving the munitions did so because the shells were piled up close to the only shelter in the area. The British couldn't move the PoWs so they had to be accomodated. Hence the movement. I would like to think that an Argentine soldier would have done the same to a similarly injured Royal Marine on SG should the scenario have happened there.

The "execution" of the Seaman has been explained fully... deal with it. It is not a war crime just an accident.

The cutting off of ears was one man, and the victims were dead, not wounded. Not one single living veteran of the war has been presented sans ears.

No Argentine bodies have been exhumed with 9mm bullets in the back, at close range.

STOP trying to make more of what happened down there than did. You are just showing yourself up now.

Panzerknacker

06-24-2007, 04:01 PM

1000yds, read my post above about the ears cutting thing.

In the end everybody will believe the thing wich confort his mind the best.
The british people here probably will be more inclined to believe that there was no crimes and Bramley and others are a bunch of compulsive liars.

Is really unimportant to me at his stage, the purpose of this topic was not that, but to present to the neutral reader an account of those facts.

As I declined my intention to convince the brits I would ask...please, do not try to convince me with your justifications, accidents and others points of view, your will waste your time :rolleyes:

1000ydstare

06-24-2007, 04:32 PM

I know I waste my time with you but I will not let you sully the memories of those, of both sides, who fell and drag the names of those who fought through sh1t.

You can not comprehend their actions from the comfort of your computer chair and make judgements on them, for either side.

I think you will find that, apart from the actions of thugs and imbeciles (ie mine laying), I do not hold your countries men in such bad light. That you would use every possible chance and seize on mere rumours to devalue my forebears on the other hand chaffes slightly.

The killings of the sailer and the wounded man have been explained. To many on this site, some of whom have smelt the cordite and blood of modern battlefields, both seem reasonable if tradgic.

The case of the ears has been investigated and was found to be one man, who was killed in action, acting alone. They were only found when the padre went through his kit. It would have been all to easy for the British to cover it up, with few actual witnesses and most of them only witness to the gruesom look of several severed ears rather than the actual cutting and finding.

Despite exhaustive searches and investigatons on the islands, none of the reported executions have occured. It seems strange that many of the stories relating to such executions seem to have more in common with the Argentine methods of dealing with people than the British.

As I have already mentioned, Pistols are NOT standard issue to British Troops and reasonably rare, in comparison with the Argentine Forces.

By all means bring forward all manner of information for the populace to read, but beware. I will research and destroy "stories" that are at best rumours out of hand and at worst out right lies.

In that way, those reading from a neutral stance will have access to all sides and as much information as possible. Which is what history is all about at the end of the day, and is in line with your intentions in dredging all this rubbish up.

Is it not?

Chevan

06-25-2007, 01:34 AM

Certainly, here is one link (http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Middle-East-and-North-Africa/Lebanon). Quite a few more here (http://www.amnesty.org/airesults/search?sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=iso-8859-1&client=eng&proxystylesheet=eng&site=default_collection&lr=lang_en&q=lebanon)

Well.This is ONLY my oppinion but i found a interesting moment in this links.
If you a attentively will read those reports you find out they make every think to avoid the serious critic of Israel tactic. To the contrasts the other states critisized much more vitally especially the such stetes like the China and the so called third world.
Besides the reports of AI about Lebanon there were never printed widely in mass media during the conflict. The figures of victims were decresed.

Abu-Ghraib, utterly wrong, the perpetrators are in prison, their officers demoted and reprimanded. Quite rightly so. However, it was not officially sanctuioned

I/m sorry but i can't agree with you here in any points.
Firstly the people who were convicted were only a scapegoats.I've read a interview with one of them- Jeremy Sivits.( who were convicted for the one year in prison)

http://www.webtelek.com/news.php?url=/iraq/2004/05/13/methods/
The US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated into the medium of Senate Committee that the methods of the examination of the prisoners in Iraq were approved by the juridical service of the Pentagon, and it rejected charges in the fact that a similar practice disrupts international law and it can place under the threat of the life of the Americans seized into the captivity

