PDA

View Full Version : Falklands/Malvinas slagging match



Pages : [1] 2

Panzerknacker
03-19-2007, 06:00 PM
Serious discussion on the Falklands/Malvinas conflict should be restricted to all other threads in this forum. These will continue to be moderated very tightly.

This thread will be lightly moderated (as per the rest of the forum) as there seems to be demand for such a thread. Swearing, etc. will not be tolerated, nor will failure to produce evidence to support any claims made.

pdf27
Moderator



Lance-Corporal Vincent Bramley is one of the few soldiers from the ranks to write of his experiences in battle in the war Islands. In this book, Bramley described witnessing the shooting of an Argentine POWs, after his surrender.


http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1844542173.02._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU02_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Panzerknacker
03-19-2007, 08:48 PM
Some aditional info:


In August 1992, a Public Enquiry was launched by the MOD and Malcolm Rifkind, headed by the Serious Crime Squad, into war crimes allegedly committed by one of the members of 2 Para Regiment during the Falklands War. To counter-balance the findings of the enquiry, the author wrote this book to help civilians understand the reality of being a common soldier in the heat of war - the time when the rule book and common morality are most likely to be abandoned. Perhaps the most shocking truth of all to emerge from these first-person accounts concerns the appalling treatment that the Argentinian conscripts recieved at the hands of their own officers. The book is based on interviews with eight Argentinian soldiers and five British paratroopers.

1000ydstare
03-20-2007, 01:01 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, 01:31 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, 07:53 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, 12:56 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, 01:30 PM
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.



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



I read the book when it was first published. It was published in England as 'Excursion to Hell'. He has written another since, from the Argentine perspective, or at least including the Argentine perspective?

On the strength of what was described in the first book, Scotland Yard sent a team of detectives to the Falklands to investigate. They carried out an extensive investigation, which included digging for corpses in the battle areas, as described by the author as being the locations of burials. I believe that at one point they even had the author flown out there to have him assist in identifying the areas, so there could be no mistakes.

As well as the investigation in the Falklands, the detectives interviewed many serving and former Paras to see if they could corroborate his story.

Nothing was forthcoming. No evidence came to light that indicated that what he had written was true, and the case was closed.

This was a very sensitive subject for the Conservative Government, particularly as they had been accused of collusion. They did what they could to get to the truth. There was no cover up (the press were with the Scotland Yard team throughout), as there was no evidence. Had there been evidence there would have been prosecutions.

1000ydstare
03-20-2007, 01:43 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, 01:43 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, 01:52 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, 06:36 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, 06:52 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, 12:55 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, 12:14 PM
Take it this debate is over in the light of no actual facts being available?

Panzerknacker
06-16-2007, 02:06 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, 02:21 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, 04:13 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, 04:47 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, 07:48 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, 11:14 AM
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, 01:03 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, 06:05 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, 01:05 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, 03:30 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, 08:20 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, 08:36 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, 12:58 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, 02:47 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, 03:17 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, 06:16 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, 06:44 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, 06:56 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, 07:27 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, 07:02 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, 07:27 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.

Rising Sun*
06-19-2007, 08:16 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, 12:44 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, 02:37 AM
Hmmm... funny how the moderation buttons are jumped for whenever a discussion doesn't go PK's way...

Chevan
06-20-2007, 02:37 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, 05:38 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, 04:56 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, 11:32 AM
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, 03:42 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, 04:05 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, 04:10 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, 07:13 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, 09:00 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, 09:44 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, 10:36 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*
06-21-2007, 11:21 PM
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, 02:18 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, 03:59 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, 04:16 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, 09:54 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, 12:04 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, 02:48 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, 05:10 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, 01:44 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, 02:42 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, 03:01 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, 03:32 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, 12:34 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, 07:21 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, 01:46 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, 07:53 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, 10:25 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, 02:48 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:

Gen. Sandworm
06-28-2007, 03:39 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, 04:35 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, 06:52 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, 07:50 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, 10:40 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, 07:57 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, 08:05 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, 08:45 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, 08:55 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, 09:04 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, 09:34 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, 11:20 AM
Hardly any pleasure with those...:rolleyes:

Man of Stoat
07-02-2007, 02:35 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, 02:52 PM
End of ?

End of ..what ?

The topic ?

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

32Bravo
07-16-2007, 05:55 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?

Rising Sun*
07-16-2007, 07:25 AM
[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)?

The essential functions of a soldier are to deceive, harass, weaken, wound, and kill the enemy to take his ground until the war is won.

There’s nothing ethical about any of it, the often silly laws of war nothwithstanding. It’s just the way it is.

Snipers are just one way of performing a soldier’s function.

A very good way for a sniper to perform his function is to wound one man and then randomly kill and wound those who come to his rescue.

Depending on resources and the nature of the wound, it takes two to four men to carry one man with a moderate to serious wound. A sniper who can wound ten men can take fifty men out of the enemy’s force. Not bad for one man facing a company of 120 or so, if they‘re silly enough to keep sending men out to the slaughter. Not to mention suppressing action by the company while all this is going on.

A. Of course the Argentinian sniper(s) should have done it. That’s what they were there for.


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

The Jewish man the Good Samaritan rescued had been mugged and left by the roadside to die. Others passed him by for reasons we would now call racial or religious discrimination. The Good Samaritan ignored the discrimination between Samaritans and Jews to help the mugging victim.

The sniper’s parallel is not with the Good Samaritan but with the mugger.

Muggers don’t show compassion.

The best parallel with the Good Samaritan in war is the non-combatant medical corps.

A. The sniper should not have shown more compassion as with the Good Samaritan. The sniper was a mugger.



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?

It depends.

Get a shot before the sniper surrenders? Definitely shoot to kill. If you only wound him, then you shoot at his mates when they come to get him.

After surrender, no.

At the point of surrender. Well. It depends on a lot of things.

There’s big difference between justified and understandable.

A. It depends on the circumstances.



(4) What would you have done if you were


(a) the sniper

A. Exactly what he did.



(b) the Para’s that eventually got their hands on the sniper

It depends.

The question suggests it’s after the action. In that case, I hope I wouldn’t do anything to him.

If it’s in action, as in coming upon his position in some fashion, I’d try to kill him.

A. I don’t know.


I know there’s a lot of moral and logical inconsistencies in my answers.

That’s the nature of war.

It’s a stupid and irrational exercise that rational and ethical adults should have abandoned long ago.

Rising Sun*
07-16-2007, 07:32 AM
Hardly any pleasure with those...:rolleyes:

Mate, haven't you heard of the Iron Maiden?

I think you could make her a very happy lady. :D

32Bravo
07-16-2007, 07:47 AM
The sniper’s parallel is not with the Good Samaritan but with the mugger.



The reason for me choosing the Samaritian was to demonstrate opposing sides. The Samaritan being the last person one would expect to show compassion.

Rising Sun*
07-16-2007, 08:12 AM
The reason for me choosing the Samaritian was to demonstrate opposing sides. The Samaritan being the last person one would expect to show compassion.

I think that's been lost nowadays.

The Good Samaritan is now a standard metaphor for the person who merely helps someone out, or who has a kind heart, without the biblical background which made his actions so much more. Who is my neighbour?

It's like 'Kafkaesque'. A lot of people understand that Kafka wrote about a sort of endlessly deteriorating Catch 22 situation in The Trial, but hardly anyone has read it. It's a lot deeper than that.

32Bravo
07-16-2007, 10:39 AM
I think that's been lost nowadays.

The Good Samaritan is now a standard metaphor for the person who merely helps someone out, or who has a kind heart, without the biblical background which made his actions so much more. Who is my neighbour?

It's like 'Kafkaesque'. A lot of people understand that Kafka wrote about a sort of endlessly deteriorating Catch 22 situation in The Trial, but hardly anyone has read it. It's a lot deeper than that.

Yes, abolutely. It's the deeper aspect of the situation, the human perspective, if you will, as to how we are affected by these experiences, that I was hoping to explore. Hence my somewhat lengthy pre-amble beofre posing the questions.

Recently, there was the incident in, or near to, Baghdad, when a group of US Marines took-out an Iraqui family, supposedely, in retributioin for their comrades being killed. We can talk about a break-down of discipline etc. but the natural impulses are there.

Now, in the Falklands scenario (above), some would say 'Big boys games!..Big boys rules!' As you say, RS, it would depend on the circumstances of the sniper being taken as to how he is treated, or, rather, it should depend on the circumstances. However, retribution/revenge can be more of an impulse in the scenario describing Mount Tumbledown. Particularly, if the Para's whose friends have been screaming for help have not been submitted to the horrors and fear of combat before. It's natural to want to kick the shit out of someone who has scared the shit out of oneself, even without the horror of what has been happening to one's friends.

So, I was hoping to examine the reality of such situations, rather than to discuss the rules of behaviour or the ideals. How our standards of behaviour stand up to the test, or how they break down when tried and tested. Do we, or even should we, abandon compassion and our own humanity? I would say that no two cases are ever alike, and without being present, one cannot truly judge what others might do, or have done, in the heat of the moment when their blood is up. I would think that it is, perhaps, the dispassionate and detached personality that is capable of the greater crimes.

1000ydstare
07-16-2007, 12:09 PM
The Argentine snipers did seem to be ruthlessly efficient.

One from the Marines fired upon a helicoptor who was acting as a casevac helicoptor, in broad daylight. Admitteldy the heli wasn't marked up, however, I feel pretty sure that he would have seen teh heli for what it was.

As for the answer.

If I was the sniper what would I do? Certainly not engage targets who I could see were retreiving wounded, the wounded might be my guys.

Likewise though I would hope to be grimly accurate for all other shots.

If a sniper had been causing this kind of ruckus, and you got hold of him, he was going to be hurting by the end of the day. That is the price they pay, and I feel pretty sure that no real sniper is under any delusions of the treatment likely to be handed out if caught.

32Bravo
07-16-2007, 01:46 PM
One from the Marines fired upon a helicoptor who was acting as a casevac helicoptor, in broad daylight. Admitteldy the heli wasn't marked up, however, I feel pretty sure that he would have seen teh heli for what it was.

If I was the sniper what would I do? Certainly not engage targets who I could see were retreiving wounded, the wounded might be my guys.

It would be reasonable to presume, then, that you think it fundamentally wrong to fire on troops retreiving their wounded, within reasonable bounds e.g. their action does not endanger or compromise your own troops in any way?

The reason for my asking, is that under normal circumstances it is only considered a criminal act if the medics and their equipment are clearly marked and used for no other reason (I could be wrong on that point?). Therefore, for instances outside of the codified guidelines, we rely on our sense of what is right, or what is wrong - a chivalric code if you will?

1000ydstare
07-16-2007, 01:57 PM
It is illegal to fire upon identified medics etc.

Although there is no rule to say that you can not fire at a soldier retrieving a fallen soldier or giving first aid, I feel it is slightly distasteful to do such a thing.

Many times a battle has stopped or an armistice declared in order to complete the recovery of wounded or dead. There would be no requirement for a sniper to engage enemy personnel carrying out such activities.

Shooting targets of some merit, such as officers, is by far a better use of ammo. Of which a sniper carries little.

Were the Argentine snipers true snipers in the sense of the word, or merely sharpshooters? Or even just gifted riflemen.

32Bravo
07-16-2007, 02:56 PM
The story is that the Argentine snipers on Tumbledown, were not Argentine at all, but American mercenaries.

If, indeed, these men were American mercenaries, do they conform to the rules, or are they operating outside the rules, in that they are not fighting for their nation's cause etc. thus, the rules do, or do not, apply to them?

Another question: Does anyone know how many Argentine soldiers, serving in the Falklands, have been reported, and remain, MIA?

Panzerknacker
07-16-2007, 04:52 PM
American mercenaries ? That is a new one.

Lone Ranger
07-16-2007, 05:08 PM
American mercenaries ? That is a new one.

No its been around a while but only in poorly cited sources. General consensus is that is bollocks.

Panzerknacker
07-16-2007, 05:39 PM
I dont disagree with the general consessus, the snipers were argentines.


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8007/francotiradoreslj5.jpg

Firefly
07-16-2007, 06:14 PM
I think its bollocks. There were no US mercenaries there.

1000ydstare
07-17-2007, 12:59 AM
Where did you find that quote 32B?

The mercenaries story, I think, came about because there were a few Argies who spoke English with American accents, and some undoubtedlly descended from countries other than Argentina.

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 03:35 AM
Where did you find that quote 32B?

The mercenaries story, I think, came about because there were a few Argies who spoke English with American accents, and some undoubtedlly descended from countries other than Argentina.

Apologies, I had intended bringing forward my own post, but somehow it was confused with yours. :confused:

Perhaps the tendency to mis-quote, in the popular press is having an efect on me. :D

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 03:41 AM
I dont disagree with the general consessus, the snipers were argentines.


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8007/francotiradoreslj5.jpg


I disagree also, but posting a few pictures of Argentine soldiers proves nothing, nor does it disprove anything.

The sniper in the picture is a British Para, armed with an L42 sniper rifle.

Whether or not the Argentine rifleman with a night-sight attached to his rifle is a sniper, in the British context of the term, is debatable.

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 03:52 AM
American mercenaries ? That is a new one.

It's not a new one, but it is stuff and nonesense, or to put it more plainly - bollocks.

It comes from the book 'Excursion to Hell', as do most of the serious accusations of British warcrimes, including those of executions. It's a pity that the author had to slur the good name of his comrades by sensationalism, in order to boost sales of his book. As with most conspiracy theories, they tend not to go away. One ought not be selective about such stories, if one accepts the warcrimes, why not the rest?

If there were Argentine soldiers, speaking English with American accents, then I would suggest they learned their English from an American, not least from television.

1000ydstare
07-17-2007, 07:52 AM
On 12 June 1982, 3d Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, British Army, attacked Mt. Longdon, Falklands. Difficult terrain coupled with a well entrenched enemy made movement slow and dangerous. The snipers of the Argentine 7th Infantry Regiment kept the British busy with accurate fire during the day and (with the aid of U.S. made night vision devices) at night. At one point during the attack, an entire British company was held up for hours by a single Argentine sniper. "Men found themselves being hit more than once by the same sniper, a terrifying tribute to the accuracy of the Argentinean's fire."

Shooting wounded? Hardly sporting.

Iam trying to find a reference, but from what I have read. Snipers as the British would know them only existed in the Argentine SF and to less skilled degree in the Marines.

Within the Line Infantry they were skilled marksmen, equipped with rifles and sights, and night sights, but not particularly differently trained to most Infantrymen. They did have a pretty fearsome marksmanship test however.

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 08:50 AM
Well, I'm not certain of the accuracy of that info. Which would cause me to question whether the comments on wounded men being hit again. It might be true, but the other information seems a bit scanty.

The Argentines were successful in holding up the Para's on account of the siting and preperation of their positions. The attack went in at night and, therefore, would not have provided the Argentine snipers with targets during the day.

Of the British 23 killled, eight were killed during the battle and fifteen during artillery bombardment over the following two or three days.

Below is an extract from the Sunday Time Insight Team, which ought to give a feel of things:


One enemy bunker, defended by a heavy 0.5 machine gun –gun and a number of Argentinean riflemen, was pouring down a stream of deadly fire onto ‘B’ Company’s position below it. A platoon, led by Lt Andrew Bickerdike, move forward to silence it. Bickerdike was almost immediately shot through the leg. Sergeant Ian McKay took command. He found himself in a little valley of dead ground, his position raked with heavy fire from a number of positions. Rallying his remaining men, he launched an attack on the bunker which was fifty yards ahead of him.
One of his corporals, Ian Bailey, shot through the legs and stomach, tumbled in the bunker itself, still firing. McKay worked his way round to a position behind the enemy bunker, threw two grenades into it, and then fell dead across the mouth, the Argentinean fire silenced.
Around them their platoons were engaged in similar actions. ‘A’ Company found itself in a narrow defile with the Argentineans tossing grenades down into it. There was no chance of outflanking the pass because of the snipers with their night-sights. ‘The only thing to do was to pass a platoon one at time, more or less frontally, fighting along just a bite at a time.’ (Hew Pike).
It took ten hours to take the positions on Longdon. By the end the fighting had become hand-to-hand, and it was as dawn came up in thick all-enveloping mist at about 07.00hrs that Pike witnessed the almost surreal site of men moving grimly forward towards yet another position, their bayonets fixed.

3 Para had lost twenty three killed and forty-seven wounded. The Argentineans, many of them bayoneted, lost more than fifty. There were thirty nine Argentinean prisoners but only ten wounded.

Rising Sun*
07-17-2007, 09:48 AM
I dont disagree with the general consessus, the snipers were argentines.


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8007/francotiradoreslj5.jpg

What weapon is the Argentinian holding?

Bolt action or semi-auto?

Why is the sight so big?

Night scope?

I used cheap civilian scopes about 30 to 40 years ago, which probably wouldn't qualify on fairground air rifles these days, about the size of the British one in the picture.

They were still useful out to a couple of hundred yards.

What does the big fat Argentinian scope do that the slim British one doesn't?

Except maybe give a bigger target picture so that average marksmen are seemingly more dangerous, but that still doesn't overcome basic deficiencies in marksmanship. More likely to accentuate them.

32Bravo
07-17-2007, 09:59 AM
It's a night-sight.

The rifle is a semi-automatic.

If he had been a sniper, he wouldn't remove his day-scope from the weapon as it would interrfere with the zeroing. The mount he has for the night-scope is not homogenous. They were able to enfilade the Para's because of the closed-in nature of the ground and the siting of their positions. The accuracy came on account of the close-quarter nature of the assault.

Panzerknacker
07-17-2007, 04:02 PM
I disagree also, but posting a few pictures of Argentine soldiers proves nothing, nor does it disprove anything.

Uh ? I have no idea what you mean with that. Tha Argentine army didnt use mercenaries in 1982.

