MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands war new book says invading Argentines faced fierce defense from Marines and suffered heavy casualties
A new book has challenged the official account of the Falklands War, including allegedly one of the worst kept secrets of the conflict. The First Casualty, written by noted military historian Ricky Phillips, reveals that, far from surrendering without a fight when the Argentines invaded the Islands in April 1982, a detachment of Royal Marines battled for more than two hours and killed around 100 of their opponents. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAnd here's the youtube video documenting the heroic defence...
Jul 24th, 2017 - 06:49 am - Link - Report abuse -12https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI
British pluck
Jul 24th, 2017 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse +9https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNk4SMN6t3A
Here's just one of the many reasons defence was - and is - necessary
Jul 24th, 2017 - 07:22 am - Link - Report abuse +7http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/8410550.Friendship_forged_in_Falklands_War_endures_for_Newport_man/
I wonder if the Argies have been toilet trained yet? ;-D
The horses arse and the erect member will be along direktly to deny his assertions.
Jul 24th, 2017 - 07:25 am - Link - Report abuse +3Nice one Ricky Phillips.
Jul 24th, 2017 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse +7The Falklands war would not have occurred if it had not been for the Argentinians creating a false sovereignty grievance.
Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina
Where did the crap story about the Marines not fighting and being caught napping come from! Dumbo! It was public knowledge that they went onto alert late afternoon April 1st and were in defence positions that evening along with the local volunteer Defence Force, several hours before any landings, and that they put a shoulder fired missile into an Amtrac which then started smoking and nobody was seen to have got out and killed at least one Arg Special forces behind Govt House and they hit and suspect sank a small landing craft with similar missile.
Jul 24th, 2017 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse +4All this and more has been public knowledge ever since April 2nd 1982!!!!!!!
What a dumb stupid story and author!
Great work by Ricky Phillips. Just shows that Argentina cannot be trusted, they also cling to the lie they sank the Invincible even though she was scrapped in Turkey recently.
Jul 24th, 2017 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse +7I am honoured to have already read the book and it gives a fair and balanced accounting from all 3 sides, The RMs, The Islanders and the argentinians. The RMs should officially be recognized for their bravery in defence of the Islands
Jul 24th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +5I sneaked out of the office and watched HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible leave Portsmouth harbour and then a few weeks later, I sneaked out again and watched them both return. The only damage I could see was that they were both a bit salt stained. The Argentines just can't accept that they didn't sink HMS Invincible (three times at least, to the best of my memory). Perhaps if they could have been there for the victorious homecoming, it might shake them up a bit. It was the same with the Canberra. When Argentine PoWs were taken onto the Canberra, they couldn't accept that it was that ship because they “knew” that it had been sunk. Devilish cunning of the British to rebuild so many ships, way off in the South Atlantic, in such a short time, eh?
Jul 24th, 2017 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +6H J C
Jul 24th, 2017 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Did you work in or close to the dockyard in Pompey? I live in PO4 close to Albert Road.
Ricky Phillips es un reconocido facebookero full time que se dedica a armar historias antiargentinas en base a mentiras comprobadas, esta vez consiguió financiamiento para editar este libro en base a 2 o 3 rumores escritos ya en el año 1984 nunca comprobados.
Jul 24th, 2017 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -12Ah Tomas, already banned on twitter and facebook and having to use fakes to stalk Ricky, its actions like these that keep the Islanders revoltion for anything argie
Jul 24th, 2017 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +7So we know Tomas Morando hasn't read it then. Phillips does present both sides to the story.
Jul 24th, 2017 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jul 24th, 2017 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -8What《 “both sides to the story”》 does Mr. Phillips present...?
Are you telling us that there is any truth about those 100 Argie deaths...?
Or is it just your usual Engrish way of masking lies by saying something that means nothing...?
Tomás Morado
Jul 24th, 2017 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Le recuerdo que el idioma aquí, por orden de Mercopress, es INGLES.
(I remind you that the language here, by order of Mercopress, is ENGLISH)
Please have the courtesy to repeat your post in English as many of the contributors here here do not understand your BASURA(rubbish)!
Yo escribo en mi idioma, si no les gusta echenme como lo hicieron de Twitter y Facebook (Grant Dixit) :)
Jul 24th, 2017 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Despite the serial liar and internet troll Tomas Morando trolling the conversation thread - nothing new there from those that know this lunatic - the only person worth answering is “Islander1”. As a Falkland Islander you will know exactly...sadly, as I have found out, the “Oh well, WE know and that's what's important” idea is limited to 3,000 Falkland Islanders. Nobody else knows! This is the book of the Royal Marines BY the Royal Marines and it tels everyone else. I'm glad you know but trust me, this isn't the first time...it isn't even the 100th time I've had this conversation...NOBODY ELSE KNOWS!
Jul 24th, 2017 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Now, if you ask those amazing men who fought to defend your country on April 2nd, to a man they will back me on their own story...I'm very far from stupid. Indeed I'm the first person in 35 years to ever question what he rest of the world was told.
Obviously you haven't read it either Think. Within Mr. Phillips' pages he presents the varying accounts of both the British and the Argentines that he has interviewed. The accounts do not always line up and Mr. Phillips recognises and highlights those discrepancies. He has his opinions but by seeing both perspectives the reader is able to form his/her own. I certainly have mine and in the instances that he refers too I believe that the jury is still out. Once upon a year, a long, long, time ago, I studied and taught the process and techniques of witness interviewing and evidence gathering. Overall, I found that memories could not be relied upon. But that is just my opinion.
Jul 24th, 2017 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +6That said, I doubt that the junta were honest about the numbers killed but 100? Unlikely. Dozen or so probably. Maybe one day we'll find out through the wonders of DNA.
My “Engrish way”? Masking the truth seems to be ingrained in Argie DNA
Mr. T. Moron
Jul 24th, 2017 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +6The rule about posting here are that it should be in English. If you wish to use Spanish, then send it to the Spanish language Mercopress.
Think
He says that he has interviewed Royal Marines AND Argentine soldiers which, by any fair consideration means“both sides”
Do you have any privileged information that contradicts this ?
“Or is it just your usual Engrish way of masking lies by saying something that means nothing...?”
Argentine forces sank HMS Invincible, Canberra, QE 2 and God knows what else including half our air force.
Coming from a nation of consummate liars you have great sense of humour.
Geeeeeee....., lad...
Jul 24th, 2017 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -7The Argie Malvinistas could certainly learn one or three things from you way of twisting each and every historical fact the Engrish way...
Let me have a shot at it...:
.............................................《“That said, I doubt that Westminster was honest about the number of ships sunk... Six...? Unlikely... Dozen or so probably.... Maybe one day we'll find out through the wonders of Time Travel...”》
Naehhhhhhhhh....:-(
Sorry, Argie man speaks in riddles.
Jul 24th, 2017 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@gordo1 I worked alongside the Royal Navy at a certain establishment in Gosport at the time (just think of a barracks near the sea front and you'll know which one). I was skinny enough to be able to squeeze through the fence bars and make my way to the seafront close to the ferry terminal to watch the departures and arrivals (my waistline is now far too big to repeat that feat!). The bit I enjoyed the most about the return was the fly past by a brace of F4 Phantoms. They came in low and slow over the ships, headed to Portsdown hill, broke away in opposite directions. A couple of minutes later, they came down low and very fast over the ships with afterburners on full blast. Extremely noisy and very scary to the general populace but thankfully, where I grew up in the RAF, these aircraft were frequent visitors so the noise didn't bother me unduly. Still, great fun though!
Jul 24th, 2017 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1HughJuanCoeurs
Jul 25th, 2017 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn't in the UK in 1982 so I didn't have the pleasure of of seeing the triumphant return to Pompey - it must have been quite a sight!
So let me put this another way Think. By chance, actually not so much chance, I have managed to put Mr. Phillips in conversation with Sir Lawrence Freedman who, I can assure, is very cynical about any 100, although he accepts that Argentina undoubtedly lied about the true numbers. Mr. Phillips is now in a position of having to convince Sir L - not an easy task as the good knight wrote the official history of the Falklands War. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of that debate.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse +6In the meantime I remain cynical. As for ships? Not even scheming Argies could hide the loss of hardware that big. Bodies are easy, ships? Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jul 25th, 2017 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse -5Bodies are easy...huhhh?
Let me have a shot at it...:
《“Don El Think from Chubutshire who..., I can assure you..., is very cynical about anything..., although he accepts that the United Kingdom undoubtedly lied about the true number of casualities from the Sir Galahad attack... it being 317 killed Royal Marines..., not mere 48...
You are now in a position of having to convince Don T of the contrary....
Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........
- It'll be interesting to see what else you can ”contribute” to this stupid debate about a book full of lies about a Malvinas War episode..., written by an Engrishman to get 10£ out of each brainwashed Anglo Turnip out there....
How many mothers do we have in British Squares crying out for information about their 'lost' boys? None.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse +2With every comment, you merely confirm your biases and the fact that you haven't read it Think. Until you do, you are hardly in a position to comment.
I note that Prof. Tony Pollard of Glasgow University (Conflict History & Archaeology) is a fan and prepared to recommend this book to his students and I rather suspect that it'll cause a stir, not least in Argentina.
Do I agree with the figures? No. Some assumptions there but Ricky Phillips argues his case very well, and with the full knowledge of his Argentine contributors.I'm rather more impressed than I thought I'd be. I suspect Lawrence Freedman may be too. If he is, this story could run and run.
Maybe a movie? Wouldn't that be fun?
As for you Think, you are beyond convincing. You are a Malvinista (1st generation too) and Malvinism is a religion. Hard facts are irrelevant to Malvinists; just faith. Zealots all of you. We do not need to convince you, all that has to happen is that the people of Argentina that are capable of seeing past the fug of indoctrination, start to ask questions. That will be enough.
Now get back into your hole Think, my contributions are here are done, all but for one last comment - the Book is worth the £25.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jul 25th, 2017 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse -3How many mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, sweethearts, grandfathers, grandmothers or whatever. do we have in Argentinean Squares crying out for information about their 'lost' boys in Malvinas...? None....
And if there is ONE thing we are good down here... it is to cry out for our Desaparecidos..., laddie
With every comment, you merely confirm your Anglo biased brainwash about foreign countries and your complete lack of knowledge about anything South American...
Think gets it wrong again.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse +4Royal Marines on Sir Galahad!!!!
I'm sure the Welsh Guards would be surprised to hear, although probably not offended to learn that they were in fact Royal Marines.
As for the 100+ Argentine fatalities on 2nd April 1982 I have to admit I would be surprised but then, like Think I haven't read the book yet so, again unlike Think I am unable to give a definite opinion.
