MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malvinas war veterans will take their torture case to an international court
Malvinas war veterans who had claimed to be victims of abuse and torture by their superior officers during the Falklands conflict of 1982 will take the matter up with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the CECIM centre of former soldiers from La Plata announced. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWonderful justice for the FALKLAND vets,Rossi says, you won't get justice in Argentina go and waste time at (IACHR) or words to that effect. I ask the question, ” Why has it taken 33 years to tell them to go to the ( IACHA )?” Is this how Argentinian justice works, kick the can down the road and hope most of the Vets die off in the meantime? Comments from sensible Argentinians please.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1 golfcronie
Mar 05th, 2015 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree. Why can't Argentina investigate this and bring those that are guilty to justice?
Surely every Argentine would want to know the truth, wouldn't they?
Why did the Argentine Supreme Court dismiss the case? The Argentine veterans of the Falklands War could probably produce witnesses from the Falkland Islands population AND from the British forces who liberated them.
So why? Why make these poor men waste their time and money going to a nothing entity?
It would be better for them to take their case to the Haig, but I'm not sure if individuals are allowed to do that, or whether it has to be a country. At least at the Haig they'd get a fair hearing. It's doubtful they'll get on at this Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), and even if they do this body has NO POWER to enforce any of it's rulings, on the UN and the International War Crimes tribunal can do that.
But I suppose the 'people' of Argentina don't care about these men (remember how they spit on them and called them cowards after the war?), and it is a painful reminder to them that a) Argentina isn' the 'perfect' country they're always claiming it to be, and b) a stark reminder of just how badly they lost the war, c) that these crimes were committed by Argentines against Argentines.
The Argentine justice system should hang its head in shame for abandoning these men.
#2
Mar 05th, 2015 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know you mean The Hague.
Haig is a scotch which the argie veterans may drink too sooth being argies.
@3 Porto Margaret
Mar 05th, 2015 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for correcting me. Yes I mean the Hague. Got confused between that and General Haig in WW1. ;)
Our Veterans; forced to fight a war that should have never happened, then sent to fight with no proper means. Once the fog of war was over, they were covered as if they were a shame. Mistreated and humiliated by their own officials, and now denied basic justice.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nevertheless, we have to hear over and over the `malvinas´ BS song.
Several apologies must be given for what happened in 1982. One of them is for our Veterans.
@5. I wonder. Surely the courageous, selfless argie 'veterans', or conscripts as they were then, would sally out, charge, fight and, possibly, die in order to achieve the objectives of the Father or Mother -less land? Will there be an investigation to determine which of these 'veterans', recently found, due to their attacks on Top Gear personnel, to be in their twenties, actually went to the Falkland Islands?
Mar 05th, 2015 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So they were 'then sent to fight with no proper means'. Is that right? Do tell us what 'means' they didn't have. There were more than 10,000 of them or we couldn't have captured more than 11,000, right? Britain only sent 10,000. There were over 100 argie combat aircraft. And Britain started with 20 Harriers. Shame the argie 'navy' ran so quickly. Perhaps the RN could have sunk the lot!
Here are some important apologies you could make. For invading Islands that have NEVER 'belonged' to you. For occupying those same Islands. For starting a war. To the 255 British servicemen that you killed and their families and comrades. To the 775 British servicemen that were wounded and their families. To the 3 Falkland Islanders that you killed, through your war crimes, and their families. To the people of the Falkland Islands and Britain for continuing illegal 'claims'. For lying to the world and the United Nations for more than 50 years. http://www.falklandshistory.com/false-falklands-history.pdf
For not paying for the removal of the munitions you left behind.
For not shooting your war criminals.
It goes way beyond 1982. Is there anything disgusting your 'country' hasn't done?
5
Mar 05th, 2015 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Our Veterans; forced to fight a war that should have never happened, then sent to fight with no proper means. Once the fog of war was over, they were covered as if they were a shame. Mistreated and humiliated by their own officials, and now denied basic justice.”
Exactly, totally agree.