My opinion is the the "sharpshooter" of the RI (E) 25 were simply people with training in the use of the night vision device but not particular sniper training.

Is sniping a crime ? No it is not.

32Bravo
07-18-2007, 02:00 AM
It might be if one Snipes around Washington.

In the strictly legal, politically correct sense sniping, per se, may not be a crime. However, is it morally right and proper to shoot men that are merely retrieving their wounded comrades?

Arguably, the true restraint on barbaric behaviour in battle, is moral courage. I doubt that many soldiers hav read the Geneva Convention, and probably not many of their officers. In the absence of moral courage, it descends into the abyss. The fundamental essence is knowing the difference between what is right and wrong.

1000ydstare
07-18-2007, 07:33 AM
Arguably, the true restraint on barbaric behaviour in battle, is moral courage. I doubt that many soldiers hav read the Geneva Convention, and probably not many of their officers. In the absence of moral courage, it descends into the abyss. The fundamental essence is knowing the difference between what is right and wrong.

All British soldiers receive training on the Geneva Convention at least once a year and would have done during the 80's also.

Sniping is not illegal, nor is it wrong. Unless the targets engaged are non-combatents.

However I would say shooting wounded or those attempting to aid wounded is wrong, however. Snipers and marksmen are selected for their respective skills, they should not need to engage such targets of chance, but wait for targets worthy of their time.

The Argentine "sharpshooters" (rather than the true sense of snipers) were equipped with the Starlight scoped rifle, if I recall it is a Argentine built M-14 or similar, with a 20 round mag. The fact it is Automatic alludes to the sharpshooter role of the firer rather than sniper.

The night sight was probably the best night sight available at the time, and American built.

http://www.morovision.com/images/product/weapons_sights/anpvs2.gif

http://www.morovision.com/weapons_sights/ANPVS2.htm

I think it is possible to use it during the day also, they come with daylight filters and cope with flares at night, etc.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2007, 07:54 AM
Sniping is not illegal, nor is it wrong. Unless the targets engaged are non-combatents.

Even if we accept that, how do we define non-combatants or, my preferred term, legitimate targets?

Officers assembled at an orders group aren't combatants at the time. Should a sniper ignore the opportunity to kill the CO explaining the battle plan to his officers? Or disrupt the orders group and delay or prevent the attack on the sniper's side?

Cooks in a field kitchen aren't combatants (although they can cause casualties, but only on their own side :D) but if they're stopped from cooking the men aren't fed and the unit's morale and efficiency is reduced. Why not shoot the cooks? (This is proposed only in relation to shooting enemy cooks. The answer for own side cooks is entirely predictable. :D )

A nerdy and bespectacled clerk in the distant rear operating an encoding or targeting device isn't a combatant, and probably hasn't held a rifle since basic training. Wipe him out and a large unit at battalion, brigade or even divisional level may lose one of its most important links. He's not a combatant. Why can't we shoot him?

I'm inclined to the view that, if they're not clearly identified as medical personnel, then if they're in uniform they're legitimate targets for a sniper. Or any other soldier, whose duty and function is to kill the enemy and keep killing him until the war is won.

1000ydstare
07-18-2007, 08:59 AM
Non-combatents are clearly laid down in the Geneva Convention.

Specifically Medics (including nurses, doctors and military bandsman) and religious personnel ie padres.

All are Non-combatents by law, and are marked as such. They carry ID also to confirm their status when captured and have specific orders to follow when captured or in battle. They (apart from Padres who are not armed) can defend themselves and casualties.

Everyone else is a fair target.

My exclusions would include enemy combatents conducting casualty retreival.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2007, 09:10 AM
Non-combatents are clearly laid down in the Geneva Convention.

Specifically ... military bandsman

That's stretching it.

I reckon the Salvation Army bands that used to wake me up on Sunday mornings were legitimate targets, never mind military brass bands. :D

1000ydstare
07-18-2007, 09:14 AM
Military Bandsmen in the British Army used to have a medical role, I think they have lost that now.

They were stretcher bearers for their respective battalions and regiments. To collect wounded form Coy Aid Posts and take them back to the Regimental Aid Posts.

Sometimes they would operate further forward.

They wear official red cross arm bands and carry id taht they are non-combatents.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2007, 09:24 AM
Military Bandsmen in the British Army used to have a medical role, I think they have lost that now.


Do they still go into action or are they kept home for ceremonial roles?

The USMC among others in WWII used to use some front line troops as stretcher bearers if not required in action, e.g. mortar crew if not manning their gun. Don't know about other armies.

ID cards don't give any protection against a sniper.

Much more so in modern armies where badges of rank are not worn or are very small and everyone can look the same.

A medical officer giving instructions to his staff about field hygiene can look the same as a company commander running an orders group for his platoon and section commanders. Hard for a sniper to tell the difference in a lot of cases.

1000ydstare
07-18-2007, 12:04 PM
Apart from the rather large red cross on a white arm band worn by a Doc.

This is the whole point of a sniper. He doesn't shoot at a target that he doesn't think is worth it.

The shot will give him away also, it is part of the training to identify the targets that the snipers wish to shoot. Also in this case the MO would be near a RAP or ambulance that would be marked up.

During the Falklands the British had to use chefs and others to act as stretcher bearers on account that the bands were left behind to stag on.

These men, unless protected by a red cross, would technically be fair game.

The thing about snipers that you ahve to realise is taht they do not shoot indescriminatly. They have to choose their targets, as they will undoubtedly be required to move from thier perch after a few, if not one, shots.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2007, 05:58 PM
... they will undoubtedly be required to move from thier perch after a few, if not one, shots.

Not necessarily.

One Australian sniper in Korea, with a very large but unknown number of kills, used to get into position on an open hillside before dawn and move out after dark. It doesn't come out clearly in the article but I saw him interviewed some years ago where he mentioned it.


He still has too much field craft to leave himself exposed. He won't bare his soul - deflecting questions with half-answers and digressions. He handles the subject his way, telling a story about what he calls his "private war" at a place they called Hill 614.

It was late winter, early 1951. He followed the same routine he had dozens of times. At dawn he crawled into the open, forward and to one side of the Australian line. He found a depression away from any landmark or reference point - "never get behind a tree or a big rock" - and fired an incendiary round across the valley so he could adjust his rifle sights to the distance, about 1000 metres. Then he inched to another spot nearby. He was filthy with mud, and blended in with rocks and patches of melted snow. He rested his rifle on his pack and waited his chance.

Through the telescopic sight he could see enemy soldiers with binoculars scanning his hillside. He aimed at one - putting the vertical "post" of the sight on the point of the chin - but did not fire until they turned to talk to each other, in case they saw a movement or rifle flash that would give him away.

The rifle's recoil meant he didn't see a bullet strike, so he could not be dead certain he had hit a particular target. A near miss meant his quarry would duck and hide, anyway. He was never sure which bullet was fatal. He found this element of doubt oddly comforting.

At Hill 614, in between scouting sorties, he spent hours alone on the hillside, methodically picking off his marks, one by one. He called it "switching them off". After each shot he would work the bolt gently to lever in another round, then lie stock still.

The Chinese had a proverb: Kill one man, terrorise a thousand. It was true, and it meant that each day, with each death, his job grew more dangerous.

All snipers were hated, good ones were feared. The better he shot, the more desperate enemy officers would be to kill him to stop the loss of morale. This is the sniper's dilemma: the more enemies you hit, the more return fire you attract and the more likely you are to die. Call it a Catch .303.

His only chance was to melt into the landscape. To make sure his muzzle blast didn't disturb grass, leaves or dirt. To avoid any quick movement. To resist the temptation to hide among trees and rocks that would attract artillery fire designed to deafen or maim if it didn't kill outright. If you held your nerve, it was safer in the open.

Sometimes he wondered what they called him. Feared snipers were given names by the enemy...

At the end of a week, the Australians took the hill with a bayonet charge, led by a heroic figure called Len Opie, who took several strongholds single-handedly. Robertson ran up to the enemy position he'd been shooting at earlier that day, and saw something he never forgot. Where he had been firing, there were 30 bodies. One morning's bloody work.

"Just one morning," he repeats, shaking his head. "And I'd been there all week. I got a feeling of horror. I never did the arithmetic.

I still don't want to."

The Chinese did do the arithmetic.

A few months later, in April 1951, a mortar opened fire with pinpoint precision at the spot where Robertson and his sniper partner were. It was obvious the mortar had worked out where the snipers should be in relation to their platoon.

First the explosions burst his eardrums, then shrapnel ripped through his right hand. By next day it was "the size of a pumpkin".

Before they shipped him to hospital in Japan two days later, he handed in his binoculars, compass, watch and rifle to the quartermaster. He would return to Korea much later, as a platoon sergeant, but his sniping days were over."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/26/1082831474340.html

It's an article worth reading for other reasons as well.

1000ydstare
07-19-2007, 12:58 AM
A few months later, in April 1951, a mortar opened fire with pinpoint precision at the spot where Robertson and his sniper partner were. It was obvious the mortar had worked out where the snipers should be in relation to their platoon.

This being the reason snipers "shoot and scoot".

He was really putting it on the line if he was shooting up to 30 men from one position. I would guess 60 in the day!!! and moving only after 12hrs in loc.

Rising Sun*
07-19-2007, 03:59 AM
This being the reason snipers "shoot and scoot".

He was really putting it on the line if he was shooting up to 30 men from one position. I would guess 60 in the day!!! and moving only after 12hrs in loc.

When interviewed, he reckoned the secret to surviving so long was going into open country and not moving. He was obviously very good at comouflage and setting up his position. Given the terrain, he reckoned he'd be at more risk of being discovered if he tried to move. The proof was in the pudding for a long time.

Plenty of snipers wouldn't last a couple of hours at the rate he was dropping them, although I have a recollection that he had a more modest rate of fire at other times. The enemy must have been frantic after a couple of days of his effort. Probably thought there were a number of snipers. Even if he averaged about 40 a day, after a week he's wiped out two companies. A very productive soldier.

I wouldn't be surprised if he got careless in the end and was sighted. Or was shooting at widely dispersed targets that allowed his position to be triangulated for accurate mortar fire. Or maybe he left a dew or snow trail coming in, although I think he said he timed his movements or did something else to avoid this.

1000ydstare
07-19-2007, 07:59 AM
If he was shooting for that long, I am sure his methods would have eventually been recorded.

If he was able to hide his position well shooting from a shielded area (not obvious cover but say a dip where people to the left can't see the report) in to a specific zone, it is highly likely he would not have been spotted.

Rising Sun*
07-19-2007, 08:33 AM
If he was shooting for that long, I am sure his methods would have eventually been recorded.

It's like the old thing about flying.

The more time you spend in the air, the closer you get to a prang.

He did bloody well to survive for what he did.

Not like the Japanese who had so-called snipers who were just riflemen, or maybe marksmen, who stayed in position until they died, usually in predictable and fairly quickly located positions. They had to be the most wasteful army in WWII so far as intelligent use of soldiers.

Rising Sun*
07-19-2007, 09:10 AM
Not like the Japanese who had so-called snipers who were just riflemen, or maybe marksmen, who stayed in position until they died, usually in predictable and fairly quickly located positions. They had to be the most wasteful army in WWII so far as intelligent use of soldiers.

Correction.

Excluding the Soviets in their early phases.

Panzerknacker
07-19-2007, 07:20 PM
http://www.clarin.com/diario/96/05/26/infrec1.html

A rough translation on Gary Sturge.


Crime without punishment

The killer assumption.

The end Gary Sturge, that executed to a prisoner military Argentine front to the common grave where the deads were piled up "Lunático" for some companions of its own regiment, a "pariah", for others, the end Gary Sturge went the one who executed to a prisoner military Argentine front to the common grave where other deads were piled up, in battle Longdon the Mount.

http://www.clarin.com/diario/96/05/26/infrec1f1.jpeg

The Argentinean fell with the firing of a pistol of captured national industry in bunker of an Argentine official.
Twelve witnesses agree in the story; eight of them were with the pariah, the lunático of Sturge, next to the grave.

When its voice takes the telephone is serious, glacial. Behind the voice the parloteo of the television is listened to. "I dont want to speak of the old times - Sturge says to Bugler -. Neither of the old book nor of the new book, nothing. By me, all the books can write that they want. The only thing that I mean to him is: good night." And cut communications. Sturge either did not accept to speak with the authors of the book that denounces it, from its own decision and its consultation with a lawyer. Anyway, it read the manuscripts that accuse it, sent by Adrian Weale to his address.

The author says: "Sturge did not deny nor denied the information". Two years back the Sturge end left the army after 22 years in the force, and in spite of to have received two promotions after the incident. The 13 of 1994 July, after receiving the report of the police investigation, the solicitor of Corona, Barbara Mills, decided not to process to no involved in the case.

At the present time, Sturge lives in the Southeast of England and works in a company of alarms of security and electronic doors.

Nobody saw nothing Maquinas to kill Human ears The hug and the execution A mysterious judgment The British parachutists never gave to precisions on the nature of the martial cut or the sanction that fitted to him to the Sturge end in the Falklands islands after the incident. Some of their own companions think that strictly speaking there was no judgment some. Officially any registry of the execution in documents of the parachutists does not exist. But the "authorized version" of the facts, accepted by the British police, is that Sturge was arrested, accused and had a summary judgment in charge of its commanders in Argentine Port, when finalizing the conflict. In legal terms, a military commandant has the capacity to impose the halting to a soldier, to apply to reprimands and other punishments. Also he can discredit the positions.

The process is equivalent to one cuts martial and has the same force in which to the law it talks about. Sturge could not be judged twice by a same cause. The punishment that received Sturge by its action is a mystery. But it is known that it was sent to Great Britain in a boat aside from the rest of his companions parachutists. In agreement with the book "Boys of green eyes", David Collett, that commanded the company of Sturge and must have been present in the summary, does not think that the judgment has taken place. Collett has suggested was made to facilitate the investigation of the British police

Eagle
07-19-2007, 08:20 PM
Do you want to know if there were war crimes in the South Atlantic War?
Just read "Travel to the Hell" (in Spanish translated as "Viaje al Infierno") of Vincent Bramley, who served on the PARA-3 during the war.

In his book he explains with absolutely normality how he and his partners humiliated, damaged and executed harmless Argentine prisoners.

Panzerknacker
07-20-2007, 07:59 AM
Do you want to know if there were war crimes in the South Atlantic War?

Just read "Travel to the Hell" (in Spanish translated as "Viaje al Infierno") of Vincent Bramley, who served on the PARA-3 during the war.



In his book he explains with absolutely normality how he and his partners humiliated, damaged and executed harmless Argentine prisoners.


Eagle ¡¡¡ :), que bueno verte despues de tanto tiempo che.

Check, the first pages of this topic, there is several quotations of the Bramley s book.

Eagle
07-20-2007, 05:21 PM
Acá de nuevo, después de más de un año de ausencia... nuevamente presente tal y como ud. me lo pidió Sr. Moderador :D

Vamos a ver qué pasó de interesante en este foro después de taaanto tiempo.

Panzerknacker
07-20-2007, 05:41 PM
Paso mucho desde que te fuiste.

Bueh ahora escribo un pcoo en ingles sino....:rolleyes:

I started this topic obviously thinking in the well know facts of Monte Longdon, but I have include others as you might note like the "incident" of the assasination of Felix Artuso.

Also the new book "green eyed boys" have brought more evidence about the british war crimes, so there is more british sources now to talk about this topic.

1000ydstare
07-21-2007, 03:06 AM
As mentioned at the start of this banal thread, Green Eyed Boys" is not, can not and will never be seen as "evidence".

The claims brought up in the book were investigated, thoroughly, by the British CIVIALIAN police.

As were Bramleys claims.

In case you are unaware, in Britain all our agencies are seperate. So, unlike France for example, the Fire Brigade is in no way connected to the military, nor is the Police.

The Civi police have just finished a high level investigation in to the British Government.

An investigation on the Falklands, which included popping over to Argentina, included interviews with British and Argentine veterans of the war AND Falklands civvies.

I would suggest that instead of propping up your fantasies that the Argentines were wronged in some way during the war you disist with this topic.

You will only make yourself look churlish, and you WILL bring more scorn on your countries behaviour. After all, it was you nation who commited war Crimes and near war crimes during non battle confrontations.

After all, the thug that your country landed on the Islands, Dowling, was heard and is on record by Argentine sources, saying it would be better to kill the residents. He also held a pistol to a young girls head for defying him.

It was a dark time for Argentines, and unfortuntly for yourselves, some of that darkness came over to the Falklands.

Most of the British, actual and make beleive, war crimes you talk of happened in combat.

On the other hand, please feel free, put up your "war crimes" and stand by to see them shreded.

PS Green Eyed Boys is now 11 years old in Britain. It may only have just come out in Argentina, I grant you, but 11 years is UK. It has been done to death.

Perhaps whilst posting your war crimes you will also explain why...

1. Mines were planted without markings or recording on maps (my beating drum)

2. Civis were kept in an unmarked house at Goose Green, with no facilties for toilet or food, and no defences. Other than the holes they dug themselves inside the house.

3. The treatment of the last detachment of Marines to be captured. WHich included the shaveing of their hair.

4. The Sniper of BIM 5, engaging a non marked heli conducting medivac in broad daylight. And after the battle had fizzled out, and BIM 5 were heading back to Port Stanley.

5. Any of the Thug Dowlings behaviour.

6. The presense of Thug Dowlings police detachment (aka the Argentine Secret Police, the ones with penchant for casual torture and throwing people out of hercs mid air.)

7. The treatment of the Islanders. inc internment, intimidation and loss of amenities. Includeing the forcing, by law, of an alien tongue on to the Islanders, alien names for places (malvinas and port argentina for example) and traffic rules.