It would, of course be relatively easy for Argentina to hide the true figures after all the British have managed to hide the FACT that HMS Invincible was sunk on at least three occasions during the war and that HMS Hermes had to be towed to Caracas (?) after being badly damaged by a torpedo launched from a Pucara.
Ruben O Moro is alive and well (presumably) and living in Argentina
@Think
Jul 25th, 2017 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse +4There seem to be plenty of people complaining they don't know where their sons, brothers etc are buried because they were never identified, though hopefully there will be less of them soon.
Were no members of the armed forces among the disappeared?
Also how is it that estimates of the number of people killed by the military dictatorship vary so widely?
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.......
Jul 25th, 2017 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse -4The Anglos are out in force today... trying hard to justify a bunch of lies ...
Not unusual... the only sane Anglo comment on the topic is the one from Mr. Islander1...
Don't be ridiculous, Think, you are the one who sounds craziest on here, saying that a bunch of ships could have been sunk without anyone noticing.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I was asking a serious question. Like Roger I find 100 dead soldiers implausible - though I haven't read the book - but it's not obvious to me that the Junta couldn't have hidden some extra deaths if they wanted to, given that they had disappeared and killed so many civilians already.
If it IS obvious to you, then please explain why instead of giving obviously silly comparisons that aren't convincing anyone.
Mr..Roger Lorton...
Jul 25th, 2017 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -3You say:
《“The Book is worth the £25.”》
I say...:
The book price is £9.99 on Kindle...
What kind of old git buys paper books nowadays anyhow...?
Such archaic impractical contraptions are just worth £0.09............ as kindle...
Mr. DemonTree...
As usual you don't pay attention when reading me posts...
Please notice..., as Mr. Lorton did... the loOOOng 《“Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh's”》on them...
Quite “Self Explanatory”... I Think...
And still...
The only sane comment about this little paper pile of lies is Kelper islander1s'....
Maybe because he was there...and he lives there...
It's not serious, too much beer Rock Phillips.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Think, you still didn't answer the question. How do we know there weren't more deaths than they claimed?
Jul 25th, 2017 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The same way we know there weren't 317 British deaths in the Sir Galahad attack...
Jul 25th, 2017 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Mr Demon Tree: We know history by serious historians. With 100 Argentinian casualties would inevitably lead to many British casualties and that did not happen.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -5OK, Fair enough .......... I'm miffed about the Kindle thing. Bought it from the original seller. Hey ho, such is the way of life.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Glad to see that you are agreeing with Islander 1 Think although I am surprised as Islander 1 mentions both the Amtrack and the landing craft. Mr. Phillips contention is that there were 28 troops in the Amtrack and 40 in the landing craft. There's 68 of his 100.
Back in 1984 an islander's Diary was published - John Smith. Interesting entry for April 21, 1982 -
“This afternoon the Pucaras again bombed the Tussac Islands in Port William. Savage flames cover the ground while a huge pall of dense smoke rises hundreds of feet into the air. God knows what all this is doing to the wildlife out there. It is being said, though it is difficult to find evidence to support it, that the Argentine dead still being recovered from the invasion, and the deaths from exposure, are being put on the islands so that no trace remains of their losses, which during the invasion period were far heavier than admitted.”
Now I'll go back to being miffed about the Kindle thing .... life on a pension, etc, etc
@Think
Jul 25th, 2017 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We know there weren't 317 British deaths in the Sir Galahad attack because Britain was and is a democracy, there aren't hundreds or thousands of unaccounted for missing persons in Britain, and there were journalists with the British forces who no one thinks were being censored. This would make it nearly impossible to hide extra deaths.
But those things weren't true in Argentina at the time. No one seems to agree on how many thousands of people were killed by the Junta, and the government definitely controlled what was published, although things should have been able to come out since.
I have no particular reason to believe the book, but I don't see why hiding extra deaths would be so impossible either.
@Roger
Why does Mr Phillips assume the troops in the Amtrack and the landing craft didn't survive? I assume the official history says they did.
Mr. Lorton...
Jul 25th, 2017 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Firstly...:
I didn't say that Kelper Islander1s' comment is the whole truth...
I just said that his is the sanest Anglo comment about this topic...
Secondly...:
As HMS Iinvincible returned home unscratched... so did ALL twenty (20) Argiet LVTP-7s (Amtracs) used during the failed military adventure in Malvinas...
But..., as usual..., i encourage you not to take me word for it... GOOGLE IT...
Thirdly...:
You have good reason to be miffed...
I THINK..., Mr. Ricky Phillips has cheated you for more than £15 quid...
.
Demon Tree. With regard to the Amtrack, Royal Marines who witnessed it hit say that nobody got out. I have my doubts about witness evidence (as I'll keep repeating) but that is what was said. I believe (without checking) that the official history mentions the Amtrack hit by gunfire.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Ricky Phillips says he confirmed with the commander of the first Amtrack group that only one of that group was hit by gunfire. He then puts forward the suggestion that the Amtrack (that more than one witness saw hit by rocket fire) was from a different ship and lays down an argument in support of that. In fact, he says (for Think) that the damaged Amtrack was returned to Argentina. He even states that he knows where it is now.
In fairness, Ricky Phillips emphasises the discrepancies between the two sides' stories regarding the Amtrack attack.
As for the LCVP landing craft, again Mr. Phillips is relying on mainly witness evidence but also on a radio statement from the Governor saying that a landing craft had been seen coming through the strait. There are a number of witnesses to that landing craft blowing up although no rocket was seen and nobody claimed the kill. If it happened it is just possible that the vessel was carrying munitions and something went wrong (that's me, not Phillips). To the best of my memory, and I don't have it with me, Freedman made no mention of the landing craft incident in the official history. There is however, the remnants of a landing craft still on the island near Stanley and Mr. Phillips includes a photograph of it in his book. There does not appear to be any record of how that Argentine LCVP got to be there.
I do not accept all that Ricky Phillips is saying, particularly about numbers as he makes assumptions about the amount of personnel that may have been in the Amtrack and/or LCVP. He does argue his case very well however, with possibly the odd flight of fancy.
Perhaps one day, someone will do a bit of digging on Tussock Island and we'll find out?
@Roger
Jul 25th, 2017 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact the Royal Marines didn't see anyone get out of the Amtrack is not very convincing, and like you say the landing craft could have other explanations. Finding the remnants of one doesn't prove anyone died on it either.
Unless there is more direct evidence I don't see a reason to doubt the official death toll.
“Unless there is more direct evidence I don't see a reason to doubt the official death toll.”
Jul 25th, 2017 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Killjoy...!
Rock Phillips, another fanatic, troll, delirious man.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -6I agree with what you say DemonTree. All I will add is that the 'remnants' were found.... or rather, dredged up from the bottom of the narrows as they were considered a danger to shipping.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1DT
Jul 25th, 2017 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1If an anti tank round hit and penetrated an Amtrack then the inside would be a biological soup !
This would explain why no one came out.
Think- Agree, no 100% evidence, all one can safely say is one Arg B.Tacticos guy died. Some others “may” have but no proof.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +5But for sure no where near the 100 the author claims!
But the author wrote 100% utter drivel saying how he has proved the Marines were not caught napping in the first place - show me the factual book that says they were , All here knew that the RM and our FIDF were out and armed and in positions early evening 1st April!
Indeed had the Marines been “caught unawares” - not many would have been alive as the B.Tacticos hit the Moody Brook Barracks with phosphorous grenades in the early hours hoping to catch them in bed.
We knew it- the Marines knew it- and I am damn sure it was in all their debriefs once back in England.
Geeeeeeee... Mr. Islander1...
Jul 25th, 2017 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Must be the Patagonian breeze that keeps us sane...
Lets take a good look at some of the comments above ..., sall we...?...:
- Lots of Engrish comentators...that rightly laught at that auld Argie lie about sinking the Invincible... are more than willing to swallow a new Anglo lie from this Ricky Phillips chap...
- One of them Engrish commentators even lectures me about the “fact” that a cover up of such proportions couldn't happen in Engeland... because they are democratic... they have journalists an other such stuff...
Ain't that the same Engeland that not so long ago went into war against Irak based on a Big Fat lie...?
Ain't that the same Engeland that not so long ago..., inspired by their Yank first cousins..., decided not to keep a body count of the Sandniggas they kill... Be it military or civilians...?
- And..., last but not least..., we have the author of the (in)famous book himself... Mr. RickyDPhillips..., telling all of us how very special person he is because he..., in his own words is...:《“ The first person in 35 years to ever question what he rest of the world was told.”》
Suuuuuuuuure he is...
@ Brit Bob
Jul 25th, 2017 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -9The Malvinas war would not have occurred if it had not been for the british usurping of territory argentine
Malvinas- Never Belonged to UK, spanish governors, argentine governors but oh the islands are British !!!
Malvi, you talk bollocks, Argentina invaded a British Territory and caused a war.
Jul 25th, 2017 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Islander 1 and Think
Jul 26th, 2017 - 05:32 am - Link - Report abuse +1For £9.99 on Kindle, why don't you buy the book. Then you'd know exactly what you are talking about. Without that, it is all conjecture.
Malv 1833
Jul 26th, 2017 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse +2As you say....“the islands are British !!! ”
@Think
Jul 26th, 2017 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse +2If the UK could cover it up then certainly Argentina could. Please make up your mind!
Mr. DemonTree...
Jul 26th, 2017 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -5My mind is made up looooooooong time ago..., laddie...
Maybe because I am from Southern Chubut.... and have..., during many years..., shared many hours of “Mate y Tortas Fritas” with several of my “Neighbours” from the RI 25..., including its commander officer at the time...: “El Turco” Mohamed Ali...
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regimiento_de_Infantería_Mecanizado_25
NONE of them...,NEVER..., EVER ..., mentioned... ANYTHING..., that minimally resembles the pile of lies Mr. RickyDPhillips so diligently has written down in that pile of paper of his...
Here's for you Anglos...
An real good fantasy book...,
Not like the trash from Mr. Ricky Phillips...
And..., at only £ 5.65..., a much better value...
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regimiento_de_Infantería_Mecanizado_25
As everyone reading Mercopress knows, absolutely nothing little shit Think, the horses arse and the stool pigeon erect member can be believed. The biggest concentration of liars and naysayers in the Southern Hemisphere (presently preferring to reside in Europe away from chaos) A well researched, fair minded volume from Ricky, largely supported by Argentine invaders who were actually there dispelling long standing myths.
Jul 26th, 2017 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +4..................
Jul 26th, 2017 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Here's for you Anglos...
An real good fantasy book...,
Not like the trash from Mr. Ricky Phillips...