And we have to add all the war crimes committed by british troops in the islands that the british justice, of course, never punished.
Falklands 'war crimes' claim: MoD investigates allegations that Paras shot Argentine prisoners
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/falklands-war-crimes-claim-mod-investigates-allegations-that-paras-shot-argentine-prisoners-1540755.html
Fresh claims of atrocities in Falklands war
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/falklands-war-crimes-claim-mod-investigates-allegations-that-paras-shot-argentine-prisoners-1540755.html
WE ARE ALL TORTURED.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have always thought that this court was a great step, after the shameful one of the decade of the nineties, which was actually adict to executive power, however in the last months, the behaviour of the court has been really pathetic.
I couldn't believe it when i saw on tv that the court decided to dismisss the denounce for tortures made by our soldiers. I couldn't accept that a court like this one which had admirable resolutions that defended human rights, now decided to reject a terrible denounce for tortures applied to soldiers in our national territory, with this resolution, the soldierss are tortured once and again, because there is no justice for them and for all of us, then we still can't turn the page.
I really hope that the justice that the couldn't find here, they can find it in the IACHR, it's too sad to say this, because it soposes that we should find justice in our own country, due to the atrocities against the soldiers were committed in an argentine territory, but unfortunatelly reality not always is what we expected.
Whilst this does not look good for the Argentinian legal/political system, it could work for the veterans, it may well be easier for the IACHR in Washington to get evidence from the British and Islanders, than any court/process in Argentina could.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Paulito
Only good Argy, is a Dead Argy.
@8 axel arg
It should be possible to prosecute under British law, as the offences actually took place on British Territory, is the reality.
@8 Axel.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You contradict yourself.
You want closure and yet will not accept the invasion was illegal and your country still carries on with its illegitimate claims.
The first step in closure is to accept the truth .
Try it ..
Frankly, I don't give a damn about how many argies were abused or even shot by their so called officers.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was a pity that The Blessed Margaret listened to Raygun Ronnie Reagan when he bleated 'leave the arseholes some honour' (or honor as the yanks spell it).
She should have obliterated all the military installations and road and rail infrastructure throughout TDC AND the Casa Rosada as a matter of course.
Missed opportunity that, to which Escueda was the only one to realise how close TDC had come to utter destruction while all the citizens were bragging how 'they nearly won'.
The argies just NEVER get it do they?
This goes on to show the quality of the Argentine rank and file, who did not know much about fighting wars against another army but showed much courage at kidnapping and torturing unarmed citizens and kept doing the same against the poor conscripts they massed in the islands.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The supreme court decision is despicable and shows where the priorities lay for a good part of the judiciary: not on people's side.
Many of those posting here fail to realize or conveniently omit that our country, as any other, contains the good and the bad--the rich and the poor--the oppressed and the oppressors. Fortunato Galtieri was one thing, Néstor Kirchner was another.
The Independent is hardly the best source of information.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 032 years have gone by. And it wasnt a war, it was more of a skirmish. Time to move on.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 033 years later ? I smell subsidy
Mar 05th, 2015 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina had better rifles and more powerful artillery.
Mar 05th, 2015 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They had tons of ammunition left but lacked heart cos they knew Falklands were and always will be British.
Huh ? No . Otto Melara ( howitzer 105 mm , range 10.2 km vs 17 km British cannons )
Mar 05th, 2015 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7. Claims from 1992. Is that the best you can do? Do you have anything other than 23 year old claims?
Mar 05th, 2015 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7
Mar 05th, 2015 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0War isn't meant to be pleasant, don't forget you left your soldiers there to freeze to death when the war was over and it was left to the islanders and British soldiers to feed and clothe them for months afterwards.That is how much you cared about your people.
Once again Paul you should take a good long look introspectively before you point the finger at others. Moral of the story, make sure you can fight before you start one.
UK had 105 mm light guns
Mar 06th, 2015 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines had 105 mm guns and 155 mm guns.
@ 6
Mar 06th, 2015 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lurk some more and you will see what I mean.