8. Theft of Islanders properties by the Argentine occupiers. Particularly sheep to feed themselves, due to the lamentable logistics and Land Rovers for transport.

9. I think that will do for now. Please continue.

1000ydstare
07-21-2007, 03:21 AM
PS. All of the above is certified and known...

Do carry on with your mud pies, of the the unconfirmed and, sometimes, absolute drivel.

IF you wish to post a similar list as mine of British Crimes do so. I will enjoy smashing htem up.

I have said a few times and will say it again.

You have never experienced, on any level, the fear, terror and excitment of combat. You have never been involved in conflict.

You write (pretty much all) your posts from a very Black and White point of view.

This means two things.

Your posts on technology are outstanding, well informed and technically astute.

Your posts involving the men on the ground and their actions are similarly well informed and technically astute, which is bad. You have no template to place their actions in context. To you, for example, the shooting of the Sailer by the Marine on the submarine is abhorrent.

And it is. On first inspection.

It is only later, when you read the FULL description of what was going on and why it happened you realise that the Marine was doing what he could only do at the time.

You have to take the action, and put it up to the light, to see what has happened, in all the little corners of the story.

Likewise, bayonetting an enemy soldiers in his trench during battle is not a war crime, even if he has his hands up and is shouting "mercy". He had plenty of time to do that prior, once the bayoneter is in his trench is too late.

Rising Sun*
07-21-2007, 03:34 AM
As mentioned at the start of this banal thread, Green Eyed Boys" is not, can not and will never be seen as "evidence".

The claims brought up in the book were investigated, thoroughly, by the British CIVIALIAN police.

In case you are unaware, in Britain all our agencies are seperate. So, unlike France for example, the Fire Brigade is in no way connected to the military, nor is the Police.

The Civi police have just finished a high level investigation in to the British Government.

An investigation on the Falklands, which included popping over to Argentina, included interviews with British and Argentine veterans of the war AND Falklands civvies.

Were the police investigating with a view to a civilian criminal offence being committed or as agents of the military for possible offences under military law?

Or just as an investigation independent of the military?

Presumably British law runs in the Falklands, so could a British soldier who murdered a POW be charged under civil law as well as military law?

I can't think of any instance of a nation prosecuting its own troops for war crimes, per se, although this might have happened.

There have certainly been military prosecutions for murder such as Lt Calley in Vietnam and some recent ones for murder and rape by American troops in Iraq, but usually only after public exposure forced the military to act.

Any idea what course would have been taken if the British police had found evidence of war crimes, however defined? Military or civilian court?

Gen. Sandworm
07-21-2007, 03:59 AM
As mentioned at the start of this banal thread, Green Eyed Boys" is not, can not and will never be seen as "evidence".

The claims brought up in the book were investigated, thoroughly, by the British CIVIALIAN police.

In case you are unaware, in Britain all our agencies are seperate. So, unlike France for example, the Fire Brigade is in no way connected to the military, nor is the Police.

The Civi police have just finished a high level investigation in to the British Government.

An investigation on the Falklands, which included popping over to Argentina, included interviews with British and Argentine veterans of the war AND Falklands civvies.

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry misread at first.

If there are many cases of war crimes during the Falklands why havent they been taken to an international court? Maybe im missing something. My knowledge of this conflict is not so strong.

1000ydstare
07-21-2007, 04:11 AM
The investigations were completely independant of the military and were only looking for the possiblility that the crimes had been commited. Further investigaions would follow on their findings, the courts to be used would be civil, I think, and open to the public.

Remember we have a very experienced war crime team. The officers of the British (Civie) Police Forces regularly deployed (don't know if they still do) to Bosnia and Kosovo to help the civi police forces there develop and to carry out forensic investigations etc to locate graves and find evidence of atrocities.

They are good at their jobs, and have nailed more than a few war criminals. They would approach THIS job with similar professionalism and thoroughness. Indeed they would have the support of many soldiers.

The government were acting after the public exposure of these claimed "crimes" in the books of drivel that Panzerknacker is espousing. "Excursion to Hell - Brambley" and "Green Eyed Boys".


I can't think of any instance of a nation prosecuting its own troops for war crimes, per se, although this might have happened.

The British Army is highly scrutinised for such actions. Although not War Crimes, soldiers have been prosecuted and imprisoned for shooting civilians in Northern Ireland (I wont go in to thefull details, too long but these shootings had more in line with a Police shooting rather than executions by soldiers of civvies).

Likewise actions in Iraq and Afganistan have also been to court.

The British Army operates under the intense media spot light that is a truelly FREE press. Although the British Media is covered by rules on when they can publish they can publish pretty much anything. It is just a matter of time.

Hence, when the two Princes were growing up, the media was not to cover them. When they reached a certain age, it was weapons free. (Brought in to protect hte young boys, and in respons to the intense media intrusions in to the Princess' (their mum's) life.

Likewise, a military op, say the bombing of an Iraqi target, can be hushed but only for a limited time. THis was incidentaly in response to the BBCs gaff, when they reported the attack on Goose Green BEFORE it began.

Fortunatly, the Argentiens at Goose Green weren't tuned in!!!!

Rising Sun*
07-21-2007, 06:12 AM
The investigations were completely independant of the military and were only looking for the possiblility that the crimes had been commited. Further investigaions would follow on their findings, the courts to be used would be civil, I think, and open to the public.

Remember we have a very experienced war crime team. The officers of the British (Civie) Police Forces regularly deployed (don't know if they still do) to Bosnia and Kosovo to help the civi police forces there develop and to carry out forensic investigations etc to locate graves and find evidence of atrocities.

They are good at their jobs, and have nailed more than a few war criminals. They would approach THIS job with similar professionalism and thoroughness. Indeed they would have the support of many soldiers.

The government were acting after the public exposure of these claimed "crimes" in the books of drivel that Panzerknacker is espousing. "Excursion to Hell - Brambley" and "Green Eyed Boys".



The British Army is highly scrutinised for such actions. Although not War Crimes, soldiers have been prosecuted and imprisoned for shooting civilians in Northern Ireland (I wont go in to thefull details, too long but these shootings had more in line with a Police shooting rather than executions by soldiers of civvies).

Likewise actions in Iraq and Afganistan have also been to court.

The British Army operates under the intense media spot light that is a truelly FREE press. Although the British Media is covered by rules on when they can publish they can publish pretty much anything. It is just a matter of time.

Hence, when the two Princes were growing up, the media was not to cover them. When they reached a certain age, it was weapons free. (Brought in to protect hte young boys, and in respons to the intense media intrusions in to the Princess' (their mum's) life.

Likewise, a military op, say the bombing of an Iraqi target, can be hushed but only for a limited time. THis was incidentaly in response to the BBCs gaff, when they reported the attack on Goose Green BEFORE it began.

Fortunatly, the Argentiens at Goose Green weren't tuned in!!!!

Thanks.

Do you still have D notices?

We do.

1000ydstare
07-21-2007, 08:53 AM
what are they?

Rising Sun*
07-21-2007, 09:06 AM
what are they?

D notice = (I think) Defence notice.

An informal scheme between the government and the press where the government issues a D notice to say something is off limits. The press won't publish.

Very rarely used, for obvious reasons as the government wants to make sure they're observed if issued.

Can't think where I picked it up, but apparently we still have them. Even if they haven't been used for ages.

The system started in Britain. Not sure when. Might have been as far back as WWI or between the wars.

Rising Sun*
07-21-2007, 09:13 AM
P.S. To be used only for national security issues, not concealing which MP has been dressing up in nurse's outfits etc or publishing tape recordings of Prince Charles talking to cabbages to make them grow faster.

The integrity of the system relies upon it being used very, very sparingly.

1000ydstare
07-21-2007, 09:31 AM
We have them but they are not used often.

Same as in Austrailia.

Plus I don't think they are permanent.

Once something is out, it is out.

PS,

Welcome back Eagle, where have you been??

Rising Sun*
07-21-2007, 09:36 AM
We have them but they are not used often.

Same as in Austrailia.

Plus I don't think they are permanent.

No.

Just for whatever time is necessary to get over whatever hump is involved.

If used unwisely the press will ingore them to get the story out.

Requires responsible use on both sides.

Must be a challenge for two groups of professional turds like politicians and journalists to be responsible and refrain from screwing everyone in sight to get an advantage.

Gen. Sandworm
07-21-2007, 09:45 AM
Fortunatly, the Argentiens at Goose Green weren't tuned in!!!!

K now I can kinda say what I was going to say. Why werent they turned in? If the Argies did do something the government should act! Even if they dont take it to an international court they should pursue it to the point that if these people enter UK territory then they should be quickly escorted to a court room! If all this evidence exists why is nothing being done with it? Is there a benchmark for the amount of war crimes you have to commit before its worth working with?

Sorry but this whole thing about war crimes is rather silly to me if your not going to do anything with it. I guess it just makes for good info for book writers. Doesnt matter if its UK or Argentinian war crimes. All this is a load of crap untill you prove something and in most cases thats proving it in a court of law.

Gen. Sandworm
07-21-2007, 09:57 AM
Might add the both the UK are Argentina belong to the International Criminal Court system. The only thing I can think Argentina would be easily accused of would be crimes of aggression. Hell that would probably be the easiest to prove. Nothing has been brought up that I know about. If they had something to hide they wouldnt be there.........maybe why a few key countries are missing on the map here under membership!?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

Rising Sun*
07-21-2007, 10:15 AM
Might add the both the UK are Argentina belong to the International Criminal Court system.

Events before 2002 aren't within its jurisdiction.

Nor are isolated battlefield or other events. They have to be part of a larger scale plan or policy. Shooting the odd POW or raping the odd civilian doesn't count.


Article 8

War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when
committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_English.pdf

Gen. Sandworm
07-21-2007, 10:24 AM
Thanks for clearing that up for me RS!

Rising Sun*
07-21-2007, 10:38 AM
Thanks for clearing that up for me RS!

Always happy to oblige. :D

The ICC is a court of last resort, after all domestic options have failed.

As for the Falklands stuff, and without wishing to upset those with a strong feeling about it (which now I'm probably going to do), nothing much happened that really justifies war crimes allegations, on either side.

It was a war.

Shit happens in war.

There wasn't anything remotely like what happened day after day under the Germans in Russia or the Japanese everywhere they went, or what the Allies opposing them did on a daily basis.

The time is long past to get over such things.

Panzerknacker
07-21-2007, 10:41 AM
As mentioned at the start of this banal thread



Banal ??...no man, there is nothing banal in shooting people in the head.


As for the Falklands stuff, and without wishing to upset those with a strong feeling about it (which now I'm probably going to do), nothing much happened that really justifies war crimes allegations, on either side.

It was a war.

Shit happens in war.

There wasn't anything remotely like what happened day after day under the Germans in Russia or the Japanese everywhere they went, or what the Allies opposing them did on a daily basis.

The time is long past to get over such things


The british crimes and the alleged argentine ones remain unpunished, I dont think those must be forgotten.

Gen. Sandworm
07-21-2007, 10:44 AM
Always happy to oblige. :D

The ICC is a court of last resort, after all domestic options have failed.

As for the Falklands stuff, and without wishing to upset those with a strong feeling about it (which now I'm probably going to do), nothing much happened that really justifies war crimes allegations, on either side.

It was a war.

Shit happens in war.

There wasn't anything remotely like what happened day after day under the Germans in Russia or the Japanese everywhere they went, or what the Allies opposing them did on a daily basis.

The time is long past to get over such things.

I agree! Think this thread just stirs up more bad blood than anything.

Of course RS and I dont come from countries that were NOT directly involved in the conflict. Opinions may vary.

1000ydstare
07-21-2007, 11:20 AM
Panzerknacker, there is nothing banal about shooting people in the head.

Just this banal and irritating thread brought up by yourself repeatedly spouting nonsense that has proved be untrue.

The investigations undertaken by the British included the addition of Argentine witnesses.

All that comes out in this thread is poppycock about shootings that have been investigated ad infinitum by British Authorities. There were NO shootings of prisoners. There are NO hidden graves. NO Argentine dead, some whom were dug up, were found to have close proximity head wounds by any weapon.

And trust me, the British have some very good forensic police, that have worked the Balkans and NI for years.

As pointed out before, the Argentine stories of the shootings have more incommon with their OWN side. The 9mm isn't the common side arm it is, in other armies.

In honesty, they are barely carried by soldiers. Even officers.

Gen.Sandworm, the Goose Green bit about tuning in was in relation ot the BBC releasing info about the attack on Goose Green BEFORE it began. No Argentines were, IIRC, punished for the treatment of the civies.

The people who have judged these actions officially, have deemed no further action is neccesary. ALL actions that were suspicious have been called up. If you look at most of them, they could easily have been buried by the British.

The problem is, you have a nation that is more than used to it's own side conducting business in the way they accuse Britain of.

Not referring to just Panzerknacker or Eagle (or any other Argentine user of this site) but the WHOLE nation. It is difficult for them to understand that an Army isn't neccesarily the same in two countries.

As for the "Crimes" that Panzerknacker keeps dredging up. They are not crimes, otherwise they would be investigated and prosecuted. END OF.

The acts by the Argentines have largely been forgotton in Britain. Even though many were a. True. b. Substantiated and c. a lot worse than most of the true and substantiated ones by teh British.

I am missing out the mindless drivel that you seem to be believe from the two books mentioned.

Have you heard the saying...

"A fool neigther forgives nor forgets, the naive forgives and forgets but the wise forgive but don't forget"?

The war was a long time ago. Bad things happened to both sides, and the Argentines were the ones that started it. If they suffered more during war, and can't cope with it, then they shouldn't have started it.

32Bravo
07-21-2007, 02:07 PM
K now I can kinda say what I was going to say. Why werent they turned in? If the Argies did do something the government should act! Even if they dont take it to an international court they should pursue it to the point that if these people enter UK territory then they should be quickly escorted to a court room! If all this evidence exists why is nothing being done with it? Is there a benchmark for the amount of war crimes you have to commit before its worth working with?

Sorry but this whole thing about war crimes is rather silly to me if your not going to do anything with it. I guess it just makes for good info for book writers. Doesnt matter if its UK or Argentinian war crimes. All this is a load of crap untill you prove something and in most cases thats proving it in a court of law.


This is not about warcrimes, it's about throwing dirt. If one throws enough, some of it might stick. After all, this site can be accessed anywhere in the world by anybody. So, I would suggest taht the idea of accusing the Brits of warcimes is just a way of blackguarding their name. Put simply - sourgrapes.

32Bravo
07-21-2007, 02:20 PM
D notice = (I think) Defence notice.

An informal scheme between the government and the press where the government issues a D notice to say something is off limits. The press won't publish.

Very rarely used, for obvious reasons as the government wants to make sure they're observed if issued.

Can't think where I picked it up, but apparently we still have them. Even if they haven't been used for ages.

The system started in Britain. Not sure when. Might have been as far back as WWI or between the wars.

I think there are 'D Notices' but they can only be used in times of war and the like. Certainly, the situation of investigating warcrimes int he Flaklands would not have justified one. Also, I could be wrong, but I think that although the might be a 'D Notice' inplace, it would not prevent the press reporting the status, if they so choose.

Since incidents in Ulster have resulted in soldiers being tried by civilian criminal courts, I think the same would have applied in this situation, if any evidence had been found. As it was, the police, accompanied by the press carried out extensive investigations, and no evidence was found. Ulster has very much been a proving ground for both the British government and the British Army. They both know that any untoward behaviour is going to be jumped on and headlined in every newspaper in the world, it is rare if it happens, and cover-up is a big No-No.

I previously asked how many Argentine soldiers were and remain MIA. The reason I asked is that if there was any credence at all to claims of up to fifty of them being executed and their bodies disposed of in a mass grave, then surely they must be unaccounted for. In all seriousness, can anyone expect a bunsch of Paras, in the middle of a battle, to take time out to dispose of bodies? Consider, of the twenty three Paras KIA'd, fifteen of them died as a result of artillery barrage, in the forty eight hours or so after they had taken the Argentine positions.

It was a brutal, hard fought battle. People died - the better soldiers won.

1000ydstare
07-21-2007, 03:15 PM
As man of stoat said earlier, it is better to lock this thread.

There is just dirt being thrown, by one side in particular, no facts are being brought up, just mindless drivel presented as facts.

The books held dear by Panzerknacker as factual, have been proven in the 11 plus years that they have both been out in UK as lies or at best mistaken in terms of actual events.

32Bravo
07-21-2007, 04:04 PM
As man of stoat said earlier, it is better to lock this thread.

There is just dirt being thrown, by one side in particular, no facts are being brought up, just mindless drivel presented as facts.

The books held dear by Panzerknacker as factual, have been proven in the 11 plus years that they have both been out in UK as lies or at best mistaken in terms of actual events.


I don't agree on this one,1000YDS.

The British have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of. If anyone wants to accuse of war crimes, let them. In Britain we operate on the premiss of being innocent until proven guilty, it is for the accusers to prove the guilt, not the innocent to prove their innocence. So, let them prove it. As a good freind of mine might say - Piss, or get off the pot!

Firefly
07-21-2007, 04:14 PM
Guys, I'm locking this thread for now. It has become cyclic. Anyone has any problems with this please feel free to PM me.

I WILL be discussing it with ALL the Mods here.

Cheers

Firefly
04-13-2008, 05:19 AM
OK, it seems that some of the newer guys here may have some more input on this subject.

However, if it goes the way it did last time I will be shutting it down again.

Rising Sun*
04-15-2008, 06:31 AM
What about the perception of some Argentinian soldiers that they were victims of crimes by their own NCOs and officers?


Twenty-five years later, the veterans are trying to take their tormentors to court. "Argentina has come to terms with the dictatorship's human rights violations," says Alonso, "but the crimes commited during the Malvinas War are still taboo. The country owes us."