And..., at only £ 5.65..., a much better value...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-Conspiracy-Eric-Dubay/dp/1312627166/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501070985&sr=1-3&keywords=flat+earth+conspiracy
Perhaps the Harry Potter book is better.
Jul 26th, 2017 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Still haven't read it the Think? You aint a learner are you old man? Still relying on faith?
Jul 26th, 2017 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I've found another entry supportive of Mr. Phillips claims; from April 13th in John Smith's 1982 diary (published 1984) which reads -
”A party of Argentine troops has been today searching the beach down past the FIC offices for bodies from one of their landing craft which was sunk during the invasion. Some have already been washed up.”
@Think
Jul 26th, 2017 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why didn't you say so in the first place?
I wonder if Ricky Phillips interviewed anyone from that regiment for his book? Maybe Roger Lorton can tell us?
I am surprised you are so friendly with army people though. What are tortas fritas?
An apocryphal mention from an apocryphal diary from a ceirtain “John Smith”...... should have more value than thepersonal testimonies of the soldiers who was there... including “El Turco” Seineldín...?
Jul 26th, 2017 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Who's relying on faith..., laddie...?
And a book for Think.... https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/295897/the-ladybird-book-of-the-zombie-apocalypse/
Jul 26th, 2017 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Contemporaneous records always count highly in the hierarchy of evidence Think. Particularly when the writer had no way of knowing that what he was recording would become controversial 35 years later. The same Diarist also notes piles of bodies - 30 to 50 - alongside the Darwin Road on April 13th although he puts their demise down to exposure.
Jul 26th, 2017 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Demon Tree - One of the main people from the Amtrack team, quoted by Mr. Phillips, is a Hugo Santillan, but I'd have to go through the book again to get more information. There is no index at the rear.
Smoke, smoke, nothing concrete.
Jul 26th, 2017 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Demon Tree: What are tortas fritas? cooking recipe Think will explain you better in English. http://www.vix.com/es/imj/gourmet/6762/tortas-fritas-bien-caseras-y-tradicionales
We have a saying - “There is no smoke, without fire...”
Jul 26th, 2017 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Malvinense 1833
Jul 26th, 2017 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Have you noted that nobody addresses your nonsensical and feeble contributions to this conversation? (¿Se ha fijado que nadie responde a sus contribuciones absurdos y débiles a esta conversación?)
Mr.Roger Lorton
Jul 26th, 2017 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -5You say...:
《“One of the main people from the Amtrack team, quoted by Mr. Phillips, is a Hugo Santillan,”》
I say...:
“Dropping Names” now... are we...? Santillan..., huhhh...?
That would be Lieutnant Commander Hugo Jorge Santillan commander of the first batch of anfibious vehicles to hit the Malvinas coast...
Wonder what “nasty little secrets” Lieutnant Commander Hugo Jorge Santillan told Anglo turnip Mr. Phillips...?
After all..., the good Lieutnant Commander Hugo Jorge Santillan has been a respected public figure for the past 35 years..., always consistent with the truth...
That is... that all the men under his command survived unscrached the disembarkment...
Including the 25 Chubuteans from the RI 25...
Go and “Drop Names” some other place..., laddie...
Or better yet.......... go find Saddam's Chemical weapons...
Name dropping? I was asked a question by Demon Tree .... can't you read Think? If I'm asked a reasonable question, then I'll try to answer it reasonably. Now if you really want to know the extent of the “nasty little secrets” that Santillan told Ricky Phillips, you'll have to go and buy the book. Won't you?
Jul 26th, 2017 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Is that fear I smell Think?
Thanks Malvi, they look a little like flat doughnuts. Maybe I will try making them. Is 'royal' baking powder?
Jul 26th, 2017 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Roger
You don't remember what Mr Santillian said then?
LOL He said quite a lot. So go buy.
Jul 26th, 2017 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1:-)
Ignoring claims and counter claims, it appears that the Royal Marines did not roll-over during the cowardly invasion but put up a spirited action which until now, has not been recognised.
Jul 26th, 2017 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +2For enemy forces casualties, figures in battles are notoriously difficult to quantify. Especially when you cannot go out and count them.
Two or more soldiers could fire at the same group of men. Each one could claim he shot 2/3. At debriefing, this could be recorded as 6 enemy shot. Multiply this by a company of men and the figures could be inaccurate although each man involved would be sure of his figures.
A classic example of incorrect claims was made in the Battle of Britain . A Luftwaffe aircraft could be fired on by three RAF fighters, each recording hits. At debriefing, each pilot would put in a claim and sometimes this would be recorded as 3 aircraft downed.
The German claims were even more exaggerated, they were convinced that they had all but destroyed the RAF by late August 1940 and got a nasty surprise by mid September.
Tortas fritas
Jul 26th, 2017 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.fromargentinawithlove.typepad.com/from_argentina_with_love/2010/10/tortas-fritas-fried-bread.html
@Clyde15
Jul 26th, 2017 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I had never heard that the Royal Marines rolled over. They did their best with what they had but were faced with a much larger force that could easily be reinforced, that is why the Governor told them to surrender.
And I think you're right about the difficulty of estimating enemy casualties. They didn't have all the information, so without more direct evidence the most reasonable assumption is that they were simply mistaken in how many were killed.
@gordo1
Looks like royal is baking powder, what an odd name. And they're full of lard, sounds unhealthy. Have you tried them?
“Looks like royal is baking powder, what an odd name. And they're full of lard, sounds unhealthy”...
Jul 26th, 2017 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -3.... What an odd, charming show of provincial metroculturalism...!
What on earth is provincial metroculturism?
Jul 26th, 2017 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Google it :=)
Jul 26th, 2017 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -3https://www.theaudienceagency.org/audience-spectrum/metroculturals ?
Jul 27th, 2017 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is interesting though. If you look in old books here then you will find recipes using lard, but in current ones, and internet recipes, never. Even Gordo's recipe - written by an American - replaces it with butter. I guess this particular cultural change has not spread to Latin America.
I still think royal is an odd name. The Spanish dictionary translates baking powder to “la levadura en polvo” which I could have guessed the meaning of. Is royal a brand name or something, like how Americans call photocopiers xeroxes?
You are quite right, Demon Tree, a small group of men waited in the dark willing to take on what came at them, and were willing to die. Brave men indeed.
Jul 27th, 2017 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-the-earl-howe-pc-award-falklands-veterans-np8901-endurance-defence-of-stanley-grytviken-bar/naftaExp1/control?recruiter=68126849&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_content=nafta_share_post_copy_en_5%3Acontrol
http://www.woolworths.co.za/store/prod/Food/Food/Pantry/Baking/Baking-Ingredients/Royal-Baking-Powder-200g/_/A-6001015506017
Jul 27th, 2017 - 05:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC...
Jul 27th, 2017 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse -4About the following petition...:
https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-the-earl-howe-pc-award-falklands-veterans-np8901-endurance-defence-of-stanley-grytviken-bar?source_location=minibar
I would sign this petition because recognition of the bravery of these men is long overdue. They were surely subject to a poor press on their return with many lies told then and even more today... Just look at the text of the above petition...:
《“On April 2nd / 3rd 1982, 90 men of the Royal Marines Naval Party 8901 and HMS Endurance stood and fought for freedom - against all hope and crushing odds - from an armada of 6,000 Argentine special forces.”》 ... It says...
Magic!!!... I say...
Sixhundred (600) Argie soldiers... suddenly become...: ”An armada of Sixthousand (6,000) Argentine special forces”... courtesy og Anglo Turnip Ricky Phillips...
Governor Hunt in 1982 wanted the bravery of these men recognised but was ignored. They defended their positions bravely and they obeyed the Governors orders to the last...
That's the truth... they deserve a badge... Give it to them...
Regards from El Think at his little place in Chubut not called Trottiscliffe...
Been reading the book, no reason to disbelieve any of it. Little shit Think needs to actually read it in the light of his inaccurate statements above. And, we don't need any advice from lying Argie Embassy sponsored turds like him. 90 were overcome by 600 Argies, many in heavily armoured personel carriers who destroyed their barracks with phosphorus munitions. But finally 10,000 were defeated and sent back home with their tai!s between there legs never to return. They still haven't learned their lesson. The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory and remain so until the islanders decide otherwise. Fail again Think...
Jul 27th, 2017 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse +3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Baking_Powder_Company
Jul 27th, 2017 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC...
Jul 27th, 2017 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse -5Been reading the blog from Anglo Turnip Ricky Phillips...
He luuuuvs to compare the NP-8901's three hour resistence with Rorke's Drift...
But... What happened at Rorke's Drift besides the massacring of an Iron Age tribe by trained Imperial soldiers with state of the art weaponry...?
Well...
There was the subsequent killing of ALL prisioners and wounded (some 800 of them)...
There was the subsequent hanging of all civilian Zulus (men, women & children) at the Mission that acted “suspiciously”... (Some ~50 of them)...
Nope... I can't see no reason to compare the decent behaviour of both sides on April 1st 1982 with the real Rorke's Drift...
Unless..., of course..., you choose the Hollywood version of it...
If so..., I refer to the video linked at post number one on this article...
Michael Caine's acting was goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood...
He makes one feel proud of being A Brit... even if you aren't...!
Falsely proud..., that is...
The tale gets bigger in the telling....
Jul 27th, 2017 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://static01.nyt.com/images/2008/05/05/science/mind_395.1.jpg
TWIMC...
Jul 27th, 2017 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse -6Been reading the blog from Anglo Turnip Ricky Phillips...:
https://rickydphillipsauthor.wordpress.com
He makes a biiiiiiiiiig number about “SOMEBODY” trying to censure, silence and ban his book...
Anybody here can shed some light about who this “SOMEBODY” is...?
Is it the Engrish Government...?
The Argie Government...?
The illuminati...?
Think
Jul 27th, 2017 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse +6I have been to Rorke's Drift and read all the accounts of the battle. Forget the film....it wasn't even filmed there.
As to weaponry, the Zulus had about as many Martini Henry rifles as the defending troops.
They had taken these from the defeated troops at Isldhwana . In addition, they had firing positions overlooking the compound.
The main attack came in the dark....not much chance for volley firing from the defenders there.
I have listened to the battlefield guides telling the story in situ in an impartial manner.
“It was not the British that carried out the killing in was the Native Contingent, who by all accounts should never have had possession of the prisoners.”
As to the killing of prisoners, it was no more than the Zulus did.
Your “figures” are debatable...as usual you choose the ones that show the UK in the worse possible light.
Whatever you“Think”, the contingent could have scarpered back to safety but they stayed to fight. By the way, there were more English in the regiment than Welshmen.
Argentina's own figures put the invasion force at 4-5,000 according to the New York Times on April 3, 1982. Point is, those Royal Marines weren't in a position to count them; all they knew was that they were seriously outnumbered.