I have clearly stated that Arg should issue and apology to the islanders, to the UK, to the war veterans, and ... to all us Argentinians for being lied year after year.
Our veterans were sent to fight a war with NO preparation at all. Don´t just stick to the numbers, that´s a fool´s approach. More does not mean better.
@ 11
Absurd. And shameful from you if you actually think like that. Fortunately the UK´s high ranks were way better than you. And ages beyond anything Arg. had at the same level.
I can only salute the honorable way the Brits behaved down there.
@ 12
I agree.
#17
Mar 06th, 2015 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Huh ? No.
The Argentine Army deployed two artillery groups with OTO Melara Mod 56 105 mm guns and later their C-130s airlifted four CITER L33 Guns 155 mm in order to repel the British naval gun fire.
The range of these guns is 20km...which outranges the British 105mm guns.
@ 22
Mar 06th, 2015 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting. Sources vary from two to four 155mm pieces.
PUGOL-H.
Mar 06th, 2015 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the atrocities were committed on a territorry claimed by argentina, then we must claim for justice in our own country, anyway i don't ignore the controversies that involve the question of the sovereignty, but as an argentine citizen, i defend the principles of our constitution.
CALEDON.
I have never said that the invasion was legal, in fact i have never defended it. Respecting our claim, if you think that only our side makes too partial lectures about the historical and the legals aspects of this conflict, then you are the one who has serious problems with the acceptation of the truth. I have said in planty of opportunities in mercopress what both sides omit.
@20 & @ 22
Mar 06th, 2015 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes and No . There were 4 , 155 mm deployed to the islands , 3 were used only ( very low in ammo , personnel and vehicles) True ! the range is 20 km “ with special ammunition only ” . GA3 & GA4 Field Artillery Units were deployed to the Islands ( both with 105 mm Otto Melara ) and the GADA 601 & 602 from Mar del Plata , antiaircraft units .
The fucked up thing that both GA3 and GA4 were deployed without vehicles and counter battery radar so to move Artillery pieces by hand is a little complicated . GA3 run out of ammo couple of weeks before rendition and the 155 mm is a Field Artillery piece NOT design to shoot moving targets Mr Clyde ... just saying :-)
@ 25
Mar 06th, 2015 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Artillero601
Huh, no, 25km range with special ammo, 20km was the norm.
Mar 06th, 2015 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just shows how brilliant those Brit soldiers were with their 17km range light guns.
@26 welcome !
Mar 06th, 2015 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@27 No , I can pull the regs to show you . We were brilliant too ! according to Sandy Woodward in his book “ 100 days ”
Don't hesitate! Do it. I am interested in your evidence based opinion.
Mar 06th, 2015 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sandy probably had his reasons but as for you, remember - “self praise is no recommendation”.
You were heavily beaten less than 500 miles from your own homeland and still you boast how brilliant you were. God preserve us.
You are missing the point and there is nothing I can do to remove the hate that you have in you but allow me to say that the fucking SOFMA or CITER doesn't shoot more than 20 km !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 06th, 2015 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@24 axel arg
Mar 06th, 2015 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“a territory claimed by argentina”, - that’s better, for a moment there I thought you said “in an argentine territory”.
Justice should be served in Argentina I agree, but is that going to happen.
You have every right to defend your constitution and claim, as we will defend ours.
@25 Artillero 601
Saludos Hermano
As the original statement was “more powerful artillery”, surely the question is what weight of shell it can deliver, rather than how far? :)
So, no “regs” and no evidence.
Mar 06th, 2015 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Instead some foul language and a spurious accusation about hate.
I can almost see you stamping your little foot.