Only the top echelons of the ruling junta -- General Leopoldo Galtieri and the high command of the navy and the air force -- were convicted of war crimes. The recurits were locked inside a barracks in Buenos Aires for a few days following their return from the war, and they were sworn to secrecy. Many pressed charges against the officers who had abused them but the relevant documents are classified, buried deep in the military’s archives. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,475287,00.html

Zulu_Zulu
01-01-2009, 09:03 PM
Hi guys, I served in the Falklands War as a member of 45 Commando Royal Marines. I just stumbled across this thread and I couldn't pass without answering one or two points.


Felix Artuso:
I personally know the guy who shot the submariner. I'm not going to use his name for obvious reasons but any other readers who know him will believe I'm genuine if I say that the person in question knows how to pull a good pint.

***** was indeed a tough nut, even amongst other Marines he was universally feared and if he had shot Artuso for no other reason that he felt like it, no one would have been suprised. That said, only he knows what was in his mind when he shot Artuso. He said that he was preventing the scuttling of the vessel and nobody can argue with that as proof to the contrary simply does not exist.

3 Para - Longdon.
Ears - definitely true. McLoughlin would have got the VC had it not been for his collection. Most think that he was the man of the match on Longdon, even more so that Ian McKay VC.

Shooting of Prisoners
The way I heard it at the time was that Sturge (his name has been published and is mentioned in this thread) claimed he misunderstood what was said to him when he was told to put the prisoners with the others. The instruction was meant to put them with the other prisoners, he took it to mean with the dead Argies.

Yanks mercs on Longdon.
Simply Argentines who spoke English with an American accent.

Patricio Dowling
All returning Argentine veterans have to date recieved a respectful welcome. This is as long as they don't start raising blue and white flags of course! Dowling on the other hand would last two minutes in the Falklands today before he was killed. That is the strength of feeling on the islands even now and I've been back there within the last couple of years.

As for Argies complaining about war crimes; forgive me if I don't come over all apologetic. I know of at least two incidents where British soldiers were shot whilst administering first aid, I personally witnessed one of them. I also know of several instances of torture of civilians under Argie occupation.

I bear Argentina and its people no ill will in fact I was in BA a few years ago and met some Argentine veterans perfectly amicably. However, the country has a dark past which will not be forgotten no matter how many final laws are enacted. Some of the people who murdered their own citizens were let loose in the Falklands. Had it not been for honourable men such as Carlos Busser and Bloomer Reeve they would have re-created the BA naval school in Stanley.

Panzerknacker
01-02-2009, 07:09 PM
The "dark past" is a bit subjetive, when the armed forces of any country had to fight terrorism and/or had the menace of a communist takeover there were always excesses.

Look at Spain, Russia, Peru, Colombia,etc, The same British army had to get its hand into the Northern Irish thing. USA in not going to happy in his fight agaist terrorism in Irak.

Compared with those examples the argentine "dark" is as bright as a christmas tree.

Your thinly veiled accusation of murders have no effect on me, we know that even with the dirty war incident ( always a classic) we are not such thing.

Zulu_Zulu
01-03-2009, 02:25 AM
How is 30'000 murders subjective? Is your family name Videla? I've never heard an Argentine try to defend the dirty war. As for Ireland; the comparison is laughable. You defend the era by saying that other countries were bad too, thats like saying that Hitler wasn't really a bad lad because Stalin has a higher body count.

In terms of the civilians, I make no accusations of murder I simply say that had Dowling and his cohorts have had their way there would have been. In general the war was relatively clean inasmuch as such a word can be applied to war. There were a few regrettable incidents on both sides but no real war crimes.

I find it ironic that the most rabid of the Malvinists were not there in the the mud.

Panzerknacker
01-03-2009, 07:53 AM
This is not the first time someone tried to mix up the internal conflict in Argentina with the 1982 war.

I can see you are pretty missinformated, I suggest this topic.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4831

Cuts
01-03-2009, 08:34 AM
This is not the first time someone tried to mix up the internal conflict in Argentina with the 1982 war.

I can see you are pretty missinformated, I suggest this topic.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4831

Ah yes young man, the thread that had you so peeved.

It was started to show the effect of the attitude taken to civilians who exhibited views contrary to those of the Junta had on the Falkland Islanders individually and as a community.
The first page of the thread contained a number of posts which pointed out exactly why it was germane to the forum, and were it not for bleating to the echelons of higher beings would have remained in position rather than being relegated to another forum in the hope that it would go unnoticed and unconnected.

Perhaps it was because in your heart of hearts you realise that it is utterly indefensible and serves to undermine any argument in support the invasion of 19 Mar/02 Apr 82.

Rising Sun*
01-03-2009, 08:59 AM
Internal political issues within Argentina relating to the survival of Galtieri & Co were directly related to the Dirty War and had everything to do with Argentina's ill-advised and ill-conceived attack on the Falklands and nothing to do with its long dormant territorial claims to the Falklands per se. And the greatest consequences were also internal to Argentina.


The actual motivation for Argentina's April 1982 invasion was a more immediate threat to General Leopoldo Galtieri’s ruling military junta: internal instability in Argentina threatened to topple his dictatorship. Galtieri needed a uniting diversion, an outside conflict to distract the public and maintain domestic control.

.....

The contrast was stark, and both sides knew it. An Argentine soldier said: "If I had had real officers who were real men, maybe I would have stayed. No way! I'm Argentine and we aren't made for killing people. We like to eat, go to the movies, drink, and dance. We aren't like the English. They are professional soldiers--war is their business."

The Falklands or Malvinas War raises a series of points regarding the causes of conflicts between nations. It also challenges some of the assumptions about conflict that have become axiomatic among political professionals. The first axiomatic assumption challenged by the Malvinas/Falklands War is the notion that "weaker" states will normally not assault "stronger," especially nuclear, states. The second challenged assumption is that leaders seek war to distract their citizens from domestic difficulties. The Malvinas/Falklands War also points out the dangerous potential for miscalculating an opponent's interests, the danger of misperceiving the character of a head of state, and the importance of cultural and historical perspectives.

Who would have thought that Argentina, an isolated nation, would go to war with its largest customer for agricultural exports, Great Britain? Who would have thought that this country, whose history included no real wars since the mid-nineteenth century, would challenge a nuclear-equipped nation? Who would have thought that Great Britain, a member of the UN Security Council and NATO, would fight over a desolate pile of rocks populated by a few sheepherders in the South Atlantic Ocean? Who would have thought that Great Britain would have gone to war to preserve remnants of its empire 37 years after World War II?

Serious economic problems, defeat by the U.K. in 1982 after an unsuccessful Argentine attempt to forcibly take control of the Falklands/Malvinas Islands, public revulsion in the face of severe human rights abuses, and mounting charges of corruption combined to discredit and discourage the military regime. This prompted a period of gradual transition and led the country toward democratic rule. Acting under public pressure, the junta lifted bans on political parties and restored other basic political liberties. Argentina experienced a generally successful and peaceful return to democracy. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/malvinas.htm



If Leopoldo Galtieri, who has died aged 76, had any sense of wonder, it must have come into play as he stood on the balcony of the Casa Rosada in Buenos Aires on April 8 1982. A few days earlier, the Plaza de Mayo below had been full of citizens venting their rage against the military government that he headed. Now, in the wake of the Falkland Islands invasion of April 2, the square was full of cheering people.
His regime, vilified for human rights abuses in the "dirty war" and with failed economic policies, had been transformed into a government that had salvaged national honour by recovering the islands with their population of 1,200. Galtieri, an impulsive man with a liking for Scotch, acknowledged the cheers. He must have thought he had saved the military project and assured his place in history.

On June 14, the crowds returned to jeer. The Pope was in the city on a visit that the junta were keen to interpret as a gesture of support. He had held a mass, attended by millions, in a park. Before the ceremonies were over, a news flash announced the Argentine surrender on the islands. The war, and Galtieri's presidency, were over. Angry crowds threw coins at the Casa Rosada, taunting him to appear. He resigned three days later. Within a year Argentina had a civilian president and the battle to bring Galtieri and fellow junta members to justice had begun. His death has cheated campaigners of a key protagonist; last July he was arrested on human rights charges. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/jan/13/guardianobituaries.argentina

Rising Sun*
01-03-2009, 09:48 AM
The "dark past" is a bit subjetive, when the armed forces of any country had to fight terrorism and/or had the menace of a communist takeover there were always excesses.

Look at Spain,

Is there any comparison between what happened in the Spanish Civil War and anything that happened in Britain, or any English speaking nation, around the same time or since?


Russia

What does Russia have to do with British or Argentine political and social institutions in the 20th century?


Peru, Colombia,etc,

Refer my comment above about Spain.


The same British army had to get its hand into the Northern Irish thing.

And this was equivalent, exactly how, to the abuses of human rights and the death toll in Argentina's Dirty War, or the Civil War in Spain, or Peru or Colombia? Or etc?


USA in not going to happy in his fight agaist terrorism in Irak.

Which has absolutely no basis for comparison with Britain in Northern Ireland which, whether I or anyone else likes it or not or is unhappy about Britain's conduct there, was part of Britain at the time and where Britain in Britain behaved rather better in the face of an insurrection that Argentina in Argentina; Spain in Spain; Peru in Peru; and Colombia in Colombia. And etc in etc.


Compared with those examples the argentine "dark" is as bright as a christmas tree.

Really?

When was the last time the true Irish in Belfast had to deal with anything like The Disappeared in Argentina?

As for Spain, Peru, and Colombia: Yeah, well, that's what those of us not there have come to expect of South America, and it never disappoints us.

Zulu_Zulu
01-03-2009, 01:21 PM
This is not the first time someone tried to mix up the internal conflict in Argentina with the 1982 war.

I can see you are pretty missinformated, I suggest this topic.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4831

I'm not talking about reading threads, I'm referring to first hand experiences of the fighting and subsequent conversations with Islanders who were there whilst Dowling was intimidating the Islanders. I know a girl who had a pistol put in her mouth by the bloke when she was five years old.

Zulu_Zulu
01-05-2009, 03:03 PM
This is not the first time someone tried to mix up the internal conflict in Argentina with the 1982 war.

I can see you are pretty missinformated, I suggest this topic.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4831



You know something, the only Spanish I learned was "Arriba los manos" and "manos arriba, Chupapija" Both came in very handy I have to say.

Cuts
01-06-2009, 09:38 AM
This is not the first time someone tried to mix up the internal conflict in Argentina with the 1982 war.

I can see you are pretty missinformated, I suggest this topic.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4831

I'm not talking about reading threads, I'm referring to first hand experiences of the fighting and subsequent conversations with Islanders who were there whilst Dowling was intimidating the Islanders. I know a girl who had a pistol put in her mouth by the bloke when she was five years old.


You know something, the only Spanish I learned was "Arriba los manos" and "manos arriba, Chupapija" Both came in very handy I have to say.

Perhaps that's why Panzerknacker's having such difficulty in replying to your posts, he's unable to use the keyboard and view the screen simultaneously.
;)

1000ydstare_redux
01-06-2009, 11:25 AM
PK,

Why are we on this again?

You know as well as anyone that the years of the junta in Argentina involved some of the worst atroticities in the 1980s.

You have also seen evidence of dowlings behaviour on the Islands. Behaviour that even embarresed his fellows.

It is hardly a great leap of imaginationto suppose that Argentine policy for dealing with dissenters (including the Islanders) would have been... shall we say, extreme.

Zulu_Zulu
01-06-2009, 12:17 PM
How dare you!!

Surely you know that the junta's behaviour is excusable because Pol Pot was a dodgy character.

Besides, Dowling was a catholic so is exempted.

pdf27
01-06-2009, 04:56 PM
Guys, just a note to try to keep things in this thread civilised - Falklands/Malvinas threads are very emotive and so much more tightly moderated than usual. Any name calling, etc. WILL get this thread locked for a while so everyone can calm down. This applies to everyone no matter what "side" they are on.

Panzerknacker
01-06-2009, 06:26 PM
If somebody bother to see my post here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142744&postcount=56

If not I dont care, despite all the name calling and provocations by ZZ, cuts and other similar pityful characters I wont discuss the internal conflict of Argentina in this topic.

Cuts
01-07-2009, 09:24 AM
I quite agree PDF, a civilised discussion would be most refreshing, and a discussion it should be.

If A puts forward a supposition which B contests, then A is duty bound to prove the supposition or accept that they are wrong.
Merely ignoring the counter-argument is unproductive and puerile.

It puts me in mind of the old television series 'Fawlty Towers' in which the character played by Andrew Sachs kept repeating, "Ay know nuuuthing !"
Amusing in it's context but here suggestive of something altogether more nefarious, and just like in the programme, equally untrue.


The issue of this subject being emotive is true enough, but it is noticeable that the emotional outbursts seem only to emanate from one direction.
If I took it into my head to throw a tantrum whenever a thread on, for example, the battles of the Western Desert didn't go my way, I would be regarded by sensible adults as being either stupid or childish - or both.


A fair while back I was trying to convince a Falkland Islands civilian who was present when his home was invaded to post here as I felt he had much to offer, but after the thread on Los Desaparecidos moved from where it was germane he decided that there was no interest in his opinions.
There are some SAMA members who read this forum but don't bother to post for that very reason.

In all honesty the point of view of posters such as Zulu_Zulu should have a lot more sway than the unsubstantiated bleating of someone who can hardly even be considered a distant observer, being scarcely more than a babe in arms at the time.







If somebody bother to see my post here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142744&postcount=56

If not I dont care, despite all the name calling and provocations by ZZ, cuts and other similar pityful characters I wont discuss the internal conflict of Argentina in this topic.

Ah, that's where it is. I appreciate your reminding me of that thread Panzerknacker, fear not, I shall get round to posting there when time allows.

Thank you also for your pity, though as this is the first time I've ever been presented with such I'm quite at a loss as to what I should do with it.
As someone with obviously far more experience in this subject, what do you suggest ?

You also dismiss Zulu_Zulu and his comments as "pityful" [sic], though because he is Royal it probably means as little to him as to myself, but I am interested in why you have taken this view of a new poster.
Is it because you realise that as an eye-witness his statements carry more weight than yours ?


Your refusal to discuss the internal politics of Argentina in the time leading up to and during the invasion, and how it affected the Falkland Islanders is probably far more eloquent than anything you could post.


I realise that it must be irksome to have lost the ability to delete or move posts you find 'difficult,' but these questions and comments are very pertinent and deserving of answers here. Emulating an ostrich does you no favours whatsoever.

reydelcastillo
01-07-2009, 10:01 AM
I may be on the wrong forum , if that is the case , sorry for that -
Looking for Air Recon photos/Pictures of the Port Stanley area -

Been there / 1982

pdf27
01-07-2009, 11:00 AM
Right forum and welcome to the site. You might have more luck starting a new topic in this forum rather than posting in this topic however!

reydelcastillo
01-07-2009, 11:08 AM
Thank you for the welcome Sir

Regards Enrique

Panzerknacker
01-07-2009, 05:08 PM
I realise that it must be irksome to have lost the ability to delete or move posts you find 'difficult,' but these questions and comments are very pertinent and deserving of answers here.

It just made the forum a little more messier than usual, but I dont complain, after all my blood pressure is lower now than when I was a Moderator.

My guess is that you dont want to discuss that particular topic at all outside this area , my guess is that you were not interested in the dirty war after all, my guess is your intention in the first time was only to annoy/ disturb/ balls breaking/ etc.


Emulating an ostrich does you no favours whatsoever

Pfff, I have my picture ( wich includes my head incidentally) posted in this forum several time ago, I have no reasons to hide ; I didnt owe anything to anybody, you cannot post even a location below your avatar...who hide and who dont ? who is more brave and who is more coward ? who show it all and who hides it all ?

I am not the one who started a "hate Argentina and argentines" campaign from the darkness.

If you are adult enough to have a proper discussion in the proper area I am willing to educate you and anyother in that issue, if not...pfff :rolleyes: I said before your provocations have no effect on me.

The neutral observer could see from far away your real intentions.


But let take away off this obscure character nicked cuts for a moment:


I need to say something more related with the actual crimes In the ****lands:

It seems that some Uk born members ( some, not all) are very pissed with the Argentines soldiers, not because some supposed bad treatment to the civilians, but because they DIDNT actually shoot any civilian

They would love to find out that an "argie" soldier blew the head off with a headshot at some benny, they would love to see a blood stained picture with that, yes that would cause a furious orgasm on them, because that will be a a hard fact, a more plausible crime than some of the weak cases against the argentine army.

I have some news for you flock of peniless pub vomiting pistol banning people.

That never happen !!

But of course you can keep searching.:lol:

Cuts
01-07-2009, 11:01 PM
Panzerknacker, thank you for making the effort to post a reply.

That your post addresses none of the questions or comments anyone has posed comes as a not unexpected, though nonetheless saddening, confirmation of your avoidance of fact.




I realise that it must be irksome to have lost the ability to delete or move posts you find 'difficult,' but these questions and comments are very pertinent and deserving of answers here.

It just made the forum a little more messier than usual, but I dont complain, after all my blood pressure is lower now than when I was a Moderator.
'Messier than usual' meaning you are now confronted by facts you cannot defend.


My guess is that you dont want to discuss taht particular topic at all outside this area , my guess is that you were not interested in the dirty war after all, my guess is your intention in the first time was only to annoy/ disturb/ balls breaking/ etc.

I am quite willing to discuss the Argentine 'Dirty War' outside of this forum and that we shall, but the reason for the original thread entitled 'Los Desaparecidos' was to discuss the effect it had on those civilians whose home was invaded, further illumnated to me by the gentleman I mentioned in #164 of this thread.

I all honesty I cannot think of a reason why you whinged at the moderation staff to get it moved, other than in an attempt to avoid some very pertinent questions.

You say your guess is that I wished to annoy you, that neither was nor is the case.
There are many intelligent posters here that can debate a wide range of subjects and oddly enough none of them feel the urge to resort to fits of hysteria when presented with an opposing view.
Your guesses need some serious accurising work.