Jul 27th, 2017 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse +2http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/03/world/argentina-seizes-falkland-islands-british-ships-move.html
For the record, I did try to argue Mr. Phillips out of his personally posting the petition.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jul 27th, 2017 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -6《“For the record, I did try to argue Mr. Phillips out of his personally posting the petition.”》... you say...
Sound bobbie advice that he..., of course..., chose to disregard.., I say...
A quick glance at the list of signataries shows that there ain't many Kelpers on it...
~15-20 at most..., residents or migrants...
And those present write quite clear messages as...:
“I was there and I know what they did”... (D.Watts)
Anyhow...
This petition is going nowhere fast...
I reckon it will not get more tan 5,000 signatures...
7,500 at most if the FIA Charity invests some of their many monies in that Phillips turnip...
I am now told that a bar to the South Atlantic Medal was actively considered in 1982, but set aside due to time and cost.
Jul 27th, 2017 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +2You may be right Think. Time will tell.
Wasn't your father a migrant?
Malvinense 1833
Jul 27th, 2017 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +5When did Argentina have 'an unopposed settlement of some years' of the Falklands ?
Chuckle chuckle.
@ Brit Bob: The answer will be found in this link, take your time, read and learn.
Jul 27th, 2017 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -8http://www.academia.edu/33555946/Malvinas_Falklands_Kohen_Rodriguez
The question is:
When did Uk have 'an unopposed settlement of some years' of the Malvinas?
When were the islands incorporated into the United Kingdom?
When did you have your first Governor?
Why is it more valid, British clandestine occupation than all years of effective possession by Spain and Argentina with acts of sovereignty appointment of Governors and population?, bah small questions
Malvinense 1833 - still with Kohen's Komic I see.
Jul 28th, 2017 - 05:03 am - Link - Report abuse +71. 1850 to 1884 & 1889 to 1927
2. 1765
3. 1842
4. There was no 'clandestine' occupation of the Falklands by Britain, this is a Kohen fantasy and Spain claimed only ONE island in 1811 in accordance with the conventions of 1771 and 1790.
Malvinense 1833
Jul 28th, 2017 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse +4Still waiting for you to identify one legal aspect that Argentina has to put before the international courts that would support her Falklands claim?
TWIMC...
Jul 28th, 2017 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -6I was wrong...
At the present falling rate of voting..., I don't Think this petition will ever make 3,500 signatures...
https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-the-earl-howe-pc-award-falklands-veterans-np8901-endurance-defence-of-stanley-grytviken-bar?source_location=minibar
Well...
That's what it should be expected..., when an else worthy petition..., is started by an egocentric turnip..., based on exagerations and blatant lies..
People ain't as stupid as some Think...
The cause is noble enough - particularly as the original bar was dropped due to the ignominious reason of money.
Jul 28th, 2017 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2It would have been better to have found a another sponsor - ideally a military connection. Some advice falls on stony ground.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jul 28th, 2017 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -6A task for the FIG(leaf)..., maybe...?
There can't be that many 81-82 / NP-8901's around anymore...
And them Kelper squatters are swimming in pirated squid money anyway...
A decent honour life pension for them fellas wouldn't break the bank... would it...?
And they could ask Pobjoy Mint to coin some nice Iron Knight's Crosses with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds for them lads......
Huh? “And they could ask Pobjoy Mint to coin some nice Iron Knight's Crosses with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds for them lads......”
Jul 28th, 2017 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I would have thought that if the Fuhrer was still about he would have been dishing them out wholesale to the Argie population for welcoming all those Nazi war criminals?
Galtieri and his mates obviously followed in Mussolini's tradition by flinging nuns out of aeroplanes and trying to invade neighbouring territories unsuccessfully.
One got doused in petrol and went to hell in flames and the other got strung up in the street. What next for fascists eh Think?
Geeeeeeeeeee.......
Jul 28th, 2017 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -7All those Armed Farces badges look similar to me...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/de/af/3d/deaf3d8fbdafb8ad451cbc078bbf71b5--maori-new-zealand.jpg
Don't they...?
If you can't tell the difference you had better get along to Specsavers !
Jul 28th, 2017 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +5TWIMC
Jul 28th, 2017 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Two simple cross designs made of humble metals..., based on an acient simbol of sacrifice and love...
The one issued by some Baltic Sea Angelsachsen..., the other by some North Sea Anglosaxons...
The Engrish one heavily inspired by the Prussian one...
Juppppppppp....
Those Armed Farces badges look very similar to me...
@ Roger Lorton, my friend:
Jul 28th, 2017 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -71. 1850 to 1884 & 1889 to 1927 False.
Protests before the United States for the Lexington Incident
In 1866 the Argentine Ambassador to the USA, Domingo F. Sarmiento, sent a note to his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rufino de Elizalde, in which he made a detailed analysis of the issue and requested the authorization to request from the American Government, amongst other things, the payment “to the Republic of Argentina of millions of ... strong pesos for compensation of all damages, including the loss of the Malvinas Islands, without implying a renunciation to recover them on the part of the Argentine Republic”.
380
It emerges from the context that this related to the loss and recovery of the
possession
of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Clearly, there was no intention to abandon the efforts of recovering the islands. If there had been a renunciation to sovereignty in 1850, it would have been odd to mention, only a few years later, that there was no renunciation to their recovery.
2. 1765 False On June 23 1843, ten years after its invasion, the islands were incorporated into the dominions of the King of England through documents signed by Queen Victoria.
3. 1842 Correct, Moody In 1843 he decided to move the capital of the islands from Puerto Soledad to Port Jackson, Port Stanley, of course after invasion.
4. FALSE.
The French had already occupied the Falklands/Malvinas when British commodore John Byron set sail for the West Indies on June 21st, 1764 The purpose of his voyage was kept secret. Upon reaching the coast of Brazil, the true objective of the expedition was revealed: to call at His Majesty´s Islands call´d Falkland´s and Pepys `Islands situate in the Atlantick Ocean near The Streights of Magellan in order to make better surveys thereof, than had yet been made, and to determine a place or places, most proper for a new settlement or settlements thereon
Hide your head under the sand like the ostrich.
WHY IT'S NOT TRUE: Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand—they wouldn't be able to breathe! But they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, a bird puts her head in the hole and turns the eggs. So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand!
Jul 28th, 2017 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -6@ Voice: Thanks for his lesson. :-)))
Jul 28th, 2017 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -8Malvinense 1833
Jul 29th, 2017 - 05:42 am - Link - Report abuse +61. The Lexington incident was in December 1831. There were no protests from BA to Britain before 1833. BA never answered the British protests to the UP of 1829 and 1832. There were protests from the USA to Britain in 1832 however demanding that the UK clear out the pirates on the Falklands. For a protest to be effective it has to be made to the Government concerned. For example, Moreno protested to London in 1849. There were no further protests lodged before 1888 when the exchanges were accepted as a protest by the British Gov.despite there being nothing formal. There were no protests after 1889 until that made to the Postal Union which Britain, as a founding member, decided to accept as a formal protest to itself. Go learn.
2. The papers authorising the Falklands to be an official colony have nothing to do with ownership. In fact George III considered the islands as part of his personal possessions as being from the time of Hawkesbury in the 16th century. They were a Crown possession between 1765 and 1842. Go learn.
3. Moody decided nothing. The suggestion of a move from Port Louis to Port William had been made before his arrival and the final decision as to location was made by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. Go learn
4. The French occupied one small part of one Island in 1764.. The French expedition in 1763 was itself a secret and did not appear in the Journals until 1765. The British expedition in 1764 was reported in the Gazette de Holland. Not giving details to your competitors about what you were doing was hardly unusual. Go learn.
Once again, you ignorance is showing,
Go learn - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/chapter-pdfs/
Malvinense 1833
Jul 29th, 2017 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse +6If you have no case to put before the international courts the claim is w o r t h l e s s.
A UK base in the Falklands will be all the more important when it comes time to eject the argies from the UK territories south of Cabo de Hornos.
Jul 29th, 2017 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +3demon Tree, what do you mean by “Don't be ridiculous, Think”
Jul 29th, 2017 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1How can't Shrinkbrain not be ridiculous? can pigs fly? can a lead ingot float?
Malvinense 1833
Jul 29th, 2017 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Wrong again, and again, and again! Just get the facts - not the fiction!
Well..., well..., well...
Jul 29th, 2017 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I can see that the petition for giving them NP8901 veterans their deserved bar is failing miserably...
~1300 votes two days ago...,~400 votes yesterday..., ~ 200 today...
https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-the-earl-howe-pc-award-falklands-veterans-np8901-endurance-defence-of-stanley-grytviken-bar?source_location=minibar
That's what happens when one bases something on lies..., laddies...
As our auld Rhodesian housekeeper used to tell us boys...:
An Engrishman can make you believe 99 lies..., but the hundreth will betray him...
@Don Alberto
Jul 29th, 2017 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“can a lead ingot float?”
Yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1Hv0Oz_r1k ;)
I'm guessing Ricky is regretting using an online petition to promote his work of fiction...
Jul 29th, 2017 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Brits would rather not be reminded of the give up without a fight... poor performance of those marines...
How many died in their defence of the Falklands...?
How many did you say...?
@ Roger Lorton:
Jul 30th, 2017 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse -51- 1850 to 1884 & 1889 to 1927 False and false
The country that protested the lexington incident was Argentina.
If the islands were British why London did not protest the attack on their islands and their colony?
“There were no protests from BA to Britain before 1833” Obviously, Argentina was in possession of the islands in a legitimate way.
Pirates? The British are called pirates all over the world, you make me laugh.
“There were no protests after 1889” In 1911, in the heyday of the conclusion of arbitration treaties between States, the British Government explored the possibility of signing one such instrument with Argentina. The note by the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs Sir E. Grey, to his colleague in the Colonial Office, dated September 27th, was blunt. In reply to the concerns of the latter, he informed him that the Foreign Office “[does not] propose the conclusion of a treaty [of arbitration]with the Argentine Government until the British title to the Falkland Islands has been recognised” This clearly shows that the British Government was perfectly aware that Argentina still maintained its claim over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands in 1911. Go Learn.
2- “The papers authorising the Falklands to be an official colony have nothing to do with ownership.” False
The establishment of the British Colony in 1843
The British pamphlet overlooks an important historical aspect of British colonialism in the Falklands/Malvinas: the formal establishment of the islands as a colony of Her Majesty only occurred on June 23rd, 1843, through a Letter Patent. The first Lieutenant Governor was appointed in 1841, and the colonial administration was only appointed in 1845.
Under English law, the British Crown can obtain territorial sovereignty by settlement, cession, conquest or annexation. And it did not continue because of lack of space. Go learn.