Foul language on the 155 mm , not on you sir ! Regs ? yes on a pdf format . Do you have an email ? or do I deliver in person ? Waterfront at 2 pm ? I buy ... lol
Mar 06th, 2015 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31
Mar 06th, 2015 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They had counter battery radar , what it means is when you shoot , your position is detected by the enemy right away . When is detected , you have to move , not having vehicles to move and the Artillery piece well buried in the mud , the only option was to “ disassemble” the whole thing by hand , pick it up and put it together somewhere else . Not having the appropriate range , forced them to move constantly , plus the Naval fire , air attacks , etc
@ 16 Englander
Mar 06th, 2015 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The argies had their FN FAL's but the majority were full auto. If you have ever shot one you know one thing about them: after the first shot you can't hit a fucking thing that you are aiming at. All they do is burn their ammunition as the yanks found out in Vietnam with their Colt full auto's IN 5.56 mm ~ 55,000 rounds per confirmed kill.
@ 21 SebaSvtz
I know you are a reasonable man for those who post on here from TDC, BUT you must remember I am a Brit and Argentina killed many of our people for nothing other than winding up the citizens to avoid dealing with the problems.
You are wrong about the Senior Officers: they wanted to finish the threat once and for all and could have done it without major difficulty given the supply lines were re-established. We should have bombed and strafed your country as you did with the Falklands only stopping when you were at the level of the dark ages and of no threat to the UK or other SA countries for many, many years to come.
You do realise that the Junta were preparing to invade Chile, don't you?
And where are we know? Putrid-Jelly confirmed that if it were not for the Falklands armed forces TDC would have taken 'them back' though they were never yours in the first place. Timmerturd is constantly telling anybody who will listen to his lies a complete fairy-tale, the truth doesn't even come anywhere in it.
The peaceful people of the Falklands have to put up with all this nonsense and I have no doubt some of them, especially those who were terrorised by your cowardly surprise attack and lived in fear of their lives, are reliving their experiences when they learn of Chinese fighter jets and all the other warmongering YOUR country still gets up to.
So, a bit of advice: get REAL with the situation and if you don't like my posts DON'T READ THEM!
None of this would have come about if The Blessed Margaret and The General Staff had have ignored Reagan.
@35
Mar 06th, 2015 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You do realise that the Junta were preparing to invade Chile, don't you?”
In 1978 due to the “ Beagle ” dispute ”
@34 Artillero 602
Mar 06th, 2015 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK understood, but this goes to the effectiveness of the pieces.
I still wonder what weight of shells could be delivered, the greater range would suggest lighter rounds or bigger charges.
After all if you are in range and it is coming your way, how big it is, is going to make the difference.
So, still no evidence to back up your claims which is a shame.
Mar 06th, 2015 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Those despicable Brits for fighting back and that Terrible mud that only bogged down the Argentinians
Must have been glorious British mud and of course it was.....then, now and forever.
Did you send me your email beautiful ?
Mar 06th, 2015 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did you send me yours?
Mar 06th, 2015 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can understand your reluctance so how about a link?
Beautiful? Are you on drugs?
If you read my post , I stated that the regs are on PDF format . Me drugs ? No, never !!
Mar 06th, 2015 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How do you know my foot is small ? I may be 6' 2“ tall and use #13 for shoes
Let's change the pace a little , when you buy a new car and it says on the sticker ” 20 mpg” Do you really believe that ? because all you are doing is pulling info from Wikipedia . I actually shot a 155 mm . Did you ?
and you are absolutely right , the Islands will continue being British and the 155mm doesn't shoot more than 20 km I don't care if Napoleon does it !!!
Funny when you started this off you only mentioned the Argentinians had :-
Mar 06th, 2015 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Otto Melara howitzers 105 mm , range 10.2 km ”
You didn't mention the 155mm beast of a gun, range 20km or 25 km.....the one you claim to have fired ....albeit not very well.
Those well trained Brit troops with their 105mm light guns, range 17 km obviously did a great job.
Wikipedia?
Napoleon?
You sure you're not on drugs?
You sure you're not on drugs? Positive !!!
Mar 06th, 2015 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Those well trained Brit troops with their 105mm light guns, range 17 km obviously did a great job.” No doubt about it
You didn't mention the 155mm beast of a gun, range 20km or 25 km.....the one you claim to have fired ....albeit not very well. No sunshine !!! I can put a 155 mm 20 km away on somebody's ass on a single shot !! Guaranteed
Only if there is no mud, you have special ammunition and nobody is firing back.