Emulating an ostrich does you no favours whatsoever
Pfff, I have my picture ( wich includes my head incidentally) posted in this forum several time ago, I have no reasons to hide ; Ididnt owe anything to anybody,you cannot post even a location below your avatar...who hide and who dont ? who is more brave and who is more coward ? who show it all and who hides it all ?

The phrase used in English about burying one's head in the sand, ie. to emulate an ostrich means to avoid the point, not to hide oneself away.

However the fact you feel the need to advertise yourself posing with a couple of rather inadequate weapons is your own business, whatever conclusions others may draw should be immaterial to you.

That I choose not to place myself in the public eye is mainly due to PERSEC.
(It's a soldier thing, therefore outside of your scope of understanding.)

That you imagine yourself 'brave' to post such pictures is amusing in itself, is that really your definition of brave ? :D
To those that matter my record speaks for itself and needs no amplification on a virtual plane.


I am not the one who started a "hate Argentina and argentines" campaign from the darkness.
Nor indeed am I.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to count a couple of ex-members of Ejército Argentino amongst my friends.


If you are adult enough to have a proper discussion in the proper area I am willing to educate you and anyother in that issue,

Now I knew you had a sense of humour !
That has actually made three of us laugh out loud. Thanks.



if not...pfff :rolleyes:
I understand you have a slow leak.
Still with that much through traffic one would expect any balloon knot to lose some integrity.


I said before your provocations have no effect on me.
Oh those irritating provocations !
Provocations such as 'please answer this question' !
It's outrageous that people ask you to prove your point !
I mean, why can't they take everything you say as gospel ?
I think anyone who questions your edicts should be banned !

Or not...




The neutral observer could see from far away your real intentions.

Your alter ego is now Swiss ?
Pretty amazing stuff, particularly as most Swiss are far more confident in themselves than you have ever indicated yourself to be.
Once again your guesswork is severely damaged by your insecure need to show a macho image.



But let take away off this obscure character nicked cuts for a moment:


I need to say something more related with the actual crimes In the ****lands:
Ag, shame !
If you really feel the need to use profanity try nipping outside and swearing at the moon.
Perhaps then you won't appear as stupid as you do when you react childishly here.
If you really consider the islands to be so base why do you want them so badly ?
A lack of toys as an even younger child maybe ?


It seems that some Uk born members ( some, not all) are very pissed with the Argentines soldiers, not because some supposed bad treatment to the civilians, but because they DIDNT actually shoot any civilian

They would love to find out that an "argie" soldier blew the head off with a headshot at some benny, they would love to see a blood stained picture with that, yes that would cause a furious orgasm on them, because that will be a a hard fact, a more plausible crime than some of the weak cases against the argentine army.

I have some news for you flock of peniless pub vomiting pistol banning people.

That never happen !!

But of course you can keep searching.:lol:
Well in the absence of any argument you certainly demonstrate an advanced fantasy.
As far as I'm aware, (I cannot speak for everyone,) no-one has ever expressed that desire, anyone that imagines that is the case proves they have either a very loose grasp of the facts or an even looser grasp of reality.
Most people are fully aware that however else the Argentine invasion force transgressed the Geneva or Hague Conventions, they did not murder any civilians.
This was due mainly to the actions of Comodoro Carlos Felipe Bloomer-Reeve and Captain Barry Melbourne Hussey, plus of course the normal human desire of the Argentine soldier not to harm innocents.

Besides, the occurrence this forum is concerned with happened nearly twenty-seven years ago when you were how old ?
Two years ?
Barely weaned from the breast.
That you hold such vehemence and bile indicates only that indoctrination has had a profound effect on you.


Nothing of your last post takes issue with the feelings of the Falkland Islanders' toward the violently authoritarian regard that the government of the time held for civilians.
That begs the question of why your silence on this subject ?

Panzerknacker
01-08-2009, 03:42 PM
However the fact you feel the need to advertise yourself posing with a couple of rather inadequate weapons is your own business, whatever conclusions others may draw should be immaterial to you

That is a very important part of the argentine ADN, we like to publicite ourselves. We always think that we are better than anybody. The "self-help" book sales are very low aroud here.

Inadequate ? why inadequate ? :shock: a 12 gauge magnum inadequate ? in wich world of fantasy you live? For hare, rabbit, duck, partrigde, pigeon, doves, some foxes and even and unadverted 2 leg intruder it is very useful and the 22 magnum too.

Are you sure you ever shot a firearm man ?, this last part of your reply make me start to doubt about your supposed gun knowledges.


Nor indeed am I.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to count a couple of ex-members of Ejército Argentino amongst my friends.


You did, implying that the Army would start to make people dissapear in the islands if it were staying longer in just a filthy campaign and a way to induce hate against the argentine armed forces.

And let me say that your alleged "argentine friends" ( man, you going to wear those poor after naming them so often) if they are real are very naives for having person like you as a friend.


Now I knew you had a sense of humour !
That has actually made three of us laugh out loud. Thanks.


Thank you but I was not kidding.

3 of us ? a crowded PC you got.



Well in the absence of any argument you certainly demonstrate an advanced fantasy.
As far as I'm aware, (I cannot speak for everyone,) no-one has ever expressed that desire, anyone that imagines that is the case proves they have either a very loose grasp of the facts or an even looser grasp of reality.
Most people are fully aware that however else the Argentine invasion force transgressed the Geneva or Hague Conventions, they did not murder any civilians.



Well, is just a teory, i felt some people think in that way.

Zulu_Zulu
01-08-2009, 04:21 PM
To be fair, the Argentine soldiers were overwhelmingly decent towards both the Islanders and the few British soldiers/airmen that they captured. There were some incidents which I personally believe were down to the fog of war. That statement is absolutely true by the way; a soldier understands what is going on around him mostly rather than the bigger picture and your field of fire reduces to the area immediately in front of you. Things are very confused hence the term 'fog'. I think this is to blame with the incidents sich as the white flag at GG and the once I mentioned earlier.

I have no personal issue with Argentines, as I said, I was in BA a few years ago and was treated very well by the veterans I met, especially those from the Argentine Marine Corps and a special thanks to Santiago Aversa who looked after me excellently.

That aside, Argentina does have a dark past under the juntas and the likes of Dowling and Astiz showed themselves for the bullies that they were. Witness for example the meek surrender of the latter. These people and their ilk are a stain on the history of Argentina and I find your defence of that period of your history very puzzling.

I found Argentina and especially BA a fantastic place. BA is possibly the greatest city I have experienced and I have seen many. As for the women......................... wow! I was grateful for two thing; 1) I spent a few days there ostensibly single and 2) that I learned latin dancing as a child, it turned out very useful.

Firefly
01-08-2009, 05:01 PM
The issue of this subject being emotive is true enough, but it is noticeable that the emotional outbursts seem only to emanate from one direction.
If I took it into my head to throw a tantrum whenever a thread on, for example, the battles of the Western Desert didn't go my way, I would be regarded by sensible adults as being either stupid or childish - or both.

There may be some truth in this, but on the other hand certain members here seem to take a small amount of pleasure in trying to wind up certain other members, especially other members whose command of the English language and nuances therein is not as good as native English speakers.

To be honest Im not even sure that this section is worth the bother of having it. It quickly becomes cyclical, its a bit like discussing NI or the Middle East. Everyone has an opinon on the merits of it and almost no one changes that opinion despite endless prattle back and forth.

Cuts
01-09-2009, 07:23 AM
That is a very important part of the argentine ADN, we like to publicite ourselves. We always think that we are better than anybody. The "self-help" book sales are very low aroud here.(My bold.)
Shame you manage to bite off more than you can chew, eh ?
Keep taking the pills. :wink:


Inadequate ? why inadequate ? :shock: a 12 gauge magnum inadequate ? in wich world of fantasy you live? For hare, rabbit, duck, partrigde, pigeon, doves, some foxes and even and unadverted 2 leg intruder it is very useful and the 22 magnum too.
Yes, for those quarry a twelve is fine, indeed a .177 is 'adequate' for yet smaller game and pests, but should your ultimate end be something larger they are indeed inadequate.
That said, you have exhibited a desire for a larger weapon than you presently possess, for other uses. viz.

Man, you are a fortunate shooter, I could use that for overtrow goverments that I dont like... just like the current one.
It's a good job that the present government is more liberal than the one you purport to espouse, else that sort of comment would enable you to join the ranks of those who took a poorly equipped AFF cse over the Atlantic.


Are you sure you ever shot a firearm man ?, this last part of your reply make me start to doubt about your supposed gun knowledges.

What you think about me personally is utterly immaterial, you just don't matter in the real world as you are of no importance.







I am not the one who started a "hate Argentina and argentines" campaign from the darkness.Nor indeed am I.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to count a couple of ex-members of Ejército Argentino amongst my friends.

You did, implying that the Army would start to make people dissapear in the islands if it were staying longer in just a filthy campaign and a way to induce hate against the argentine armed forces.

No you are incorrect, I do not hate Argentina or the Argentine people.
If you took the time to read my posts you would see that I am actually pointing out that the civilian inhabitants had a very real fear of the Argentine government's continuing policies it was happy to use in it's own country for the period it was in temporary possession of the Falklands.
The junta that instigated the invasion had a long and dark history of treating their own citizens very badly, and I don't think you really believe that they would suddenly have developed a biting sense of conscience toward foreign nationals whose home they had just invaded.
Having the thugs Astiz and Dowling posted to the Islands is a huge combat indicator that they would have continued in a manner that had up to then suited them very well.



And let me say that your alleged "argentine friends" ( man, you going to wear those poor after naming them so often) if they are real are very naives for having person like you as a friend.
'So often' ?
I have given the Christian name of one gentleman who is currently residing outside of your borders.
Once.
If once to you means often it would explain quite a number of your posts.
(Though in that vein perhaps you would be better served if your outlandish fantasies were kept to your private moments.)




Now I knew you had a sense of humour !
That has actually made three of us laugh out loud. Thanks.
Thank you but I was not kidding.

3 of us ? a crowded PC you got.(My bold.)
Perhaps your lively fantasy is limited to subjects about which you know nothing.
Your multitude of posts show you are adept at the use of a computer, but do you really imagine that everyone with whom you communicate on the net are actually inside the computer ?
If you read a post that disagrees with you do you pick the computer up and shake to punish the wrongdoer inside ? :D
Without wishing to give you any great shock, the fact is that more than one person can view a single pc monitor at any one time. (Think of it as being like a television.)

Also - now ready yourself for this revelation - several people are able to view the net at any one time - from different locations !





Well in the absence of any argument you certainly demonstrate an advanced fantasy.
As far as I'm aware, (I cannot speak for everyone,) no-one has ever expressed that desire, anyone that imagines that is the case proves they have either a very loose grasp of the facts or an even looser grasp of reality.
Most people are fully aware that however else the Argentine invasion force transgressed the Geneva or Hague Conventions, they did not murder any civilians.
Well, is just a teory, i felt some people think in that way.
As a theory, (ie. a proposed explanation the status of which is conjectural as opposed to a well-established proposition reporting matters of actual fact,) it hasn't passed the first cursory glance, but thank you anyway for the continued insight into your mindset.

Pánzon
01-09-2009, 10:58 AM
To be fair, the Argentine soldiers were overwhelmingly decent towards both the Islanders and the few British soldiers/airmen that they captured. There were some incidents which I personally believe were down to the fog of war. That statement is absolutely true by the way; a soldier understands what is going on around him mostly rather than the bigger picture and your field of fire reduces to the area immediately in front of you. Things are very confused hence the term 'fog'. I think this is to blame with the incidents sich as the white flag at GG and the once I mentioned earlier.

Hello Zulu Zulu,

Many thanks for this statement, I as an Argentine recognize chivalry when I see it.

I have no personal issue with Argentines, as I said, I was in BA a few years ago and was treated very well by the veterans I met, especially those from the Argentine Marine Corps and a special thanks to Santiago Aversa who looked after me excellently.

All Argentine veterans are also well regarded by their British counterparts.... I have had contact with many and all say the same....... brave soldiers and chivalrous, apparently, some regretable things occured then, but your explanation of the "fog of war" seems to fit wel into my thinking.

Funny enough, Santiago is a good "pen pal" with me, I am sure you will concur that he is a gentleman with a acid and sarcastic sense of humor quite funny man actually. He is a renown lawyer and also an Officer of the "Infantería de Marina" ( Marines) as you surely know. I am sure you had a good time with Santiago, next time you talk to him send him regards from Juan "Pánzon" Mielke, I am sure you laughed your balls off when going out with him. And Santiago makes an enormous effort towards the ARA "naval reserve"

That aside, Argentina does have a dark past under the juntas and the likes of Dowling and Astiz showed themselves for the bullies that they were. Witness for example the meek surrender of the latter. These people and their ilk are a stain on the history of Argentina and I find your defence of that period of your history very puzzling.

Completelly agree on this, I did live the "Junta´s times" and I simply want to forget those times, but not completelly as there are many "accounts to settle" with several ones. But they are falling, one by one.

For your records Zulu, Astiz is in prison for crimes during the "dirty War", which was not so "clean" as everybody tends to think.. both sides commited atrocities in those terrible years when I was a boy. I am not familiar with what Dowling may have done, I will try to inform myself on this regard. IN any case, Astiz was NOT in command in the Georgias Islands and they never expected to repell the British Squadron.


I found Argentina and especially BA a fantastic place. BA is possibly the greatest city I have experienced and I have seen many. As for the women......................... wow! I was grateful for two thing; 1) I spent a few days there ostensibly single and 2) that I learned latin dancing as a child, it turned out very useful.

I agree with the quality of our women, they are a result of the "mixing of races" that populate Argentina, altough the fact that your Latin dance knowledge was so useful indicates that you were NOT going to the best places:D, Ussualy, the "Latin, or "tropical music" places are the ones inhabited by a lot of "easy game":D.. I am sure Santiago wanted you to "enjoy" the visit to the fullest! ( Latin music places are called "bailantas" there and they are ussually more dangerous than the FEBA). Just for the records, I am very fond of British ladies.......... they are very accomodating and excellent hosts. :D

Cheers,

Juan



For some reason, the system thinks this message is too short to be posted, so I am adding this nonsense to see if I canmake my post go through.

pdf27
01-09-2009, 11:08 AM
Pánzon - the minimun post length filter doesn't count anything inside a quote box. This is intended to make the life of members who spam the forum with zero-content posts harder.

Pánzon
01-09-2009, 11:20 AM
Many thanks for the clarification PDF, I went mad for a minute thinking that it was gonna be one of this oportunities in which you elaborate a post just to be obliterated by a system that is behaving strangely!

Pánzon.

Cuts
01-09-2009, 01:44 PM
I have no personal issue with Argentines, as I said, I was in BA a few years ago and was treated very well by the veterans I met, especially those from the Argentine Marine Corps and a special thanks to Santiago Aversa who looked after me excellently.(My bold.)

Nor I.
I have been to La Plata a couple of times where I was met with open hospitality and both offered and received warmth and respect. Those I met were normal blokes with normal feelings and no animosity.
This is why I am somewhat at a loss to understand why someone who was too young to even remember the conflict can harbour such vehement bitterness toward anyone who questions the Junta's actions.



Pánzon, thanks for a calm, collected and polite post.

It seems the main reason people were under the impression that Astiz had comd on South Georgia was his own self-aggrandisement.
Lt Cdr Luis Lagos, the real OC all Argentine troops on South Georgia surrendered on 26 Apr 82 in a British Antarctic Survey building before the news-hungry television crews could cover it.
Astiz, showing his customary hollow bravado, insisted on signing a separate document (on HMS Plymouth,) in front of photographers.
His narcissism proved to be his undoing as his name and photograph was circulated in the world's press, although he was inaccurately described as the commander of Argentine forces on South Georgia.
This then led to Sweden, then later France, asking the British government and the ICRC to hand over Astiz to answer various charges of crimes committed against their citizens. Before this could be done the Junta informed the Brits that the three journalists arrested in Argentina on espionage charges would be taken very ill if El Ángel Rubio de la Muerte didn't come straight home.

I believe he was pardoned during the democratic transition but this was later rescinded.
Do you know what his sentence is Pánzon ?

Panzerknacker
01-09-2009, 03:20 PM
Yes, for those quarry a twelve is fine, indeed a .177 is 'adequate' for yet smaller game and pests, but should your ultimate end be something larger they are indeed inadequate.
That said, you have exhibited a desire for a larger weapon than you presently possess, for other uses. viz.



Ha, ha, ha, so I didnt own a 12 gauge and a 22 magnum ?

take this , watch and learn.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5358&page=7

And by the way neither of my airguns is .177 the .177 is for wussies like you.

I would put a picture of the Bersa 9mm, but I dont want to scare you much.
And the next time you try to imply that I am a liar you better think twice stupid ****.

pdf27
01-09-2009, 03:44 PM
Thread locked for 24 hours. Pity as it has actually been quite interesting, but one of you had to spoil it by swearing at another. Take it to PMs in future!

pdf27
01-11-2009, 03:54 AM
Right, I'm reopening this thread. To reiterate, the Falklands/Malvinas forum is full of potentially emotive topics. If it is discussed politely then it's a great addition to the site, but a number of threads have shown a distressing tendency to degenerate into slagging matches. That is totally unacceptable.

There is already serious consideration being given to just deleting this sub-forum, on the grounds that it is too much hassle for the moderators and just causes fights. While the balance of opinion at the moment is towards keeping it, if there are more instances like the above you will probably lose the forum. You have been warned!

Cuts
01-11-2009, 11:15 AM
Thanks PDF, I was more than a little busy on Fri/Sat but in the odd breaks attempted to write a reply to Firefly's post at Serial #172. When I managed to return I was surprised that the thread had been locked, though the reason as not difficult to fathom.