Malvinense 1833
Jul 30th, 2017 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse +41. The UP protested to the USA, not to Britain. Why would Britain complain to the USA? a) the Yanks were doing a good job in getting rid of the trespassers and b) England viewed East Falkland as a Spanish island under dispute.
Where is the Argentine protest of 1911? You are not showing a protest, merely an internal memo which recognises nothing. Civil servants do not represent the country - only Governments can do that. Go learn.
2. What is your point? The Falklands were first claimed for England in 1593. They were reclaimed by Byron in 1764 and were a recognised British possession from 1765 - by settlement. Sufficiently recognised that in 1801 the French government demanded a base on the archipelago from Britain. A demand formally rejected by London for the reason that the British King would not allow any extension of French fishing rights into British territory. The formal setting up of a colony in 1842 has no bearing upon that. If you contend that Britain only took over the Falklands in 1842, then you have no complaint from 1833?
Go learn
Malvinense 1833
Jul 30th, 2017 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse +1More idiotic and FALSE interpretations of historical events! Take your arguments to the International Court of Justice or is Mercopress the only forum which allows you to present your nonsense?
Voice - your idiocy is showing again. NP 8901 were without doubt brave men who put up a fierce resistance in the face of overwhelming odds. Their bravery was acknowledged by the Argentine commander and there is little doubt that the official casualty figures were massaged by Buenos Aires as the witness testimony from the local hospital clearly shows.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse +1NP 8901 all received the South Atlantic Medal but what is being sought by this petition is the bar, which was originally considered back in 1982 and then dropped because of the expense. I believe that it was a mistake for Mr. Phillips to put his name to the petition and told him so - particularly in light of his tendency to exaggerate.
Do I believe in Mr. Phillips' casualty theories? No. But there is no doubt that those men fought bravely and expected to die.
You, Voice, aint worthy to lick their shoes.
Malvinense 1833
Produce formal protests between 1850 -1888 / 1889 - 1927 or be recognised as a fool.
Nothing else will do for the purposes of international law.
The horses arse has obviously never served or been on a battlefield, keyboard is his weapon of choice.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 07:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lord Ton
Jul 30th, 2017 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse -3..is that the medal you get for turning up...?
Oh they were already there...
What were the Marine casualties again...
I never heard the first time...
Apart from on here...most Brits were embarrassed by their piss poor performance and that appears to be reflected in the petition...
How can it be described in the regiment's history...“we came under fire, so we fired a few shots and gave in...”
“We raise a toast in memory of those that died Defending the Falklands”....wait a minute...
You and Philips have a lot in common...write fiction for gullible fools...
...Is The Voice now going to claim he's been on a battlefield as well as having a degree...
Do me a favour...
TWIMC...
Jul 30th, 2017 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse -5Some true facts...:
The Armed Farces Machinery doesn't like having no dead flesh to function...
The Argie Armed Farces Machinery got some own “Hero” flesh on the 2. April 1982...
Thanks to strict Argie orders.............., the British from the NP 890's couldn't provide any...
(I had wished that them Argie Armed Farces could have shown the same level of “professionalism” when waging war against our nuns, priests, high school kids and inteligentia in general...)
All those stories about Argies “savagely” attacking the NP 8901 baracks... or booby trapping the school... etc..., etc..., etc..., are 1982 brainwashing war propaganda lies...
As all those stories in Anglo Turnip Nicky Phillips book are 2017 brainwashing war propaganda lies...
The proof is in the pudding...
Skweem all you like Tinklevoice, we all know the truth and how it all ended and what was later found. Don't forget the post office and Red Cross...
Jul 30th, 2017 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Voice - you are a low-life shithead with crap for brains. Fortunately, the facts are available and speak for themselves. Nobody got the SAM for just 'turning up'. I can only hope that your weak-kneed self runs into a few ex-servicemen sometime.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse +3Think - again, the evidence is against you. Moody Brook Barracks was shot up by Argentine special forces, although whether that was before or after they discovered the place empty is, at best, moot. As for booby-traps, once again there is ample evidence. On South Georgia the surrendering Argentines at Leith booby-trapped the landing area that they'd set out for the British helicopter to land on and accept their surrender. There commander said he found it “mildly amusing”. But then he was one of the shit-heads that killed Nuns.
You two idiots can deny all you like. Reality is available. All you have to do is open your eyes.
Lord Ton
Jul 30th, 2017 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse -4“You, Voice, aint worthy to lick their shoes. ”
Sorry Roger, you must be confusing me with someone else...
I no do no licky licky...
ps...I wouldn't worry about running into any of those ex-servicemen...I heard they give in without a fight...
The man with no name .... just a Voice. Too afraid even to give that. You are of no consequence. Little man.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse +3Malvinense 1833
Jul 30th, 2017 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse +2Still waiting for you to identify one legal aspect that Argentina has to put before the international courts that would support her Falklands claim?
Voice
Jul 30th, 2017 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse +4Try and be objective. A new version of the fight has turned up but you dismiss it out of hand.
I would rather hear what military historians have to say about it rather than accept your prejudiced version which frankly I do not accept as the reaction of anyone of UK/Scottish descent.
As for Think, I have long since given very little credulity to his posts.
The two of you are beginning to sound like Tweedledum and Tweedledee and are very close to morphing into one persona or clones.
Mr.Roger Lorton...
Jul 30th, 2017 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse -4“Fortunately, the facts are available and speak for themselves”........ you say...
Ya mean..., facts like that the Argie troops followed to the end..., their strict orders NOT to cause ANY fatalities among them Engrish...?
Facts like that the hearsay about the Argies booby trapping Puerto Estanley school is just that....... Hearsay...?
Not a single picture of such Argie contraption exist..., nowhere...
Don't them Engrish had no cameras in 1982...?
(They didnt even take the trouble of finding some Argentinean grenades (lots around at the time) and improvise some fake Argie booby traps to take a picture of them... )
You..., me dear lad..., can fantasy and endorse Anglo Turnips that misuse veterans to sell their book... all you like.... Reality is available though.... All you have to do is open your eyes.
The Brook Street propaganda machine has failed again despite the front end and back end's joint efforts. Like the Arctic Convoy and Merchant Navy medals those brave Royal Marines will be honoured someday.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Does anyone believe Argies are honest? Why then have they got a worldwide reputation as serial liars and cheats? Think seems to fit the stereotype perfectly.
Poor old Think. 1st Generation Argie, so desperate to fit in; so desperate to believe.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +4carry light-weight digital cameras in 1982; but the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming about booby-traps. The evidence of bullet holes at chest height in the walls of Government House belie the fantasy that Argie troops only shot high.
Keep believing Think, it's all you have. As I said, the evidence is against you.
@Continues: Great Britain claims to have established sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas by settlement. Acquisition by settlement occurs through the “settlement by British subjects in a place where there was no population or no form of government considered civilised and recognised in international law”. If the British method of obtaining sovereignty was by settlement, none of the conceivable possibilities fit that definition. If the settlement in question was that of McBride in 1766, the islands were already occupied by France, and therefore the only possibility of acquiring sovereignty over them according to British law was by cession, conquest or annexation. None of these occurred. As we have seen, the settlement had ceased to exist many decades earlier. If the “settlement” in question was the one having taken place after Argentina’s dispossession in 1833, the British pamphlet itself admits that there was an Argentine settlement and claims that its “genuine residents” (those brought by Vernet between 1826 and 1829) were not expelled. This also does not fit the conditions of a “settlement” as defined by British law. The only alternatives are acquisition by conquest, cession or annexation, but again, none of these took place. The British government never invoked conquest, cession by Spain or Argentina, nor annexation (which, what is more, would have been illegal if the territory belonged to another State). Go learn.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -53- Moody: The fact that the Colony was only established in the 1840s is significant for another reason: for the first time in history, Great Britain appointed a Governor for the islands, something it had never done before. Not in 1765, 1766 or 1771, nor at any time during the period in which Spain had appointed 32 Governors for the islands, or during the period of the Argentine administration, when three Commanders had been appointed. Not even after expelling the South American country from the territory. Go learn.
The antediluvian is no longer of any consequence, malvado1833. The game ended a long time ago. Time to fold your tent and accept reality. You do understand the concept of contemporary reality? Or is it time that you returned the whole of the patagonia to its rightful owners?
Jul 30th, 2017 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Malvinense 1833
Jul 30th, 2017 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Your education continues .....
1) East Falkland Island was occupied by France in 1765. Not West Falkland Island. Occupation of one does not give title to all - take a look at the Caribbean. There was no British law requiring cession - pure fantasy. Once established,sovereignty continues, regardless of settlement. Particularly when there is effective challenge by any other nation. I am sure that I must remind you again, Argentina is neither France nor Spain.
2) The appointment of Governors is quite irrelevant to the issue of ownership. We did have Residential Officers between 1834 and 1842 but again, their presence is not a necessity.
Just for the record, Spain actually only had 2 Governors. After them the position was down graded to comandante-gobernador. A lesser post.
Did I mention that Argentina is not Spain?
@ Roger Lorton
Jul 30th, 2017 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -64-“The French occupied one small part of one Island in 1764”. small island? Soledad island? (East Falkland) Only this comment makes me laugh the tonsils, british in the Saunders island (small) (clandestine presence) and french in Soledad island (East Falkland) (BIG). Obviously, the expeditions were secret because they were going to Spanish territory, otherwise they did not need to be secret.
“and did not appear in the Journals until 1765.” False The news of the French presence was published in the amsterdam gazette on July 13, 1764.
If I continued the conversation with you, the Brits will appear on Soledad Island (East Falkland) and the French on Saunders Island. Go learn.
Malvinense 1833
Jul 30th, 2017 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Identify one legal aspect that Argentina has to put before the international courts that would support her Falklands claim? If you can't that just confirms that Argentina's claim has 'no' legitimacy.
Malvinense 1833
Jul 30th, 2017 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Well done. Yes, France occupied just the one Island. The one island, in fact, that Spain claimed in 1811.
Bougainvilles' expedition set out in 1763 - in secrecy. It would have been surprising if it had been otherwise, as I pointed out elsewhere, it didn't do to tell your competitors what you were up to. The Spanish didn't manage to turn up until 1767 - 3rd in line. They had no claim before that, so no, Byron had not sailed to “Spanish territory” in 1764.
You still do not know enough.
Did I mention that Argentina is not Spain. And perhaps that Spain only claimed one Island in 1811?
Did I?
LOL
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jul 30th, 2017 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -5You say...:
《“Carry light-weight digital cameras in 1982”》...
I say...:
Nope..., carry light-weight analog cameras in 1982... Our side used Rollei 35's... What did yours use...?