Mar 06th, 2015 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently.
hahahaha !!!
Mar 06th, 2015 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So it is fair to say that whilst the Argys had “heavier” battlefield artillery deployed in theatre, for the various reason described above, it was somewhat less effective than the British Arty.
Mar 07th, 2015 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Certainly less effective than it could have been, had it been supplied and equipped as it should have been.
Cedron @7: I was sat in the Upland Goose about 7 years ago when an RG radio programme was recording an interview with some RG Vets. I listened intently to what was being said and smiled inwardly. When I went up for another Guinness one of the reporters asked me if I was local and then if I spoke Spanish. I explained that I understood very well what had been said; she turned to her colleague and said, “We can't use any of this.”
Mar 09th, 2015 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0“So how did the English treat you, when you were captured?”
“They were really good, much better than our own officers. They fed us, gave us clothes, kept us warm. They were really good.”
I had a chat with another guy; his family emigrated in the 50s from Scotland. He was 17 throughout the War. One of his conscript friends had desserted Mt Longdon and gone into town to beg for food. Upon his return, his officer stripped him of uniform and staked him out on the hill for two days as punishment. This was the middle of winter.
There numerous bodies missing - many more “soldiers” died and have never been accounted for, at the hands of their senior ranks. They were taken away and burned, to destroy the evidence - these were RG conscripts.
There have been no accounts of British soldiers killing prisoners, none of mistreatment either.
The RG soldiers on Sapper Hill ran off when they heard the Gurkhas were approaching - they had been told they would be killed and eaten! By their senior ranks.
These are reasons as to why the RGs lost. They were not an army, the war was a great way to get rid of men from dissident , agitator families.
One day RGland will wake up to the fact that they have been hugely ripped off by their own government at every turn.
PDG0192: Your claim that Argentine officers killed their own men are wrong, nothing but wartime myths coming from the Falkland Islanders, like the claim they witnessed bodies being incinerated or being dump out at sea in an effort on the part of the Argentines to conceal their losses during the 2 April seaborne landings and Battle for Government House. No mother, daughter, wife, brother, sister, son, daughter, uncle or auntie would remain quiet about their loved ones (their names) not appearing on the Malvinas War Memorial in downtown Buenos Aires. Argentine talkback radios would be flooded with calls denouncing this military cover up and Argentine journalists would have a field day writing stories about poor kids from the interior dying for the Malvinas cause and their sacrfices being swept under the carpet. Also the claim that Argentine officers and NCOs tortured the conscipts are rubbish. These were field punishments no different from the rough treatment metted out to insubordinate soldiers in the French Foreign Legion and Australian and New Zealand Armies in the Vietnam War.
Mar 10th, 2015 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0@24 I have no problem with accepting the truth.So tell me what you base your “claim” on and where the UK has deliberately lied.
Mar 10th, 2015 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 35 ChrisR
Mar 10th, 2015 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry if I sounded rude; nothing against your comment, I mostly agree.
@48, Alberto, putting a name on a wall doesn't show how the man died. If things were as good as you claim can you explain why so many graves at Darwin don't have names on? Why are they only “a soldier known only to God”? I find your defence of the “field punishments” meted out to insubordinate soldiers laughable, in the extreme. Why would a man have to go seven miles into town, begging for food, from the people he has invaded? Those men were starving and hungry, and the Buso Tactico guys closer to town were doing ok, they had plenty of food. Citing the Vietnam War as your justification would be like me using the WWI way of dealing with PTSD; a firing squad!
Mar 10th, 2015 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any self-respecting armed service that starves and mistreats its men by punishing them for trying to do something about it for his friends is asking for a kicking. It's not like he didn't go back, he did.
Why else would your “country” take the senior officer to court for stripping the man and staking him out on the hill? That's what happened in RGland four years ago.