Anyway, here it is, warts and all.




The issue of this subject being emotive is true enough, but it is noticeable that the emotional outbursts seem only to emanate from one direction.
If I took it into my head to throw a tantrum whenever a thread on, for example, the battles of the Western Desert didn't go my way, I would be regarded by sensible adults as being either stupid or childish - or both.
There may be some truth in this, but on the other hand certain members here seem to take a small amount of pleasure in trying to wind up certain other members, especially other members whose command of the English language and nuances therein is not as good as native English speakers.

I'm not sure if you mean to include me in that first group, either way no worries, though if I may I'd like to comment.

I don't believe I've ever criticised anyone's grasp of English unless that was their first language and they've insisted on attempting to communicate using that abomination, 'text speak' - or txtspk as I'm informed it is written.

On numerous occasions various posters from different countries and linguistic backgrounds have responded to the posts of others with invective and profanity.
It is very easy to respond in a like manner, and some folk do take that option.
Personally I see little point in descending to a playground level, not through any inability to do so as I believe I'm quite able in that are (and probably with a more comprehensive vocabulary of obscenity, :D ) but in general I avoid it.
I neither speak to troops nor strangers in person in that way, (unless push comes to shove,*) and see no reason to begin.

The language I use tends in the main to be easily understood and should anyone be unfamiliar with particular words, they can be readily looked up on a net dictionary or translation engine.

Looking at the posts of the member in question, his command of the English language is far above average and manages mostly to read idiom well. At times, and often within a specific location on this site, an aberrant understanding is read into a certain posts. That his linguistic capability should suddenly experience a drop in quality remains a perplexing mystery but it can always be called as a defence should the moderation staff show ire. I would expect those for whom English is their first language would be held to higher account.


(* 'Push & shove' in a real situation, not the virtual world in which we post.)




To be honest Im not even sure that this section is worth the bother of having it. It quickly becomes cyclical, its a bit like discussing NI or the Middle East. Everyone has an opinon on the merits of it and almost no one changes that opinion despite endless prattle back and forth.

I'm in full agreement that in this forum there is often a cyclic moment, though I'd venture to suggest that it is due in no little part to one opinion trying to keep to known facts, and another clawing desperately at fantasy straws.
My opinion of those who refuse to accept facts is no secret.

I feel it would be a great pity if the forum was locked or removed, as some of the more modern conflicts are potentially far more emotive than a conflict that was started and finished over a quarter of a century ago. There are of course exceptions, most often between participants of wars, but those on here who have experience of these things have been remarkably restrained.

In the broader picture, and particularly with reference to the two examples you have given, I'm ready to change my ideas on absolutely anything if given a convincing argument.
Indeed, my views on the problems endemic to the ME over the past sixty years were given their first major change when working there. First hand experience is an extremely good furnace in which to reforge ones opinion.

I think that just about all of us who served in the Province met people and saw things that changed our outlook on what we thought to be the case on our arrival each time. In some cases it strengthened a bias, in others it undermined it.


My view, for what it's worth, is that despite the odd outburst this is a valid forum as a number of salient points on both sides have been made, and to close it down would only serve to perpetuate disinformation, myth and hatred by leaving allegations unchallenged and questions unanswered. Such concealment of fact will always hinder reconciliation.

Cuts
01-11-2009, 11:55 AM
Yes, for those quarry a twelve is fine, indeed a .177 is 'adequate' for yet smaller game and pests, but should your ultimate end be something larger they are indeed inadequate.
That said, you have exhibited a desire for a larger weapon than you presently possess, for other uses. viz.
Ha, ha, ha, so I didnt own a 12 gauge and a 22 magnum ?

take this , watch and learn.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...?t=5358&page=7

And by the way neither of my airguns is .177 the .177 is for wussies like you.

I would put a picture of the Bersa 9mm, but I dont want to scare you much.
And the next time you try to imply that I am a liar you better think twice stupid f**k.(Expletive edited.)


Once again I thank you for posting to prove my point.




Yes, for those quarry a twelve is fine, indeed a .177 is 'adequate' for yet smaller game and pests, but should your ultimate end be something larger they are indeed inadequate.
That said, you have exhibited a desire for a larger weapon than you presently possess, for other uses. viz.
Ha, ha, ha, so I didnt own a 12 gauge and a 22 magnum ?
Your words, not mine.
Could you be so kind as to point out exactly where I have stated that you are not the owner of a twelve bore shotgun and a .22 mag rimfire please ?



take this , watch and learn.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...?t=5358&page=7
While I have never disputed the fact that you do possess at least the two wpns mentioned above, what anyone can learn from the link is that photographs have been posted of somebody holding first a shotgun and then a rimfire rifle, it doesn't actually prove you own them.
It is unimportant whether you own firearms or not.



And by the way neither of my airguns is .177 the .177 is for wussies like you.
You misunderstand when, why and how one would use a .177 air wpn.



I would put a picture of the Bersa 9mm, but I dont want to scare you much.
Why on earth should a picture of a pistol frighten me ?
I have no phobia about photographs, pistols or indeed anything else.
If you think this is normal behaviour, am I to understand there are certain photos that you find frightening ?
It would explain much.



And the next time you try to imply that I am a liar you better think twice stupid f**k.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
:D

Pánzon
01-11-2009, 02:18 PM
Well, I am happy to see the thread is once again open. After months of not visiting the forum as I had a difficult year. Yesterday and thanks to the flu, I had the oportunity to interact with you people again.

I was under the impression we were well pointed to continue, and sparked for the post abour Astiz, I wrote an extensive post but it was impossible to upload due to the quarry happened when I was writing. Now I am going to re-read that post as I might have been carried out last night and wrote too much for this forum........... perhaps there is no reason to explain too much as most of you guys are not Argies like me.

All I will say for now is that the "Dirty war" was as the name indicates a REAL WAR....... there were atrocities commited for BOTH SIDES, always victims altough not all of them innocents.

I remember one night around 1975, when with my parents we "counted" 12 bombs going off in the area as they were clearly heard and some caused some rattling.

There were atrocities, YES. 30,000 dissapeared people, FALSE, The Sábato report, specially commisioned to investigate the dirty war when democracy came back determined the real number was close to 9,000............. I know it is still an atrocity, but why multiply it fom more than 3? All this data can be checked on the final report called "NUNCA MAS" ( Never more) which was published for the public domain and was a best seller at he time.

Good to see the sub forum opened once again even when I scarcely participate in it as the subject is a bit "scratchy" for my taste.

Pánzon.

Pánzon
01-11-2009, 02:43 PM
So, here it goes........... I hope is not going to cause problems here or anywhere. Just trying to give CUTS the view of somebody who was an adolescent then. It reffers to CUTS post number 177.


Hello Cuts, During the 80´s, there were a couple of military moves ending in the law of "Obediencia debida" (that would be more and less "owed obedience") in which they limited the punishments mainly to the ones that issued the orders, thus covering the arses of several characters like the "Angel Rubio".... If all happened as u described above, then he is the most stupid of intelligence officers I ever heard off........ he knew very well he was wanted for the "disappearance" of Nuns Leonie Duquet and another French religious woman..... Thus the problems with France, who anyway did not hesitate in providing Exocets, SuE´s, etc....... Sweden wants him for the disappearance of a girl by the name of Dagmar Hagelin. He "infiltrated" the organizations trying to do something about their "desaparecidos" (which later on would develop into the "Mothers of Plaza de Mayo and others) and as a consequence there were several disappearances blamed to his "double agent work"...... and he wants to be seen in a picture "signing".. Arrogant son of a mother and who knows how many fathers.......... But let us be fair once again.......... in spite of the brutalities committed by a number of military and paramilitary forces against the then "rebel" forces, I have also to say that the terrorists were ruthless beasts thirsty for blood. The amount of attacks they carried on, on a long war were terrible and with lots of innocent victims. They were not "freedom fighters"....... they wanted to take over the country and turn it into another communist foothold in South America. There were brutalities on BOTH sides, but only the military went to trial....... and you know what? The "freedom fighters" then. Now are the government...... the former Governor of the Province of Bs As. was up to a year ago Felipe Solá... chief of intelligence of the "Montoneros"....:(Responsible among other things for the sinking of the DDG SSma Trinidad when being finished). The current minister of defence.... is the widow of Miguel Abal medina, another terrorist "capo"........... So the new government is going after the criminals.... 30 years later, but they are going for them. And the law of "obediencia debida" was struck down and now all of them are going to jail..... Astiz among then and I am pretty sure they are going to give him what he deserves. UFFF........ What a post, I hope not to create controversy; I am just telling the story as I know it......... BOTH sides are to blame....... that was madness.... which at the time suited very well the agendas of the "big players" in the world........ Remember "he is OUR BASTARD!"....... To finish, I will tell you a bit of a personal story........ I did spent several summers sunbathing not five meters from Astiz, he was a member of my same yacht Club and thus we used to go to the same beach in Mar del Plata........ We all knew who he was........ I never spoke to him nor even looked into his eyes.... but I did "observed" pretending to sleep in the sun.. And he has a stare that freezes your blood..... I was certain at that time that that guy was capable of ANYTHING.......... What a post.... I will regret it I am sure. Pánzon.

pdf27
01-11-2009, 03:08 PM
Pánzon - that was entirely appropriate to the forum, thanks for that, it was really rather interesting.

As for the 30,000/9,000 numbers, I think applying Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) is the best approach here. Because these people disappeared, and at the time asking questions about them was made difficult by the government, then only the government will have had good figures for how many were vanishing. Since they were denying it, all such figures will come from those opposed to the government - who both will have a very poor idea of the numbers and the incentive to inflate the figures. By the time the true figures come out, the false ones have entered popular mythology and become generally accepted.

pdf27
01-11-2009, 03:12 PM
Cuts - while I can see and understand what you're doing and why, please take it outside this forum. It is not related to the subject at hand and is only going to cause trouble. Off topic or PMs only please.

Cuts
01-11-2009, 05:03 PM
Cuts - while I can see and understand what you're doing and why, please take it outside this forum. It is not related to the subject at hand and is only going to cause trouble. Off topic or PMs only please.

Noted PDF.
I think it's best to avoid PMs as the few I have received need a parental guidance warning ! :D
I'll set up a separate thread just for these 'difficult' questions as the off-the-wall posts are designed to divert attention from the questions in point.
At least I really and truly hope that's the reason behind the hysteria.

Looking back through various fora I note that I, amongst others, have in a number of threads, been ready to draw a line under the puerile behaviourand start afresh with a buried hatchet.
The unforseen problem was that our young armour breaker seems only ready to bury it in my, (and a couple of other posters',) heads !
Such are the delights of correspondence with the uninitiated.
:D

Rising Sun*
01-12-2009, 04:47 AM
So, here it goes........... I hope is not going to cause problems here or anywhere. Just trying to give CUTS the view of somebody who was an adolescent then. It reffers to CUTS post number 177.


Hello Cuts, During the 80´s, there were a couple of military moves ending in the law of "Obediencia debida" (that would be more and less "owed obedience") in which they limited the punishments mainly to the ones that issued the orders, thus covering the arses of several characters like the "Angel Rubio".... If all happened as u described above, then he is the most stupid of intelligence officers I ever heard off........ he knew very well he was wanted for the "disappearance" of Nuns Leonie Duquet and another French religious woman..... Thus the problems with France, who anyway did not hesitate in providing Exocets, SuE´s, etc....... Sweden wants him for the disappearance of a girl by the name of Dagmar Hagelin. He "infiltrated" the organizations trying to do something about their "desaparecidos" (which later on would develop into the "Mothers of Plaza de Mayo and others) and as a consequence there were several disappearances blamed to his "double agent work"...... and he wants to be seen in a picture "signing".. Arrogant son of a mother and who knows how many fathers.......... But let us be fair once again.......... in spite of the brutalities committed by a number of military and paramilitary forces against the then "rebel" forces, I have also to say that the terrorists were ruthless beasts thirsty for blood. The amount of attacks they carried on, on a long war were terrible and with lots of innocent victims. They were not "freedom fighters"....... they wanted to take over the country and turn it into another communist foothold in South America. There were brutalities on BOTH sides, but only the military went to trial....... and you know what? The "freedom fighters" then. Now are the government...... the former Governor of the Province of Bs As. was up to a year ago Felipe Solá... chief of intelligence of the "Montoneros"....:(Responsible among other things for the sinking of the DDG SSma Trinidad when being finished). The current minister of defence.... is the widow of Miguel Abal medina, another terrorist "capo"........... So the new government is going after the criminals.... 30 years later, but they are going for them. And the law of "obediencia debida" was struck down and now all of them are going to jail..... Astiz among then and I am pretty sure they are going to give him what he deserves. UFFF........ What a post, I hope not to create controversy; I am just telling the story as I know it......... BOTH sides are to blame....... that was madness.... which at the time suited very well the agendas of the "big players" in the world........ Remember "he is OUR BASTARD!"....... To finish, I will tell you a bit of a personal story........ I did spent several summers sunbathing not five meters from Astiz, he was a member of my same yacht Club and thus we used to go to the same beach in Mar del Plata........ We all knew who he was........ I never spoke to him nor even looked into his eyes.... but I did "observed" pretending to sleep in the sun.. And he has a stare that freezes your blood..... I was certain at that time that that guy was capable of ANYTHING.......... What a post.... I will regret it I am sure. Pánzon.

Thanks for your illuminating insights from your personal experience.

However, from the perspective of an outsider whose nation had no involvement or interest in the Falklands conflict or internal politics in South America, apart from receiving a large number of political refugees as a result of the dirty wars there, I think a full picture requires people to examine the involvement of America in the dirty wars.

America was, post-Cuba, obsessed with suppressing what it thought was communism and every socialist revolutionary movement wherever they appeared. It was up to its neck in much of what happened in South America, notably Chile when Allende was toppled, from funding and supplying arms to providing intelligence to training counter-revolutionaries, interrogators and torturers at the School of the Americas to controlling various operations in various countries.

If America had instead stood up for the human rights it espouses in its constitution and public pronouncements but repeatedly denies people in nations America thinks threaten its interests, the dirty wars would probably have been a very different and much less damaging exercise to the people and institutions in several South American nations.

The dirty wars were, in part, proxy wars by America against perceived communist threats in the same way that Vietnam was under the impetus of the same anti-communist outlook. The difference is that America left it to the local elements to run the war in the local powers' and America's interests.

Once America, belligerently standing for democracy and all that is good in the world according to its own publicity, gave the green light to and actually encouraged and assisted abuses of human rights in the dirty war nations, it is not fair to place all responsibility for such abuses on the nations where they occurred with American connivance and assistance.

Panzerknacker
01-12-2009, 05:56 AM
Uh... Panzon you fell in the trap, shame on you.

Rising Sun*
01-12-2009, 06:42 AM
Uh... Panzon you fell in the trap, shame on you.

Panzon seemed to me to be participating very reasonably (in itself somewhat remarkable in this thread) in a reasonable discussion, and making a very useful and informative contribution to it.

For those of us who have no idea of what trap was laid and why Panzon deserves shame for falling into it, could you explain?

reydelcastillo
01-12-2009, 08:21 AM
Easy Panzon , no regrets , no shame , you had the Courage to tell part of our History ( like it or not ) the way it was - Some may agree or not - Thats up to them -

Rising Sun*
01-12-2009, 08:33 AM
Easy Panzon , no regrets , no shame , you had the Courage to tell part of our History ( like it or not ) the way it was - Some may agree or not - Thats up to them -

That seems to be perfectly correct to me in endorsing Panzon's commendable honesty about his nation's past.

I can't imagine why anyone would say he should feel shame about it.

Honesty can never be shameful.

Sometimes unwise, but never shameful.

Panzerknacker
01-12-2009, 11:58 AM
For those of us who have no idea of what trap was laid and why Panzon deserves shame for falling into it, could you explain?

Is very clear, the trap was set by cuts to make us discuss the internal conflict of Argentina in the Falkland Malvinas area.

Even I know Panzon have good intentions he wasnt intelligent enough to avoid this trap.:rolleyes:

pdf27
01-12-2009, 12:44 PM
The entire reason the invasion happened when it did (thus allowing the British to launch an effective counterattack) was the weakness of the Argentinian military government, which was at least partially related to the internal strife in Argentina at the time. Therefore, Pánzon's comments are entirely in order.

Furthermore, I note that this is the second time in this thread recently that you have insulted other members. Such behaviour is NOT acceptable on this website without good evidence (which you have singularly failed to provide), and certainly not in the Falklands/Malvinas sub-forum, which due to the behaviour of certain members we have found it necessary to moderate very tightly indeed. I would strongly suggest that you either make a radical change to your posting style in this sub-forum, or cease to post at all. If you go on as you are you will be responsible for this forum being closed for good.

Cuts
01-12-2009, 01:13 PM
For those of us who have no idea of what trap was laid and why Panzon deserves shame for falling into it, could you explain?
Is very clear, the trap was set by cuts to make us discuss the internal conflict of Argentina in the Falkland Malvinas area.

Even I know Panzon have good intentions he wasnt intelligent enough to avoid this trap.:rolleyes:

A few of points here:

1. Regardless of anyone's paranoia and fantasy, I had not set any 'trap.'
2. The situation in Argentina had a direct bearing on the war, and Pánzon's post is even more appropriate here when one takes into account the deployment of the criminal Astiz on the Islands.
3. I'm not here to blow smoke up anyone, but Pánzon has shown himself to be chivalrous, quick-witted and intelligent. Besides, he has actually served his country.

Now back to the topic.




Edited for tense.

Pánzon
01-12-2009, 02:43 PM
Aw my gawd:( ......... I regret causing turmoil, but I challenge ANYBODY to rebate what I have written. I liked very much the phrase Unwise but not shameful. Perhaps I have been unwise........ but we are talking and I talk the truth.