You say further...:
《“the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming about booby-traps”》
I say...:
Not only anecdotal..., laddie...
Starting with the many booby traps laid by the sweet Anglo chaps from the NP 8910...
There are pictures... Rollei 35 pictures... Want a link...?
Continuing with the booby traps laid by the Argies on the battlefields..., that costed many a young Engrish souvenir hunters a hand..., an arm or a life...
Stupid that the MoD didn't train those young Engrish fellas NOT to pick “souvenirs”...
REAL STUPID...
- But..., NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER..., about them monstruous dark Argies...bobby trapping Puerto Estanley's school to lambaste sweet little, flaxen haired, blue eyed nine years old Engrish Mary... NONE...
You finish by saying...:
《“The evidence of bullet holes at chest height in the walls of Government House belie the fantasy that Argie troops only shot high.”》
I say...:
The evidence of bullet holes at chest height in the walls of Government House do CONFIRM that Argie troops shot high... About 1 meter higher than where any defender would be..., if they weren't all General Charles George Gordon's pupils...
By the way... A dozen hand grenades or a single Carl Gustav through that wooden Governor's House's large windows would have sufficed...
Wonder why none of those 600,000 blood thirsty Argentinean Special Troops didn't THINK about that...?
As you perfectly know..., the evidence is against you...
You don't even have a body..., laddie...
Baaad Work..., Copper...
Nice try Think, but no Banana. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of booby traps after Argentina's defeat. No smoke without fire as they say.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +3As for the chest height bullet holes - you obviously think that all defenders lie down. Risible.
I don't argue that the orders were clear and that it was supposed to be a bloodless take-over, but you assume that your troops were so well trained that they would obey those orders, even when being fired at by the British defenders. Much evidence suggests that your troops were not so well trained. Some, indeed, hardly trained at all. And yet they continued to obey orders even when they knew 3 of your men were down?
Grenades? If close enough perhaps. Letting rip from a goodly distance away however, seems more likely.
As I said, the evidence is clear that Argentines were not all shooting high on April 2nd and that those same, highly trained, obedient, soldiers left a few booby-traps behind 74 days later.
You are not convincing anyone else but yourself Think.
As usual.
I'm at the archives next week to have a chat with the Principle Military Specialist. I'll see if he can add anything to the mix.
Dream your dream, old man........... you are not believable.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jul 30th, 2017 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -6“There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of booby traps after Argentina's defeat.”... you say...
Yes..., as there is plenty graphic evidence of booby traps after Engeland's defeat on the 2.April 1982..., left by the Engrish NP 8901's...
But none evidence about any booby trapping at Puerto Estanley school...
That is just a classical brainwash lie to demonize the enemy...
The orders were clear and..., what was ordered to be a bloodless take-over..., became a blodless take-over...
Our troops were trained well enough to carry those clear orders to good port...
They took Puerto Estanley without even spraining an Engrish ankle...
As I said before...:
The proof is in the Pudding...
Clyde
Jul 30th, 2017 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“I would rather hear what military historians have to say about it rather than accept your prejudiced version which frankly I do not accept as the reaction of anyone of UK/Scottish descent.”
Not my prejudiced version...but the official UK Govt and Military version and as reported by the UK news at the time...
I'm guessing they were all wrong and none of them were patriots...
...or this Ricky is full of shit...which would a rational person go for...which???
I would go for the 《“Ricky is full of shit...”》 option...
Jul 30th, 2017 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The UK news at the time published only the UK Govt. & Military version? Our media?
Jul 30th, 2017 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +3That would be a first.
@DemonTree
Jul 30th, 2017 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am afraid you are confusing it with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F41SSqJx2tU&t=20m16s
Think - check above. Did I mention the school?
Jul 30th, 2017 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Not that there had been any schooling for 74 days. It had been taken over for accommodation I hear; those teachers that remained did their best from their homes. Life has to go on even under a new dictatorship.
I know.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jul 30th, 2017 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -5NOPE... you “check above”...
I specifically mentioned that Anglo lie about the booby trapping of the “S - C - H - O - O - L ”
BTW...
Which one...?
Prayut's or the Missus...?
Poor dear silly Malvinense 1833
Jul 30th, 2017 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +5All the protests by letter are printed in full in Alfredo Becerra: “Protestas por Malvinas, 1833-1946”, ISBN-13: 978-9879998922, Caja Editora, Buenos Aires, June 1998. (A list of the 81 documents in the book are found here: http://www.cajaeditora.com.ar/kjimalvin.html )
After the peace treaty of 1850 was ratified, the Argentine protests ceased. The Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress before 1941. The Messages to Congress were official addresses at the highest level, made each year at the ceremonial opening of the Argentine Congress, the 'State of the union' speeches.
Now, poor dear silly Malvinense 1833, show us where in the list of all Argentine prostests you find one single protest pertaining to the Falkland Islands to Great Britain between 1 January 1850 and 31 December 1884, and between 1 January 1889 and 31 December 1926.
34 years resp. 37 years of silence, followed by two Argentine presidents and one vice president confirmations that there were no conflicts of any kind between Great Britain and Argentina.
President Bartolomé Mitre 1865: “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.”
Vice-president Marcos Paz 1866: “Este mismo gobierno [= el gobierno británico] aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.”
President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento 1869: “El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.”
Anglo lie? Is it?
Jul 30th, 2017 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Neither have I given a moral judgement on the use of booby-traps. I have only recognised that Argentine troops left them behind after the surrender in June. I hear that some Argie troops helped disable them.
Did NP8901 set booby-traps? Probably. I am aware of traps left on the beach for the incoming invaders. Typically the Argies ended up on the wrong beach.
I am not aware of any in the town - so send that link.
Forgot to mention. That fella I'm meeting next week is also a Falklands vet. So I'll ask him what he thinks of Mr. Phillips' book. If he hasn't read it, he can have mine. One of the reasons I'm speaking to him is to see whether some MoD documents can be obtained. They may destroy - or support - Mr. Phillips' notions. 50/50 chance I reckon - they can be very funny about the real Special Forces.
BTW Which one? The Missus is a softie, so the other one.
Some reckless comments in this thread concerning Royal Marine Commandos.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@Roger Lorton your education continues: “Occupation of one does not give title to all - take a look at the Caribbean”. FALSE.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -6By the year 1767, three powers had established themselves in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, with varying degrees of lawfulness. France can claim the right of first occupant, despite recognising, when faced with Spanish protests, that the islands belonged to Spain. This was consistent with recognition by the powers of the time that the region was considered to be Spanish. Byron´s declaration lacks any legal effect. It was a merely symbolic act performed at a moment in which another nation was already effectively occupying the archipelago, and furthermore in a region that Great Britain had recognised as being Spanish. The settlement established by McBride years later suffers the same defects: occupation does not establish sovereignty over a territory that is not
terra nullius (land belonging to nobody), either because the occupying State recognises that the territory belongs to another nation (Spain), or because the territory was previously occupied (by France). In international law, occupation of the main island constitutes occupation of the archipelago as a whole, as long as no other nation is present in any other area of the archipelago, as Judge Levi Carneiro explained in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case before the International Court of Justice.
This was the situation of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands when they were occupied by France. Go Learn.
Forget it, malvado 1833. The game is over. La cancha cerrada. Se acabó la joda y ya no hay más choripanes para vos y vuestros. Sorry. La que sucedió o no sucedió hace siglos ya no importa.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +4------------
malvado1833: ”...occupation does not establish sovereignty over a territory that is not
terra nullius (land belonging to nobody)...”
Then by your own admission Argentina is obligated to return the lands that now comprise Neuquén, Chubut, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, and Tierra del Fuego, to the original owners, and Argentina is also logically required to remove its squatter colonies from the previously claimed and occupied British Antarctic Territory.
------
Topic: Argie booby traps in the Falklands. They were very proud of their cleverness. Por lo que valga.
http://fdra-malvinas.blogspot.com/2013/12/defensa-de-puerto-argentino-minas-y.html
A large number of booby traps were placed in private homes by the Argentines, which constituted yet another of their war crimes, since these were directed against noncombatants.
2- “The appointment of Governors is quite irrelevant to the issue of ownership.” FALSE The appointment of governors are acts of sovereignty, together with the population and the absence of British protests demonstrate that the islands did not belong to the United Kingdom, for this reason the British always refused to discuss or settle the controversy.
Jul 30th, 2017 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -5“The abandonment of 1774 was not a simple physical withdrawal from Port Egmont, but it meant the total relinquishment by Great Britain of any kind of claim over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. A period of 55 years with no British presence or official acts as against a nearly four-decade-long Spanish presence, as well as the Argentine acts that took place from the beginning of the process of independence until 1829 clearly show not only the absence of British corpus possessionis, but also the absence of any intention of having sovereignty”.
Credits:Kohen Marcelo, Rodriguez, Facundo.
@ Marti Llazo: Chilean new falklander hahaha, selfdeterminartion hahahah First, return the hallway.
Falklands 1. Argentina 0.
Jul 31st, 2017 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse +4Game over.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Jul 31st, 2017 - 02:02 am - Link - Report abuse -6From the argie government's own accounting of their booby-traps on the Falklands, the data on booby-traps and mines was turned over to the Joint Services Explosive Ordnance Disposal (JSEOD) in the Falklands. The following numbers were reported in argie media (“trampa cazabobo” is argie for booby-trap):
Jul 31st, 2017 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse +3”El Destacamento de Servicios Conjuntos para la Disposición de Munición Explosiva (DSCDME), con sede en Puerto Argentino tiene los registros originales argentinos de 67 de las 117 áreas minadas aun activas. Estos registros incluyen 2.502 minas anti vehiculos, 9.721 minas antipersonales y 111 trampas cazabobos. El resto de las 50 áreas
minadas pueden contener otras 7.922 minas y trampas cazabobos. ...”
The argie media also covered the work of a certain Major Urquiza, who ordered the placement of booby-traps in private residences, offices, government buildings, and other locations during the ceasefire shortly before the Argentine surrender. Not only was this contrary to the conventions concerning rules of warfare, which prohibits such actions against noncombatants, but it was a further violation since it was done during a ceasefire. Urzquia's unlawful chicanery also involved the deliberate setting fire to the residence of Falklander George Butler, since that was close to where the argie forces had (also unlawfully) stored much of their remaining explosives. A number of other fires were set in buildings in Stanley by Urzquia's people, who also fired on British personnel who were attempting to clear the booby-trapped buildings.
Mayor Urquiza is now treated as a hero in Argentina.
Malvinense 1833
Jul 31st, 2017 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse +4Kohen & Rodriguez make it up as they go along. There is no legal requirement to appoint Governors and there were plenty of acts of sovereignty, most notably the refusal by the UK to allow a French Base on the British Falklands in 1801 & 1802.