http://topadm2.rbc.ru/index.shtml?/news/society/2004/05/16/16085120_bod.shtml
the discussion deals about the fact that the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sanctioned the expansion of the secret program, which allowed the possibility of applying the physical violence to the prisoners of prison "Abu Ghraib"
About this reports the American periodical "New Yorker" with the reference to the informed sources in intelligence services OF THE USA. Initially program was intended for the anti-terrorist campaign OF THE USA in Afghanistan.
It assumed destruction or seizure and the subsequent examination of those, who presented "special importance" in the combating of terrorism. In this case examination it was permitted to carry out with the use of force.
In its time the program was approved by the adviser of the President OF THE USA George Bush on the national security Condolisa Rise.
Itself Head of the White House was also up to date in the methods used. However, as publication writes, in the past year D.Ramsfeld permitted applying the methods of examination provided by program to the prisoners, who are contained in the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib;. Previously D.Ramsfeld rejected any charges in the fact that the procedures of examination in the American armed forces do not correspond to the world acknowledged Geneva conventions. As the head of the Pentagon stated, the deprivation of the prisoners of sleep and change in the nourishment they were asserted by jurists, who work with the Defense Ministry of the country. In turn, the head of the united Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers stated that in any situation during the application of this type of procedures to the prisoners they relate humanly.

So as you see the even Ramsfeld do not deny fact of "special treatment" of prisoners;)

Utterly wrong, it should be closed down.

Should be or not...;)
It is still working. And i do not think the USA closed it in nearest time.

If they exist, utterly wrong.

What is wrong- the fact it exists or the fact of treatment of prisoners?
The nobody doubt now there a several of secret prisons of CIA where the human rights is the latest thing that they care about.
Even the Amnesti Intermnational (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-070607-features-eng)

Perhaps, a language barrier but I have no idea what you are on about.
Perhaps it is a barrier but not a only language;)
Endeed my point not against the method of Ameircan secret services agains terrorists.
I'am clearly understand the "innocent prisoners' are not so holy as it try to portray in different "fifth column pseudo-human right organisations".
I just wish to notice you the dual standards toward the other non-english speaking states- the Argentinian "junta" for instance.
Cheers.

Rising Sun*

06-25-2007, 08:21 AM

Which is what history is all about at the end of the day, and is in line with your intentions in dredging all this rubbish up.

Rubbish?

It's all solid evidence, just like the case of the psychopathic Lt. Childs which, surprisingly, hasn't been thrown in yet as further evidence of well-documented war crimes by the British.

History .... Childs was a Lieutenant in the Parachute Regiment during the Falklands War. He had illegally executed Argentinean POW's but trod on a land mine before he could be court-marshaled. http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/childs.htm

There's even a picture there of Childs using a pistol to shoot a clearly wounded Argentinian in the head. So it has to be true.

Could there be better evidence of the fact that the British used pistols to shoot wounded Argentinians in the head, for no reason at all? ;)

1000ydstare

06-25-2007, 02:46 PM

I have actually seen that comic before. Utter drivel.

I particularly like...

Real Name: Lieutenant Childs

Identity/Class: Human mutate, UK psychopath--oops--I mean citizen

Occupation: Sir Marcus Grantby-Fox's psychotic bodyguard. Previously a Lieutenant in the Falklands War Parachute Regiment.

Was the Falklands War Parachute Regiment a specially formed unit?

Rising Sun*

06-27-2007, 08:53 AM

Utter drivel.

Exactly the point I was trying to make with the silly Lt. Childs link about Panzerknakcer's selective and florid interpretations of events which he chooses through his blinkered eyes to see as war crimes, without any apparent grasp of the very nasty choices that present themselves to some people in war who would rather not have to choose.

1000ydstare

06-27-2007, 11:25 AM

No offence to Panzerknacker, but he is falling in to the trap that many civies (and some military types) fall in to. Too much book knowledge and not enough practical experience in the nuances of combat ops.

32Bravo

06-28-2007, 03:48 AM

Gen. Sandworm

06-28-2007, 04:39 AM

P.K.

I have been meaning to ask for the longest time.

What does your site name mean?

To us Anglo-Saxons, it implies that either you have armoured testes, or that you are a clapped-out tank.

Could you please clarify. :confused:

Well I was under the impression that it meant someone who puts tanks out of their misery or is just really good at putting tanks to death. Looking at the definition of Knacker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knacker im guessing im not far off!

But the questions still remains?