I have not fallen in any trap laid by anybody, after months absent from the forum due to personal reasons (father one and a half months in hospital in Berlin and myself by his bedside), wife with Leukemia, the effects of the world crisis that does not leave me a moment to rest as I need to produce "something" everyday and like people use to say "to fill the pot ".

Suddendly, I receive a notice of a post by a "luxury" that we have over here which is Enrique. on the Air War thread........ and that, combined with my terrible flu, gave me the time and desire to surf a bit in this thread and I felt that I wanted to clarify a few things........ I think I was quite balanced as I DID spread the blame for what happenned on both sides and I did it, as it was because that was a WAR in which the "freedom fighters" almost took over a full province, the province of Tucumán ( accented on the "A") and commited countless atrocities against innocent people...... Let us not forget that the military and paramilitary did not started the dirty war until there was a point of no return and after being ordered by the then constitutional presiden of the nation, M. I. Martínez de Perón.... In fact, the order was to "eliminate" the terrorist mennace, and was not Isabel Perón, but Dr. Italo Luder, accidental president in absense of the president ( he was the president of the senate and thus, the vice president of the Nation after the death of General Juan Domingo Perón in 1975). The military coup came when the government did not know what to do and the oposition in the person of their leader Dr. Ricardo Balbín expressed that they had "no solutions"..... Very bad idea to call armed forces to fight terrorism...... but they were marxists, trained in Cuba, Libia and the eastern block and exceptionally well trained and armed by "rogue states".

If somebody thinks that I did "took the bait"........ please re- think.......... I wanted to explain that the "dirty war" was a WAR, and not a "fumigation" process that is all.

Astíz stirs my blood......... and I sincerely thought that I could speak about this character as I actually "KNOW HIM IN PERSON" and my personal intention was to make a line with guys like this pig on one side, and the bravest of Argentines, who went to a war with the then 3rd or 4th world´s military power at the time without asking questions..... Not many of the "pigs" fought in Malvinas. And to compare them with our brave soldiers, constantly "insulted" calling them "kids of war" when every single one of them was actually a hero on my eyes. I just wanted to SEPARATE the veterans from the "vermin" which was running around with uniforms at he time.

Most of those "vermin" have already died, some of them from horrible diseases who consummed them to prepare them for the grill in hell......... the rest of them, the new government, as I said, made like a personnal crusade to struck down the laws who covered their arses during a long time and they are going to jail, one by one........ and they keep no predicament on the new generation of officers ratings that conform the Argentine Armed Forces today.

So, let us be fair, should the "dirty war" never happenned, probably Argentina would be facing similar dangers as for example Colombia has been suffering since decades..... They did "exterminate them", with the horrible consecuence of thousands of civilian casualties........ and hundreds of service people killed too........ they used to "assault regiments". can you imagine such daring? Could you imagine the quarters of the Welsh Guards taken by storm?

They had to be extremely though and that was the perfect primordial soup for the appearance into scene of lots of psicopaths and a forge for them too.... some of those psicos were in government by the force of arms..... but hey were complying to a direct order from the acting persident of the nation as the leftists were ruthless and they did not know what to do, it was impossible to fight them with the police....

It was really a "catch 21"..... such a mess.........

I also want to say that I regret the fact that the only the military are being prosecuted, some of the ruthless brains of the former "guerrila" are rampant either making money or directly in government positions.......

The terrorist of then, should also be prosecuted, funnily almost the whole "cuppola" suvived and thrived........ they left their fighters to take the blunt of the fury.....

Messy subject, but since we are gentlemen, we can discuss this as we can discuss other things, I am willing, more now, when I think I did say that is a personal opinion and to clear once again that the subject should be left aside as it had nothing to do with the conflict as they were far away from there with exceptional exceptions.

I really do not know what it has to do with the conflict more than the worry of the Islanders at the thought of being governed by that people.

With regards to the involvement of the USA, Henry Kissinger himself said to the junta.. " whatever you are doing, do it fast" as he knew Carter was coming.

I consider the goverment of the USA, due to their interest being it political of in defense of their interest responsible for the blooming of dictators at the time, they used them like pawns in a chess game and they fell for it. So they share part of the blame for the dirty war. I did mentioned it before a bit crypticaly when I said, "our bastards". refering to "their" dictators. This is for the co-forumer who seemed not to catch the "twisted ball" of my idiom.

Perhaps we should go to next issue, is not it?

Pánzon

Lone Ranger
01-12-2009, 02:46 PM
If you go on as you are you will be responsible for this forum being closed for good.

Being honest one of the reasons why I don't tend to hang around here is Panzerknacker's attitude. I did used to enjoy talking with Panzon and others, still chat with him occasionally via email. But Panzerknacker does have an attitude problem.

Judging from previous comments, nothing would please him more than to have this closed down. And it would be a great shame for those able to discuss in a reasonable, and a double shame because just recently a couple of interesting characters from both sides have dropped by.

Not my forum, its yours but I sincerely hope you won't close it down now that its getting kinda interesting again.

Lone Ranger
01-12-2009, 02:51 PM
Aw my gawd:( ......... I regret causing turmoil, but I challenge ANYBODY to rebate what I have written. I liked very much the phrase Unwise but not shameful. Perhaps I have been unwise........ but we are talking and I talk the truth.

Not unwise in the slightest, I for one, appreciate you speaking frankly and expressing an opinion on a complex subject. Its given me something to think about and I'll reply presently.

Pánzon
01-12-2009, 02:57 PM
I just want to clearly say that in no way, I have felt insulted by Panzerkncker, neither other member of this forum.

And also want o clarify, that I have not had the honor to serve my country more than a civilian, I say this because a co- forumer, seems to think so. I am just an amateur historian who is digging on the facts that are coming into view in order to analaize such catastrofe.

But do not misunderstand, Argentina wants the Malvinas/Falkland back and they will keep on insiting until that time comes it is a reality that it would be only by diplomacit means, I sincerely hope the British will sit down an talk as a lot of people thinks that the Argentine claim for the Malvinas /Falklands is quite good.

Only god things will come for the islanders as they would be tretated with white gloves an give unprecedented benefits.

I stand down for now to se how u guys react.

Pánzon.

reydelcastillo
01-12-2009, 03:25 PM
Good thinking , I would add to your thoughts of peacefull conversations that they must take place in a three party meeting and those are Great Britain , Argentina and the Islanders ( which actualy are the only ones born in the Islands , they are the only natives ) And if we think straight they are the ones that should make the final decision ( we like it or not ) - We can bring up all our reasons of why we state they are Argentine Islands , so will Great Britain , but the ones that will incline the balance to one side or the others are going to be the Natives of those Islands - And Personaly that is why I think conversations have never gone beyond the point of just being requested and never happen -

With my respects Enrique

Panzerknacker
01-12-2009, 03:38 PM
It was not my intention to insult the good one of Panzon sorry if he felt in that way the phrase "shame on you". Disculpame che.



Furthermore, I note that this is the second time in this thread recently that you have insulted other members. Such behaviour is NOT acceptable on this website without good evidence (which you have singularly failed to provide), and certainly not in the Falklands/Malvinas sub-forum, which due to the behaviour of certain members we have found it necessary to moderate very tightly indeed


I agree with that, they are not acceptable, but I have no intentions to modify or edit any of my posting, neither my stile of writing.
Feel free to take the actions you think are needed.



Being honest one of the reasons why I don't tend to hang around here is Panzerknacker's attitude. I did used to enjoy talking with Panzon and others, still chat with him occasionally via email. But Panzerknacker does have an attitude problem.



My attitude problem in this particular subforum is :

I am here to talk the awful truth, not to make friends.

Pánzon
01-12-2009, 03:42 PM
HI Enrique,
I am sorry to disagree with what you say, the matter is in between states.............. and the islanders, not a crowd big enough for any basketball field in any Argentine school can not be the judges of this, however, we took that right for granted, as the islander would be free to go, stay with their propperty and prosper and keep double nationality and if they wanna drive on the left, lets do it so......... the islanders would be benefited, and should they express the wish of becoming Argentines. even more. In fact, they ARE Argentines....... Argentina considers the Malvinas/Falkland an occupied territory and since they were born in "Argentie soil", they are automaticaly Argentines, should they wish anything from us.
The claim will never cease, peacefully but relentlessly, and perhaps one day Argentina will develop their true potential and become interesting for the isladers whose rights and properties would be anyway respecte. Joint sovereignty seems a good idea to me and exploitation of the undersea, I know the President K strick down that deal last year or so.

Cheers,

Pánzon
01-12-2009, 03:54 PM
Panzer, I already said very cearly that I´ve been never insulted by you, I did understood the idiom quitewlell and so in know it was not an insult, perhaps a touch of ironi, but in no way an insult.

Habemus pace?

reydelcastillo
01-12-2009, 03:58 PM
Its Great to Disagree , specialy with a Gentleman like you , I'm very sorry for what you are going through ( Family Issues ) -

Un Gran Abrazo Enrique

Lone Ranger
01-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Panzon,

I happen to think you're wrong and that Argentina does not have a strong case for its claim over the Falklands and never really did. Lets be honest here, the British Government offered to take the case to the ICJ on three separate occasions and on each occasion it was Argentina that refused. If Argentina had confidence in its case it would present it to independent arbitration but it didn't. And I believe that is simply because it knew it would lose.

Peron once said to Bill Hunter-Christie that he didn't really believe in the Argentine claim to the Falklands but that it was a useful rallying cry for the people to unite behind. And lets be honest once more, more than one Argentine politician has blown the Falklands trumpet to distract attention from domestic issues. It is no co-incidence that Christina Kirschner raised this issue when she had domestic problems in the agricultural sector.

And to quote an Argentine perspective, Carlos Escude said on the subject:

"After studying the history of the Argentine claims on the islands, I would say they were absolutely without foundation - it's more of a habit than anything else."

Happy to debate this with you any time but as you know, unlike most Brits I am very familiar with the history of the Falklands Islands. I also have my own theories on the origin of the dispute.

A great deal of the problem of the Falklands is that you have taught yourselves a somewhat distorted version of history for so long that you've come to believe it. To quote Escude again:

"I spent many years studying the nationalistic content of educational textbooks and the doctrines which generated those texts. And it's very clear from those texts how we got the idea of the sovereignty of Argentina over the Falklands. The notion that right was on our side was absolutely irrefutable and nobody could reasonably doubt it."

And Panzon, the fact that even someone quite sensible like yourself can't see that the Falkland Islander's have a say in their future speaks volumes about attitudes in Argentina. Argentina's confrontational attitude towards the islanders is more than responsible for their reciprocal attitude towards Argentina.

And to make it plain, I'm happy to debate the subject with anyone who will talk reasonably on the matter. I will simply ignore anyone else.

Pánzon
01-12-2009, 04:11 PM
Its Great to Disagree , specialy with a Gentleman like you , I'm very sorry for what you are going through ( Family Issues ) -

Un Gran Abrazo Enrique

Enrique Campeón!!!! It is about time you start showing us, in the appropiate forum some of your war memories, such as pictures, etc!!!!

Juan.

reydelcastillo
01-12-2009, 05:43 PM
Panzon how nice to be here , allow me to express that it is nice to chat with friends that I have not yet met -

Pánzon
01-13-2009, 04:14 PM
Hey Lone Ranger,

One day will discuss the matter, I am under the impression that it would be quite interesting as you seem well versed about such an interesting issue. We can compare veriosn and see if the disagreements are really unsolvable as is generaly thought.

However, I think I should prepare better as it seems the contender, say yourself, is a witty, informed and articulate person, and If I loose, at least I want to die fighting! Althoug if you manage to convince me, I will concede with honesty.

Im not hiding, it is just that I am temporarily out of shape :)

Juan.

Lone Ranger
01-13-2009, 04:36 PM
Oh I wouldn't say they were insoluble, its just that you might find some of the things taught by Argentine schools lets say somewhat challenged. Happy to converse by email if you prefer.

Zulu_Zulu
01-13-2009, 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by Zulu_Zulu View Post
To be fair, the Argentine soldiers were overwhelmingly decent towards both the Islanders and the few British soldiers/airmen that they captured. There were some incidents which I personally believe were down to the fog of war. That statement is absolutely true by the way; a soldier understands what is going on around him mostly rather than the bigger picture and your field of fire reduces to the area immediately in front of you. Things are very confused hence the term 'fog'. I think this is to blame with the incidents sich as the white flag at GG and the once I mentioned earlier.

Hello Zulu Zulu,

Many thanks for this statement, I as an Argentine recognize chivalry when I see it.

I have no personal issue with Argentines, as I said, I was in BA a few years ago and was treated very well by the veterans I met, especially those from the Argentine Marine Corps and a special thanks to Santiago Aversa who looked after me excellently.

All Argentine veterans are also well regarded by their British counterparts.... I have had contact with many and all say the same....... brave soldiers and chivalrous, apparently, some regretable things occured then, but your explanation of the "fog of war" seems to fit wel into my thinking.

Funny enough, Santiago is a good "pen pal" with me, I am sure you will concur that he is a gentleman with a acid and sarcastic sense of humor quite funny man actually. He is a renown lawyer and also an Officer of the "Infantería de Marina" ( Marines) as you surely know. I am sure you had a good time with Santiago, next time you talk to him send him regards from Juan "Pánzon" Mielke, I am sure you laughed your balls off when going out with him. And Santiago makes an enormous effort towards the ARA "naval reserve"

That aside, Argentina does have a dark past under the juntas and the likes of Dowling and Astiz showed themselves for the bullies that they were. Witness for example the meek surrender of the latter. These people and their ilk are a stain on the history of Argentina and I find your defence of that period of your history very puzzling.

Completelly agree on this, I did live the "Junta´s times" and I simply want to forget those times, but not completelly as there are many "accounts to settle" with several ones. But they are falling, one by one.

For your records Zulu, Astiz is in prison for crimes during the "dirty War", which was not so "clean" as everybody tends to think.. both sides commited atrocities in those terrible years when I was a boy. I am not familiar with what Dowling may have done, I will try to inform myself on this regard. IN any case, Astiz was NOT in command in the Georgias Islands and they never expected to repell the British Squadron.


I found Argentina and especially BA a fantastic place. BA is possibly the greatest city I have experienced and I have seen many. As for the women......................... wow! I was grateful for two thing; 1) I spent a few days there ostensibly single and 2) that I learned latin dancing as a child, it turned out very useful.

I agree with the quality of our women, they are a result of the "mixing of races" that populate Argentina, altough the fact that your Latin dance knowledge was so useful indicates that you were NOT going to the best places, Ussualy, the "Latin, or "tropical music" places are the ones inhabited by a lot of "easy game".. I am sure Santiago wanted you to "enjoy" the visit to the fullest! ( Latin music places are called "bailantas" there and they are ussually more dangerous than the FEBA). Just for the records, I am very fond of British ladies.......... they are very accomodating and excellent hosts.

Cheers,

Juan


Cheers Juan.

I agree with pretty much all your comments. The latin clubs by the way I found alone one night. Incidentally, I was walking along the street when the most drunk man in the world tried to mug me. I fought him off with a nifty side step - that was enough to beat him :)

On a more serious note, it was sad too see the people tearing the bing bags (black garbage bags) apart in order to make a living .

As for Santiago; he's a great guy but I wouldn't trust him with my woman or my islands :) You take care amigo.

Panzerknacker
01-13-2009, 06:14 PM
2 post deleted, somebody definately have no humour :rolleyes:.

pdf27
01-13-2009, 06:19 PM
3 actually. It was that or give you infraction points for shit-stirring. If you want to make jokes about this sort of thing, make them in Off-Topic. They would be entirely within the acceptable bounds there - but not in this forum.

Panzerknacker
01-13-2009, 06:42 PM
While I love to see the moderators actually moving their hands ( not quite usual in this forum) I must say there has been "shit stirring" in this subforum since the 19th march 2007 when I created the first topic. And most of them dont coming from me.

But wathever man, you have the buttons. That is my punishment for trying to participate in a subforum wich has evolved into completely biased fest against argentines.

Pánzon
01-14-2009, 03:58 PM
Hi Zulu,

As I told you, the "bailantas" are not really recomendable for British gentlemen loose on B:Daires .....

The fact that you mention the trash bag tearing indicates you visited just passed the rock bottom of the depresion and economic collapse. I understand that if not much better, the situation is much better now, I sincerely hope there is not more bag tearing..... it broke my hearth when this happened during the economic/politic/institutional collapse of en 2001..... it was practically a post war scenario sparked by one after one intenational economic "fals", such as Russia, mexico, the Asian tigers, Turkey, etc.... that crisis distroyed the economies of the developing coutries...... I think there were more than 7 years of constant depression and Argentina does not enjoy the membership to for example the EU and thus access to their markets except in a limited way.

In any case, I do like the fact you survived your bailanta episode:) unharmed, perhaps you dodged that drunkard with one of your "latino" feet "combination":D steps and a hip roll.:D

Cheers,

Juan.

Pánzon
01-14-2009, 04:09 PM
In any case and since it seems a problematic thread, once we accepted that it was a gentlemen war with some exceptional regrettable actions on both sides, that those very few occurences were clogged by the "fog of war" ( I liked that term), perhaps ther is no point on keeping talking about "war crimes"......

If there were any, they were due to inexperience on both sides and a war fought under extremely difficcult conditions and not planned at all by both sides which left room for a lot of rookie´s errors on both sides.

If both "sides" agree, then we move into the air war or the naval one or the grunts war which walked like Julius Caesar troops would do, by foot to the battle front. There was the time and the place were in spite of the value of the troops, the lack of preparation or training or logistics ensured the British victory.

cheers,

Juan.

Panzerknacker
01-14-2009, 04:23 PM
Hi Zulu,

As I told you, the "bailantas" are not really recomendable for British gentlemen loose on B:Daires .....