Spain was fully aware of its limited possession, claiming just the ONE island in 1811. Have I mentioned that?
And we have discussed it - in 1834 and 1888. There was also a response to Argie whinging about 5 years ago at the UN when the British position was clearly laid out by our Ambassador to the UN.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/27-jan-2012-uk-note.pdf
You still do not know enough, and relying on Kohen & Rodriguez will not improve your education.
Kipper
Jul 31st, 2017 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse +2Are you related to Hepatitis?
Malvinense 1833
Jul 31st, 2017 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse +2Let me help you - there are no legal aspects that Argentina has to put before the international courts that support her Falklands claim. Therefore the claim is illegitimate and worthless.
Meanwhile, the UK has a number of legal aspects that it can bring before a court that confirms its sovereignty of the Falklands.
gordo 1
Jul 31st, 2017 - 08:33 am - Link - Report abuse +2They are clones sharing a very small brain.
Gordo
Jul 31st, 2017 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Kipper is a smoked herring
I don't understand why Malvinense1833 insists that the Spanish presence in the archipelago in the 18th century (alongside the British presence) (NB NOT English presence!) makes any difference to the false claims from Argentina to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
Jul 31st, 2017 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2To Anglo Turnip Ricky Phillips....
Jul 31st, 2017 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Here's how you organize a successfull petition...
A worthy cause... and the truth... Milagro Sala will be free this week... :-)
http://www.liberenamilagro.org
@Clyde15 “They are clones sharing a very small brain.”
Jul 31st, 2017 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With a small what? it's calle a cell nucleus.
This book is obviously contentious, however new information can surface decades later.
Jul 31st, 2017 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We are still finding out new material from WW2.
No doubt it will receive scrutiny from military historians who will judge it on it's merits.
The screeching coming from the “Argie” supporters will either be vindicated or dismissed.
The only folk who know the truth are the Islanders and the combatants on both sides.
Tinkle: “ Milagro Sala will be free this week.”
Aug 01st, 2017 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse +1There are a lot of criminals on the loose in Argentina. Just look at the number of Kirchnerists in the legislature, and on the streets.
Besides, mention of Sala on this foro constitutes a fatal non sequitur.
Lose one turn.
@Mr. St.John: In the link you provide there is an important document that you overlook: Silence will not mean consent. From Moreno to Aberdeen. March 10, 1842. The British pamphlet fails to mention Rosas’ address to the Legislature in December 1849
Aug 01st, 2017 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse -4Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature is of key importance, having been made a month after the signature of the Arana-Southern Treaty. The address relates in detail the negotiations that resulted in the signature of the agreement. Nothing emerges from the preparatory works of the treaty, nor from the debates in the British Parliament, that may prove that Argentina accepted to settle the issue of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands through that instrument. On the contrary, after presenting the Anglo-Argentine treaty, Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature continues by expressly mentioning the issue of the Falklands/Malvinas in relation to the reports in British newspapers concerning the exchange of notes between Moreno and Palmerston, and ratifies the actions of the Argentine representative in London. Therefore, it is absurd to claim that Rosas renounced the Falklands/Malvinas through the treaty, when he continued to officially claim the islands a month after having concluding the treaty! The fact of having discussed the subject separately clearly shows the difference between the two issues (the blockade of the Rio de la Plata and fluvial navigation on the one hand, and the issue of the Falklands/Malvinas on the other).
Credits Kohen, Marcelo- Rodríguez Facundo.
End of the lie.
Rosas is dead. So is the argie claim to the Falklands.
Aug 01st, 2017 - 04:40 am - Link - Report abuse +3Fold your tent, malvado. It doesn't matter anymore and you only make yourselves look sillier than you need to.
¿qué parte de 'no' no entendés?
Malvinense 1833
Aug 01st, 2017 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse +3Rosas made his speech in 1849 after the treaty was signed but BEFORE ratification. The treaty only came into force on ratification. Rosas knew exactly what he had done about the Falklands because he was told by Southern. We have the details of that conversation.
Rosas didn't give a damn about the Falklands. He was getting the treaty he wanted, and that was all that was important to him.
I've already told you that relying on the clowns Kohen & Rodriguez would make you look stupid - you you won't listen. Brainwashed, like the rest of your kind.
Malvinista 1833
Aug 01st, 2017 - 05:41 am - Link - Report abuse +3Why don't you give up? All your false assertions - culled from from Kohen and Rodríguez - are getting you nowhere and, as Roger Lorton says above, “make you look stupid”!
Sr. Malvinense 1833...
Aug 01st, 2017 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse -3Ladran..., Sancho...
Señal de que cabalgamos...
Saludos...
El Think...
@Malvinense 1833
Aug 01st, 2017 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse +4What pamphlet are you blabbering about? I have never seen one..
I use the copies of the original documents found in 'Archivo General de la Nación' in Buenos Aires, on their website, in photos, in http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/ and such places. Other peoples conclusions are of little interest, I use originals and Argentine sources where applicable and possible. If you stop reading cohen's nonse and check the documents, you will see how distorted Cohen's blabbering is.
Up yours with Rosas, the two presidents and the vice were elected under the first Argentine constitution ever. If you think the previous constitutions were Argentine, you know nothing of your own history.
We have a time line:
1833: British sovereignty re-installed (or for the sake of argument: installed).
1833-1849: Protests.
1850: Peace treaty ratified.
1850-1887: No protests, no claim.
1865: No protests, no claim, we have friendly relations.
1866: The Argentine vice-president Paz: only one dispute, that of damages suffered by English subjects in 1845.
1881: A map, which does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.
1881/82: A map showing one colour for Argentina and another for other countries' possessions, including the Falkland Islands.
1884: One single protest, in the form of a diplomatic letter.
1889-1941: No protests, no claim.
1905: The map of Argentina’s military regions from 1905 does not show the Falklands Islands as part of Argentina.
@ Roger Lorton & St. John:
Aug 01st, 2017 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse -3------------------------------- Rosas’ words leave no room for doubt:-------------
“The Government pays serious attention to the pending claims of the Republic before Great Britain for the unjustifiable retention of the Malvinas Islands (...) The government fully approved the well-founded complaint and protest of the Argentine minister against the inaccurate assertions of HM’s minister of foreign affairs and expressed that, through that protest it supported, as it should have and as it had to verify in any case, the proper rights of the Argentine Confederation in the Malvinas Islands, against the renewed disregard of HM’s Minister of foreign affairs, who made the unfounded supposition that the correspondence had ceased by reason of acquiescence on the part of the Confederation or of both parties, according to the different versions that appeared in the newspapers (...) the Government ordered its Minister that when discussing this, he always uphold the same principles and base himself on the same facts that resulted from the correspondence followed on this topic, and transmitted other orders for upholding the unquestionable rights of the Confederation in the Malvinas islands.” Credits Kohen, Marcelo, Rodríguez Facundo.
END OF THE LIE.
@ Señor Think: No sé cómo me hago entender pero evidentemente algo entienden y como usted dice, son muchos los perros que ladran.
Alguna vez tomaremos unas copas con usted y estos muchachos? Saludos.
The bottom line is.....the UK has the Falklands.......Argentina does not....end of story.
Aug 01st, 2017 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse +3malvado1833: “...son muchos los perros que ladran....”
Aug 01st, 2017 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Argento que ladra no muerde.
Translation: Argies all bark and no bite.
slds
@St.John: Do not you know those comic clowns Pascoe and Pepper? It's strange but in the British world now they hardly mention them.
Aug 01st, 2017 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This address to the Legislature debunks any British pretension to make believe that through the Arana-Southern Treaty Argentina gave up to its sovereignty over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. The same is true of the absurd statement in the British pamphlet that “Argentina had effectively ceded the islands to Britain by the Convention of Settlement in 1850”.The writers of the pamphlet could not ignore the full content of the address to the Legislature in 1849, since they mention its existence. They resort to the gimmick of speaking about the “1850 Convention”, because the treaty concluded on November 24th, 1849 was ratified on May 15th, 1850, and attempt to overlook the clear Argentine position of maintaining its sovereignty and its claim irrespective of the conclusion of the agreement, as expressed in the address to the Legislature a month later. Naively, to say the least, Pascoe and Pepper write “At that time treaties only came into force after they had been ratified”. It is well known by any student of international law as well as by any informed person that bilateral treaties subject to ratification enter into force after the exchange of instruments of ratification, both in the 19th and 21st Centuries. This fact does not alter the interpretation of the treaty, but it does speak volumes about the intellectual quality of the British pamphlet.
END OF THE LIE.
[....]
Aug 01st, 2017 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +318th century: Falklands are British
19th century: Falklands are British
20th century: Falklands are British
21st century: Falklands are British
22nd century: Falklands are British
[...]
Che, un patrón ¿viste?
Malvinense 1833
Aug 01st, 2017 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Can we please see the Argentine version of this alleged speech pf Rosas in order to verify that your English version is above board and correct? Thank you!
Malvidense
Aug 01st, 2017 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +2As I have said often on these threads and will say again for your benefit..
Who cares what happened or didn't happen nearly two hundred years ago. What you are indulging in is a type of irrelavent mental masturbation. The only thing that matters is the Falkland Islanders wishes, today, in the twenty first century.
You cannot set the clock back by two hundred years whether you like it or not, there are no time machines.
Take it to the ICJ. Either put up or shut up. For Argentina there are no other options.
Sf. Malvinense 1833
Aug 01st, 2017 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Woof..., Arf..., Bow..., Wow..., Ruff..., Guau..., Grrrrrr...
Chuckle..., chuckle...
;-)
Malvinense 1833
Aug 01st, 2017 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1In the 19th century treaties only came into force upon the exchange of ratifications - which, in this case, occurred AFTER Rosas' speech to the legislature. The exchange of ratifications was followed by total silence on the part of Buenos Aires and Argentina (after 1853 two separate administrations of course - BA having declared itself an independent country in that year) so nice try, but no banana.
Not that I believe it matters very much. After all - Rosas dropping a spurious claim, didn't make it any less spurious.
For the record I am aware that P&P have taken legal advice on this point from serious experts (if there is such a thing) in International Law. That advice indicates that their interpretation is correct. Which is why it was announced to the UN (and the world?) in the Lyall-Grant letter of 2012. Go learn.
I'm not much bothered. Spurious is spurious.
For the record - my chat with the military man at Kew has not provided any evidence in support of Mr. Phillip's contentions.
TWIMC...
Aug 01st, 2017 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You say...:
“For the record - my chat with the military man at Kew has not provided any evidence in support of Mr. Phillip's contentions.”
I say..
Don't say...!