Rising Sun*

06-28-2007, 05:35 AM

Well I was under the impression that it meant someone who puts tanks out of their misery or is just really good at putting tanks to death. Looking at the definition of Knacker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knacker im guessing im not far off!

But the questions still remains?

But note also the correct entry in Wiki:

'Knackers' is British/Australasian slang for testicles

The singular 'knacker' is a testicle.

Which suggests that PK is the testicle from, or the ball in, a German tank. :D

Knackers is also a friendly term in Australia, although not heard often nowadays, as in "Ow yer goin', knackers?" = "How are you, mate?"

Now that I've had my fun, here's the real meaning of Panzerknacker. It's the common name for the tank destroyer's badge awarded by the Germans in WWII for single-handed destruction of a tank.

The original name for this decoration is the "Sonderabzeichen für niederkampfen Panzerkampfwagen durch Einzelkämpfer", but most commonly it was referred to as "Panzervernichtungsabzeichen" or "Panzerknackerabzeichen".

The tank destruction badge was instituded by Hitler on March 9th, 1942 to honor individuals (anti-tank units were not eligible for this award) who single handedly destroyed an enemy tank with hand held explosives such as a panzerfaust, satchel charge or grenade. This award was made retroactive to the beginning of the invasion of the Soviet Union (June 22, 1941).

As individuals earned multiple badges, it became evident that a higher class was needed. Therefore on December 18, 1943, a gold class was instituted to signify the single-handed destruction of five tanks.

Upon presentation, the badge was pinned to the sleeve of the recipient in a ceremony and was later sewn on the uniform by the individual.
The silver badge was worn on the upper right arm of the tunic with subsequent awards being attached directly below the first one until four were attached at one time. On the award of a fifth badge, the four were taken off the uniform and replaced with a single gold badge. On the award of a sixth badge, a silver class was attached below the gold class. The process repeated itself until a tenth badge was awarded, then the silver badges were replaced by a second gold badge. Again, the process continued. The highest numbers of awards given to a single man were twenty-one, awarded to Oberstleutnant Günther Viezenz. http://www.ww2awards.com/award/98

Visit the link for illustrations of the badges following the quoted section above.

32Bravo

06-28-2007, 07:52 AM

Just to expand on RS's first response, as it's relevant to my question.

As well as the testes being defined as nacker or nackers, we also use the term 'nackered'. Basically, it implies something worn out and no longer working. Somewhat akin to when one has been working very hard to please a demanding partner, or partners, and ends up firing blanks. I believe this was a term used for castrated animals. I seem to recall that old, worn-out horses were taken to the 'nackers yard' and processed into dog food. Considering the definition of nackers, I never had any impulse to follow this line of enquiry and, therefore, never quite got to the bottom of it.

found this:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nackered

Gen. Sandworm

06-28-2007, 08:50 AM

Im sure that when he gets back PK will decipher the puzzle for us..........back to the topic at hand! ;)

32Bravo

06-28-2007, 11:40 AM

War crimes, or is it war?
Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war!
Meaning
The military order Havoc! was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare's parlance 'the dogs of war') to pillage and chaos.
Origin
The Black Book of the Admiralty of 1385 is a collection of laws, in French and Latin, relating to the English Navy. In the 'Ordinances of War of Richard II' in that book we find:
"Item, qe nul soit si hardy de crier havok sur peine davoir la test coupe."
I text in English that comes nearer to defining the term is Grose's History of the English Army, circa 1525:
"Likewise be all manner of beasts, when they be brought into the field and cried havoke, then every man to take his part."
Shakespeare was well aware of the use of the meaning of havoc and he used 'cry havoc' in several of his plays. The 'cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war' form of the phrase is from his Julius Caesar, 1601. After Caesar's murder Anthony regrets the course he has taken and predicts that war is sure to follow.
ANTONY:
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
The term also appears in The Life and Death of King John - "Cry 'havoc!' kings; back to the stained field..." and in Coriolanus -
"Do not cry havoc, where you should but hunt with modest warrant."
The term is the predessor of 'play havoc' (with). This is now more common than 'cry havoc' but has lost the force of the earlier phrase - just meaning 'cause disorder and confusion'.