Well, If he is looking for "crimes" and "troubles" definately he will going to found them in that kind of places.

Zulu_Zulu
01-27-2009, 06:04 PM
Oh I don't know, she was a lovely girl and surrendered quite easily. Not that this was too much of a surprise, after all; she was Argentine! :) She went like the toilet door when dysentery is in town.

After a course of penicillin I've forgotten her.

Cojimar 1945
01-27-2009, 11:08 PM
This is a bit off-topic but I can recall that in another forum someone argued that the only war in which the British displayed brutality comparable to that of Japanese in WWII was the Boer war. I was wondering if people feel this is correct and if war crimes in that conflcit were well documented.

pdf27
01-28-2009, 01:33 AM
Ummm.... The British committed a lot of war crimes (who do you think invented the Concentration Camp?) but "brutality" is the wrong word for it. The civilian casualties were the result of incompetence, not malice.

Man of Stoat
01-28-2009, 04:29 AM
The Germans had concentration camps in Namibia, by the way, which if I remember correctly predates the Boer War.

They also had mass executions of civilians there, so I guess it's just a national tradition ;)

Rising Sun*
01-28-2009, 05:47 AM
Ummm.... The British committed a lot of war crimes (who do you think invented the Concentration Camp?) but "brutality" is the wrong word for it. The civilian casualties were the result of incompetence, not malice.

The point is often made, for whatever purpose, that Britain invented the concentration camp in the Boer War, but usually it is wrongly equated with Nazi death camps.

Britain's general intention in the Boer War was to remove women and children, notably from areas subjected to the scorched earth policy, so that they could not provide support to the Boer guerrillas. This was rather more successful than originally envisaged as disease and neglect, whether through contempt for the internees and or bad administration, killed many of them. That, while deserving of condemnation, was not the intention of the policy, whereas in Nazi death camps (as distinct from Nazi concentration camps) it was.

Thinking that the same term used by different nations at different times necessarily means the same thing makes about as much sense as thinking that the German Democratic Republic was equivalent to the democratic republic in the United States, at any point in US history.

Oddly enough, people who castigated Britain for inventing concentration camps often tended to be the sort who castigated America for being a failure as a democratic republic while not bothering to get wound up about the absence of both democratic and republican elements in the German Democratic Republic.

I am not defending the appalling suffering and needless deaths Britain imposed upon Boer women and children in the concentration camps, but equating those camps with Nazi death camps is ridiculous.

On a different aspect, it is debatable whether the Boer War concentration camps would now fall under war crimes or crimes against humanity. Either way, Britain's conduct was appalling. But not evil like Nazi death camps.

redcoat
01-28-2009, 06:08 AM
Ummm.... The British committed a lot of war crimes (who do you think invented the Concentration Camp?)
While I have to agree that he British have committed war crimes, they didn't invent the Concentration Camp.
The Concentration Camp was actually invented by the Spanish during 1896 in Cuba, to separate the rebels in the province of Pinar del Rios from the civilians who supported them by relocating all the civilians into guarded enclaves, the Americans were next in 1900 with Concentration Camps built in the Philippines for civilians who were suspected of supporting Filipino rebels.
It wasn't until January 1901 that they were first built by the British with fenced areas and blockhouses used as they were in prisons to observe and prevent attempts at escape

Rising Sun*
01-28-2009, 06:27 AM
The Germans had concentration camps in Namibia, by the way, which if I remember correctly predates the Boer War.

They also had mass executions of civilians there, so I guess it's just a national tradition ;)

No nation has a monopoly on rounding up civilians and killing them.

The Duke of Cumberland isn't well remembered in Scotland, notably Culloden, nor Cromwell in Ireland, notably Drogheda. I don't think one can draw from these and other bloody events in British history that it is a British tradition to massacre civilians.

Here, we've tended to keep to less well organised killing of small groups of Aborigines, but the result is the same.

Rather than pointing to nations which have rounded up civilians and killed them, it would be quicker to construct a very short (possibly empty) list of nations which haven't. Leaving aside nonsense nations of a few hundred thousand people in the Pacific and Indian oceans (which nations sometimes have a rather florid history of rounding up people and killing them), I look forward to entries for the 'Nation With the Cleanest Hands When It Comes to Killing Civilians Award'.

Nickdfresh
01-28-2009, 10:39 AM
While I have to agree that he British have committed war crimes, they didn't invent the Concentration Camp.
The Concentration Camp was actually invented by the Spanish during 1896 in Cuba, to separate the rebels in the province of Pinar del Rios from the civilians who supported them by relocating all the civilians into guarded enclaves, the Americans were next in 1900 with Concentration Camps built in the Philippines for civilians who were suspected of supporting Filipino rebels.
It wasn't until January 1901 that they were first built by the British with fenced areas and blockhouses used as they were in prisons to observe and prevent attempts at escape

The US used what we could call "concentration camps" as early as the first part of the 19th century against its Native Americans. But in those cases, as with the British refinement during the Boer War, the camps were a counterinsurgency tactic as a means to win a war rather than a means to an end to destroy a local population. The term was coined to describe the tactic to counter the Boers...

Panzerknacker
01-29-2009, 04:09 PM
Ummm.... The British committed a lot of war crimes

If that is correct then I dont know why some british members of this refinated forum feel so distressed/disturbed/dismayed/annoyed/amazed when I said the british forces in the Falklands did commited war crimes, speciallly when my claim are based mostly, mostly in two british sources with the back of some argentine witness.

Everybody needs to take account of that and re-read all this topic again from the early pages, I am convinced that it would be a eye opener, and the neutral observer ( side note: the neutral observer is not an image of my alter ego as an SF suggested but the reader who is not involved sentimentally in the war, no british nor argentine) will realize that most of the crimes were commited by the UK.

Lone Ranger
01-29-2009, 05:54 PM
No PK the "crimes" you claim were committed consist of

a) Alleged execution of POW. All of which were extensively investigated by Soctland Yard, including travelling to the islands and Argentina to interview potential witnesses, exhuming bodies for forensic examination and not one shred of evidence has been found to back it up.

b) Mercy Killing. The incident at Goose Green where someone shot a man burning to death to put him out of his misery.

So the "crimes" consisted of something that didn't happen and something that whilst unpleasant would be what any fundamentally decent human being would do in those extreme circumstances.

However, it has been confirmed that:

a) Argentine troops shot men struggling in the water after their helicopter was shot down.
b) Mohammed Ali Seineldin freely admits to shooting a man in the back whilst under a flag of truce, although he claims it was Col H Jones it was in fact Lt James Barry.

Nevertheless, most British commentator on this forum would simply acknowledge that these events could be written off as happening due to the fog of war. No rancour has been expressed at all. The facts are that most outside commentators, indeed I did publish a comment from a neutral observer, would acknowledge that the Falklands War is remarkable for the simple reason that both sides basically obeyed the rules of war.

Panzerknacker
01-29-2009, 06:11 PM
However, it has been confirmed that:

a) Argentine troops shot men struggling in the water after their helicopter was shot down.
b) Mohammed Ali Seineldin freely admits to shooting a man in the back whilst under a flag of truce, although he claims it was Col H Jones it was in fact Lt James Barry.


The helos shooting is a very recurrent one, incidentally I asked you some months ago were you find the information saying that subleutenant Esteban "...cannot control his men"..until this date you have failed to provide an aswer ( and a link preferably)

In regard of the other, well I had heard wild stories in this subforum, but this is the first time some related with Seineldin, again I would ask if you can provide a link or other source backing your statement.

Lone Ranger
01-30-2009, 07:39 AM
Panzon knows Lt Esteban and has already confirmed it.

PK I got the names slightly mixed up, it was Gomez Centurion not Seineldin, in Malvinas, un sentimiento, Seineldin Mohamed. You posted a link yourself

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4983&page=14

And don't ask again, you know they've already been provided.

Panzerknacker
01-30-2009, 03:48 PM
PK I got the names slightly mixed up


Slightly ?, you mixed it up badly



And don't ask again, you know they've already been provided.


I wil ask anything, at any time, at any moment, about any subject, at any member in any topic, but thank you for you suggestion.:cool:

Zulu_Zulu
01-31-2009, 03:19 AM
Fecking hell, this bloke doesn't give up does he, an unusual trait for an Argie!!

Mr Knacker, get it into your head once and for all that a few incidents happened on both sides that were due most likely to confusion. For a full scale hand to hand combat war, the Falklands War was the cleanest in history.

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 03:32 AM
Fecking hell, this bloke doesn't give up does he, an unusual trait for an Argie!!

Mr Knacker, get it into your head once and for all that a few incidents happened on both sides that were due most likely to confusion. For a full scale hand to hand combat war, the Falklands War was the cleanest in history.

Poor loser, syndrome - common among non-cricket playing nations. :army:

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 04:01 AM
Poor loser, syndrome - common among non-cricket playing nations. :army:

Not quite.

The Australian cricket teams of the past couple of decades would have to be the worst losers, and winners, in probably any sport and especially in cricket.

They reversed Churchill's commendable 'magnanimous in victory, defiant in defeat' principle.

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 04:28 AM
Not quite.

The Australian cricket teams of the past couple of decades would have to be the worst losers, and winners, in probably any sport and especially in cricket.

They reversed Churchill's commendable 'magnanimous in victory, defiant in defeat' principle.


Alas, I show my age...I'm such an old-fashioned chap...living in the past! :lol:

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 04:35 AM
Alas, I show my age...I'm such an old-fashioned chap...living in the past! :lol:

I can't blame you.

England used to win Tests in the past. :D

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 04:41 AM
I can't blame you.

England used to win Tests in the past. :D

Yes, when sport was sporting! :lol:

CLR James:



"I never appealed for a decision unless I thought the batsman was out, I never argued with the umpire, I never jeared at a defeated opponent..."

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 04:59 AM
Yes, when sport was sporting! :lol:


Well, I don't want to convert this thread into really vicious bickering which will make the Malvinas opponents look like schoolgirls, but those of us not even a gleam in our fathers' eyes at the time still haven't forgotten Jardine and the Bodyline Series. ;) :D

Dear old Frank Maher, a great lawyer, teacher and all round very nice man who taught me in later years, used to base his first year law lectures at Melbourne University on 'the laws of cricket' to try to explain how law worked. Fortunately I wasn't in his first year classes but a fair few sheilas I knew were, and they had bugger all idea what he was on about. Particularly when he went all soft when recalling some great moments he had witnessed at the MCG, which had bugger all to do with the subject but made him happy in recall. Which just goes to show how cricket helps us all to understand life and law. :D

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 05:15 AM
Well, I don't want to convert this thread into really vicious bickering which will make the Malvinas opponents look like schoolgirls, but those of us not even a gleam in our fathers' eyes at the time still haven't forgotten Jardine and the Bodyline Series. ;) :D


Yes, but ...that was the exception to the rule, and the 'Bodyline' tactic was later banned.



Dear old Frank Maher, a great lawyer, teacher and all round very nice man who taught me in later years, used to base his first year law lectures at Melbourne University on 'the laws of cricket' to try to explain how law worked. Fortunately I wasn't in his first year classes but a fair few sheilas I knew were, and they had bugger all idea what he was on about. Particularly when he went all soft when recalling some great moments he had witnessed at the MCG, which had bugger all to do with the subject but made him happy in recall. Which just goes to show how cricket helps us all to understand life and law. :D

He sounds like a jolly decent , if wistful, chap.

The new Empire has, for some tme now, ben exporting its culture of 'Winners' and 'Losers' such is the power of the media coupled with the wealth generated through advertising.




I don't want to convert this thread into really vicious bickering which will make the Malvinas opponents look like schoolgirls,...

You and I would never sink to that level. :lol:

By the way. Speaking of schoolgirls, I believe the new St Trinian's are rather tasty...
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00409/St_Trinians_409219a.jpg

...and rather sporting:

http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/q-photo-belles-of-st-trinians-games-hockey-new.jpg
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/FiN0mcM0Ev8/St+Trinians+World+Premiere+Arrivals/4o3YVo5Gi0P/Cheryl+Cole

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 05:32 AM
Yes, but ...that was the exception to the rule, and the 'Bodyline' tactic was later banned.

Yeah, and so were landmines.

Doesn't mean they weren't useful. ;)


By the way. Speaking of schoolgirls, I believe the new St Trinian's are rather tasty...

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00409/St_Trinians_409219a.jpg


This may be a rather Anglo thing, but suspender belts and stockings always work for me. On, or off. :D

Although I prefer your and other photographs to Ronald Searle's (a former POW of Nippon) original scratchy drawings of the girls of St Trinian's.

Well do I remember august journals such as Spick 'n Span, which helped us while away time doing nothing in the guard room while guarding nothing from nobody with nothing more threatening than a bayonet frog. I seem to recall expressions such "PHWARRR!!!" and "GEDDALOADOTHIS!!" and 'LOOGADERTITS!!'.

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 05:34 AM
You and I would never sink to that level. :lol:

There is almost no level to which I would not sink. ;)

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 05:47 AM
There is almost no level to which I would not sink. ;)


Okay, Big Boy! :lol:

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 05:50 AM
Okay, Big Boy! :lol:

For a moment there, I thought my wife had stumbled upon this site. :D

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 05:51 AM
Seriously now.


Everybody needs to take account of that and re-read all this topic again from the early pages, I am convinced that it would be a eye opener, and the neutral observer ( side note: the neutral observer is not an image of my alter ego as an SF suggested but the reader who is not involved sentimentally in the war, no british nor argentine) will realize that most of the crimes were commited by the UK.

I'm a neutral observer, who also remembers the development of that stupid conflict and the dismay I and others felt about such a large military enterprise and so much loss of life over some unimportant specks of remote land.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that Argentina started it and everything that happened thereafter was a case of Argentina reaping as it sowed. This was an unfortunate shock to a dictatorship which thought it could get away with a naked land grab to distract attention from internal political problems and which, apparently, even now succeeds in presenting Argentina to Argentinians as the victims of Britain rather than of their own ill-considered aggression.

My perception is that both sides had a few bad moments where some things were done which rightly upset the other side, but none of it was out of the ordinary in war nor really deserving of the attention given in this thread to them being ‘war crimes’.

Compared with WWII actions in which Britain was engaged (Argentina not being a belligerent in that war), the Falklands / Malvinas conflict was, as Zulu Zulu said, the cleanest in history, for things done by and to British forces.

Given Argentina’s conduct towards internal opponents in the same era, I don’t see why much lesser actions, on any brutality scale, by the British engender such outrage in some modern Argentinians. Except to the extent that Galtieri and Co were successful in the old art of creating an external enemy to distract attention from them as the internal enemy.

I think much of the reason that such heat is engendered in some people on both sides of the debate is that it was a war in an era where neither side was used to casualties at the rate incurred in that war. Compared with WWII, the various events in that war would rarely have rated a headline in a newspaper, but it was the biggest and most intense war for both at the time and since.

At the risk of stating the obvious, war is not conducted according to civilian or moral philosophers’ notions of proper social, moral, or legal conduct. It is the very opposite of all those things. War is conducted by people trying to kill other people at the greatest possible rate necessary to win. The concept of ‘war crimes’ is in itself rather nonsensical as war is the greatest mass violent crime humans can commit against other humans. Where is the rationality in outlawing dum dums but allowing artillery?

I don’t see much evidence of war crimes in the Falklands / Malvinas, but I do see evidence of actions which could be interpreted as low level ‘crimes against humanity’ by some Argentine forces against some Falkland Islanders. But, compared with the experiences of civilians in Europe and Asia in WWII as armies rampaged through their areas, it was still quite a modest experience.

I think some people on both sides of this debate would benefit from standing back and contrasting what happened in the Malvinas / Falklands with WWII, and realising that instead of focusing on selective bad events which happen in all wars it was a war which, as Zulu Zulu said, was the cleanest in history.

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 06:13 AM
For a moment there, I thought my wife had stumbled upon this site. :D

Phew!!! :lol:

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 06:41 AM
Phew!!! :lol:

Yeah!

Talk about feeling a bullet snap by your head! :D

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 07:25 AM
Yeah!

Talk about feeling a bullet snap by your head! :D

:lol: :lol: :lol:

pdf27
01-31-2009, 07:56 AM
Gentlemen, I've warned you before. Serious discussion ONLY in this forum, banter, etc. should be taken to off-topic. Any more and I lock this thread for 24 hours again.

32Bravo
01-31-2009, 08:58 AM
Gentlemen, I've warned you before. Serious discussion ONLY in this forum, banter, etc. should be taken to off-topic. Any more and I lock this thread for 24 hours again.

One has to take the topic seriously in order to have a serious discussion. Frankly, I have difficulty with that.

Rising Sun*
01-31-2009, 09:16 AM
Gentlemen, I've warned you before. Serious discussion ONLY in this forum, banter, etc. should be taken to off-topic. Any more and I lock this thread for 24 hours again.

Serious and vigorous discussion in threads on this topic area tends to get them locked.

I thought it useful to lighten it up a bit, before it went into a predictable shitfight.

Is there a happy medium, where vitriol and humour are excluded?

Apparently not, so I think it's best to close this thread for good, thus avoiding any further shitfights, vitriol, humour, and, most of all, discussion.

pdf27
01-31-2009, 10:10 AM
There has been some truly excellent, mature discussion in "The air war", so it is possible. Unfortunately it seems to require a level of maturity rarely present in this forum :(

Rising Sun*
02-03-2009, 05:50 AM
Now that everyone has had time to calm down after an afternoon nap or three, this thread is reopened for what will probably be the last time.

But it could get shut down any time anybody gets stroppy, and without warning, and permanently. So behave.

It could get also get shut down if people continue to plough the same furrows which are now close to penetrating the earth's volcanic crust after endless ploughing without any seeds of new life being sown.

Some original discussion please, or the boredom meter will kill this thread.

As could complaints or discussion about moderation of this thread.