You were unable to put names to the bodies - they had no identification. That alone is reprehensible and just putting a man's name on a wall does not explain how or where he died.
Face the facts.
@ 50 SebaSvtz
Mar 10th, 2015 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for your comments: I know you to be a genuine contributor but was really blindsided.
:o)
PDG0192: Unfortunately the bitter British paratroopers buried the dead Argentines on Mount Longdon without their dog-tags. I can only imagine they did the same thing at Goose Green and Wireless Ridge. The British marines, on the other hand, proved to be decent soldiers that ensured the Argentine dead on Mount Harriet and Two Sisters were buried with their dog-tags. Also no one in the Argentine military, serving and past members have been taken to court for supposedly torturing their men in the Malvinas. These allegations ran in brick wall a couple of years ago, thanks to former conscripts that jumped to the defence of their former officers and NCOs and the fact that the chief prosecutor, Pablo Vasel was accused of paying former conscripts to speak badly about their platoon and company commanders. For several decades former conscripts affiliated to anarcho-communist veteran groups like CECIM have presented the field punishment cases as torture sessions to the Argentine media, and have claimed that they were left to starve on Mount Longdon when this is clearly untrue. Put yourself in the boots of Lieutenant Juan Domingo Baldini. He was typical Argentine lieutenant that proved to be an officer and a gentleman. He had around 40 conscripts under his command, 3 or 5 he had to brutally discipline for going AWOL after the British landings at San Carlos in order to steal food from the food depots and Islanders. Baldini took his platoon twice out of Mount Longdon in order for his men to be able to get a hot shower and in the last 2 weeks allowed them to eat on a daily basis tinned meat provisions and even had a group detailed to shoot and butcher sheep for his men. (Source: Battle of Mount Longdon, Wikipedia)
Mar 10th, 2015 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@53: Alberto, there are 200 or so graves at Darwin with the epitaph, “A soldier known only to God”. Are you telling me that the Paras killed 200 on Mt Longdon? It is not the way of the British Armed Services to bury the dead in unmarked and un-named graves. There is a common courtesy on the battlefield. Having served for 22 years, I speak with some knowledge and experience.
Mar 10th, 2015 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are incorrect in stating that no past or serving RG military have been taken to court - the RG judicial system carried out 74 court proceedings approximately four or five years ago, as was reported by your media and the BBC.
The fact is that most of the conscripts who were killed had no identification.
The conscripts didn't steal if they could beg.
Its odd that many of the ex-conscripts I have spoken to, speak very highly of the British military and their treatment as prisoners. They had no axe to grind, they were merely chatting to me. I don't doubt that there were good officers and SNCOs, not everybody is bad, but it would be remarkable if all of them were good.
You say you “can only imagine”, but, rest assured, I speak from experience - they did not have dogtags.
By the way, what is this “Malvinas” you write about?
PDG0192: Unfortunately the British troops didn't alway stick to the rules. Recently there was a push for Corporal Stewart McLaughlin of 3 PARA to be awarded posthumously the Victoria Cross, but that move fell flat on it's face, no doubt because severed ears from the Argentine dead were found in his belongings. Several British paratroopers posed for the cameras with the Argentine dead on Mount Longdon and played with and mutilated their bodies just like Private David Parr from D Company 2 PARA did at Goose Green. And I stand firm behind my claim that not a single Argentine officer or NCO, both currently serving or past member, has been formally charged with “crimes against humanity” causing the chief prosecutor, Pablo Vassel in April 2014 to lament:
Mar 11th, 2015 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0“For over two years we've been waiting for a final say on behalf of the courts ... There are some types of crimes that no state should allow to go unpunished, no matter how much time has passed, such as the crimes of the dictatorship. Last year Germany sentenced a 98-year-old corporal for his role in the concentration camps in one of the Eastern European countries occupied by Nazi Germany. It didn't take into account his age or rank.” (Source: The Battle of Mount Longdon, Wikipedia)
Bertorelli? They sell ice cream, don't they?
Mar 11th, 2015 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!