Panzerknacker

06-29-2007, 08:57 AM

Armored what ?? :shock: :D

Bravo you will find all your answers here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1932&page=12

Rising Sun*

06-29-2007, 09:05 AM

Armored what ?? :shock: :D

Bravo you will find all your answers here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1932&page=12

Welcome back.

So, why are you called Panzerknacker? The tank destroyer badge term, or something else?

Panzerknacker

06-29-2007, 09:45 AM

Welcome back.

Thanks ;)

Since I am a metal worker and the german panzerknackers were experts breaking steel things...you can see the relation.

Rising Sun*

06-29-2007, 09:55 AM

Thanks ;)

Since I am a metal worker and the german panzerknackers were experts breaking steel things...you can see the relation.

I hope you're rather more constructive in your metal work than the tank destroyers were.

There's not a lot of scope for a panzerknacker in modern civilian occupations. :D

32Bravo

06-30-2007, 10:04 AM

Thanks ;)

Since I am a metal worker and the german panzerknackers were experts breaking steel things...you can see the relation.

Yes, I can - you have armoured testes - all is made clear! :D

Rising Sun*

06-30-2007, 10:34 AM

Yes, I can - you have armoured testes - all is made clear! :D

But not as clear as Panzerknacker being pleasured. :D

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8313/ballsofsteelwv2.jpg

Panzerknacker

07-01-2007, 12:20 PM

Hardly any pleasure with those...:rolleyes:

Man of Stoat

07-02-2007, 03:35 AM

Here is a war crime that emerged from the documentary:

The entire civilian population of Goose Green was imprisoned in a hall with no beds and insufficient toilet facilities for a month. This is objectively in contravention of the Geneva conventions.

End of.

Panzerknacker

07-15-2007, 03:52 PM

End of ?

End of ..what ?

The topic ?

No man ,there are plenty of crimes to be discussed yet.

32Bravo

07-16-2007, 06:55 AM

Targets of opportuniy or - the Good Samaritan?

Arguably, in the West our cultural base is a Christian one. Much of our cultural behaviour and values (norms, mores, customs and beliefs) are rooted in the Christian faith. The bible itself, spells out certain codes (the Ten Commandments etc.) which enable man to live together in society without such a society being reduced to anarchy (of course, some come from cricket). From this base, or these roots, we have evolved into the societies and nations which we have today. Even those of us whom may not have any particular religious beliefs, remain affected by religious values which are deeply ingrained in our psyche.

When we speak of the Geneva Convention, we are speaking of a set of rules which have been agreed upon as bases for civilised behaviour in a primitive environment.
So, does it always fit, and where there are no guidelines to follow in a particular circumstance, do we ignore our cultural heritage (which, presumably, we are fighting for) and resort to primeval behaviour?

An example: It has been reported that during the battle of Mount Tumbledown (Falkland islands, 1982), that an Argentine sniper shot members of the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment who were expediting a night assault against the Argentine positions. The effect of this was, apparently, that when comrades went to the aid of their wounded colleague, they too fell, victim to the sniper. The sniper capitalised on the screams of the wounded men, which served to lure more targets into his kill zone. Eventually, the Para’s had no choice but to ignore the screaming, and cries for assistance from their fallen comrades.

Another example: At Darwin Ridge, on the approach to Goose Green, elements of 2nd BN Parachute Regiment were delayed in their advance by strong Argentine defences along the ridge. As the Para’s assaulted these positions they were driven back. Most of their wounds/fatalities were headshots which implied the presence of a sniper (although the convex nature of the ground they were attempting to cross, and that the Argentine soldiers were shooting downhill, could have had an effect).

At one point, Corporal Abols and another NCO went forward to recover the body of a fallen comrade. Crawling, they dragged his body back to cover, but as they reached within a few yards of sanctuary, the burning gauze prevented them from dragging him and they had to stand to lift and carry him through the fire. As they did so, the sniper shot and killed Abols friend, and he was left with the task of recovering both bodies.

Question:

1) Is this merely a target-rich environment, or was the sniper behaving in a way which one might consider unethical ( in the sense of unwritten rules of behaviour)?

2) should the sniper have shown more compassion as with the Good-Samaritan?

3) Would the Para’s, in both situations, have been justified in venting their anger on the snipers, if they had gotten their hands on them?

4) What would you have done if you were (a) the sniper, or (b) the Para’s that eventually got their hands on the sniper?