Early days Think. There appears to be a general scepticism although not, strangely enough, about the issue of whether Argentina massaged the figures. The doubts arise regarding the numbers proposed by Mr. Phillips. 100 is dismissed out of hand, but there is a general acceptance that there were a few more more bodies. None of my contacts would be surprised if the real casualty rate spread into low double figures.
Aug 01st, 2017 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Malvinense 1833
Aug 01st, 2017 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Was Rosas a constitutional president?
As you are well aware, he was a usurper, thus not a legal representative of proto-Argentina (Argentina Embrionaria).
Was Rosas' speech before or after the formal 'state of the union' speeches of President Bartolomé Mitre (1865), Vice-president Marcos Paz (1866) and President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento 1869?
President Bartolomé Mitre 1865: “… no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.”
Vice-president Marcos Paz 1866: “Este mismo gobierno [= el gobierno británico] aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.”
President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento 1869: “El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.”
So whatever the unconstitutional usurper Rosas said doesn't count, as two constitutional presidents and a constitutional vicepresident confirmed that there were no conflict between Argentina and great Britain over the British Falkland Islands.
If you are unable to understand that, I feel very sorry for you.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Aug 01st, 2017 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Do keep the good work..., lad... and fetch me those “Argie double figures casualities”...
AND..., since you are at it... remember to look after Sadamm Hussein's Comical Weapons.., huhhh....?
By the way... look what I found during me surfing ......!
An auld Torygraph article from 2009 describing a...:《“Modern day Rorke's Drift”》
Is about some Valiant Royal Marines that 《“Took on the Argentine Falklands Invasion Force”》...
It says that 《“The Argentines never revealed how many the men they lost that day”》
... (Strange... I seem to remember we lost three men that day...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/5153220/The-22-Royal-Marines-who-took-on-Argentine-Falklands-invasion-force.html
Not very 《“Original”》your good friend...: Mr. Nicky Phillips..., huhhhh?
3 Think? According to Argentina's official figures, you only LOST one.
Aug 01st, 2017 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Worry not, I am keeping up the 'good work' - the truth can always be found ...... eventually. It's my purpose in life - bringing truth to Argentina.
:-)
Juppp............, 3
Aug 01st, 2017 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -11 poor sod at the Ship...
+
2 poor sods at the helicopter
------------
= 3 poor sods..., if memory serves me well...
No Argentinian wounded with all that gunfire ?
Aug 01st, 2017 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Marines wounded with all that gunfire...?
Aug 01st, 2017 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0tinkle: “ Ladran..., Sancho...Señal de que cabalgamos...”
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong again, tinkle.
It's from Goethe. Who knew no Sancho. But the sudacamericanos habitually err, in the false attribution to Cervantes.
Kläffer
Wir reiten in die Kreuz' und Quer'
Nach Freuden und Geschäften;
Doch immer kläfft es hinterher
Und billt aus allen Kräften.
So will der Spitz aus unserm Stall
Uns immerfort begleiten,
Und seines Bellens lauter Schall
Beweis't nur, daß wir reiten.
Auf Spanisch:
Ladrador (1808)
“Cabalgamos en todas direcciones
en pos de alegrías y de trabajo;
pero siempre ladran cuando
ya hemos pasado.
Y ladran y ladran a destajo.
Quisieran los perros de la cuadra
acompañarnos donde vayamos,
mas la estridencia de sus ladridos
sólo demuestra que cabalgamos”.
Anglo Turnip Martillazo..., just above...
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse -1Late..., as always...:
-《”(39) Sr. Massot...
Perdonálos...
Como escribio el Wolfgang...:
“Wir reiten in die Kreuz und Quer nach Freuden und Geschäften, Doch immer kläfft es hinterher”...
Incorrectamente atribuido al Miguel...:
“Ladran Sancho... señal de que cabalgamos...”
;-)
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/08/26/argentina-s-economy-contracts-4.3-year-on-year-in-june/comments#comment447968
Cuando vos vás...
Yó yá volví...
Gilún...
@ Roger Lorton: Obviously you dont know read.
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse -4Ratification: THIS FACT DOES NOT ALTER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY. Go read and learn.
@ St.John: The British pamphlet claims to make use of general statements of presidents and one vice- president in relation to the friendly relations of Argentina with the world in general or with the British government in particular, when we have seen that Argentina has made a permanent effort to maintain friendly relations with Great Britain, even when faced with serious incidents such as the occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas or the naval blockade of the Rio de la Plata. In spite of these facts, Argentina never withdrew its representative in London, nor did it ask the British Government to do likewise with its representative in Buenos Aires. The desire to maintain the best possible relations with what was at the time the greatest economic and naval power in the world, within the framework of Argentina’s economic dependence on Great Britain, cannot be used to undermine the Argentine position; especially when the British attitude was that of a refusal to enter into discussions over the islands.
Argentina never gave up the islands, otherwise it would be very easy for the UK to end the discussion.
@ Think hasta el chileno new falklander ladra chuckle, chuckle
tinkle, the mention of Sancho is an allusion to the mistaken belief (mistaken by so many argentos) that the original material was from Cervantes. Scholars in far higher grades than that which you imagine for yourself; that is, those who have actually read the Quijote, remind us that this is false attribution....
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1Esta frase [ “Ladran, luego cabalgamos, amigo Sancho.”] y sus variantes son atribuidas al personaje de Alonso Quijano, aunque no aparecen en toda la obra de El Quijote.
Malvinense 1833
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse +3Your idiocy is showing. There was no treaty until ratifications were exchanged as , as a peace treaty, interpretation has to be that, unless specifically dealt with, occupied land stayed in the hands of the occupier. Go learn.
Still no banana.
Think - obviously your memory does not serve you well. Two wounded, one dead - all at Government House.
Voice - according to Think the Argies were shooting high as they had been ordered to do. The Marines had no such orders.
Geeeeeeee.....
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse -3Those Anglos are funny...
- First..., Anglo Mr Roger Lorton..., that responds to me posting of an auld article about the 1982 heroic 《GEORGIAS DE SUR》 autoproclamed Rorke's Drift kind of resistance..., confounding it with the 1982 heroic 《MALVINAS》Rorke's Drift autoproclamed kind of resistance....
(For your kind info..., laddie... There are some 1,500 km. between Puerto Estanley and Grytviken)
Then..., Anglo Turnip Martillazo... that has the Chutzpah to pretend to learn me about German and Spanish literature... by using some information he..., most probably..., learned from one of me auld posts...
Chuckle..., chuckle..., rechuckle... requetechuckle...
Think - appears that you are the one that is confused. Age perhaps?
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse +3I'll leave it with a quote from Lawrence Freedman's Official History of the 1982 War (he's on Twitter and perfectly willing to defend what he says)
“At Government House, the initial assault was repulsed, leaving one Argentine dead and three wounded, although the Marines believed that they had inflicted much greater casualties. Later three commandos who had got into the servants quarters were disarmed and taken prisoner. As dawn broke, it was relatively quiet, but the local radio transmitter was off the air and some 120 Argentine troops were on the hillsides overlooking them.”
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse -3Me dear..., dear young lad... Are you drunk...?
Next time..., try to READ before answering..., ok...?
I'l repeat........, once again from the beginning........, just for your benefit......., copper...:
《”By the way... look what I found during me surfing ......!
An auld Torygraph article from 2009 describing a...:《“Modern day Rorke's Drift”》
Is about some Valiant Royal Marines that 《“Took on the Argentine Falklands Invasion Force”》...
It says that 《“The Argentines never revealed how many the men they lost that day”》
... (Strange... I seem to remember we lost three men that day...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/5153220/The-22-Royal-Marines-who-took-on-Argentine-Falklands-invasion-force.html
Not very 《“Original”》your good friend...: Mr. Nicky Phillips..., huhhhh?”》
ONCE AGAIN...THE FOLLOWING 2009 LINK...:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/5153220/The-22-Royal-Marines-who-took-on-Argentine-Falklands-invasion-force.html
................................................................................ FROM THE TORYGRAPH IS ABOUT THE 1982 “RORKE'S DRIFT KIND OF VALIANT RESISTENCE OF 22 ROYAL MARINES AT THE...:
” G E O R G I A S D E L S U R“ ISLES... I REPEAT...:THE ” G E O R G I A S D E L S U R” ISLES...
NOT THE MALVINAS..., NOT PUERTO ESTANLEY ON THE 02 APRIL1982...
BUT...
THE GEORGIAS DEL SUR ISLES..., GRYTVIKEN ON THE 03 APRIL 1982...
CAPISCE NOW...?
But dont believe me..., ask Mr.Lawrence Freedman's..., author of the Official History of the 1982 Malvinas War.., what happened in the GEORGIAS DEL SUR isles on the 3. April 1982...,he's on Twitter and perfectly willing to defend what he says...
@ Roger Lorton: As shown above, Argentina did not resign the Malvinas Islands in the Arana-Southern treaty. END OF LIE.
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse -3Again: RATIFICATION: THIS FACT DOES NOT ALTER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY.
chuckle chuckle rechuckle, requetechuckle (Credits El Think)
Think, I know the difference between Stanley and South Georgia. Government House is in Stanley.
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse +3You attempting to muddle the issue does not detract from the fact that a majority of those who have studied the issue, believe that Argentina massaged the casualty figures from the invasion of East Falkland Island on April 2, 1982. You won't agree - but then you are one of the faithful. Dream on, old man.
Malvinense 1833. In 1850 Argentina abandoned its spurious claim to the Falklands.That is a clear interpretation of the peace treaty. Learn to live with that FACT.
Nope..., lad...
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -2i just gave you the link of a book written in 2009 by a Royal Marine Veteran that uses the same brainwashing methodology as the book written in 2016 by that Royal Turnip called Micky Phillips...
Same...:《“Modern day Rorke's Drift”》false analogy...
(No War prisoners, civilians, women or children killed or hanged)
Same...:《“The Argentines never revealed how many the men they lost that day”》brainwashing lie...
(We lost 3 men that day..., as I mentioned before...)
Your friend Micky Phillips shows to be not only a narcisist and a liar..., but also a plagiarist and misuser of veterans...
No surprise that you try to wriggle away from your early endorsement of that slimy Turnip...
(He even cheated you some four pints on his “book” price..., remember;-)
----------------------------Rosas’ words leave no room for doubt:-----------------
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“The Government pays serious attention to the pending claims of the Republic before Great Britain for the unjustifiable retention of the Malvinas Islands (...) The government fully approved the well-founded complaint and protest of the Argentine minister against the inaccurate assertions of HM’s minister of foreign affairs and expressed that, through that protest it supported, as it should have and as it had to verify in any case, the proper rights of the Argentine Confederation in the Malvinas Islands, against the renewed disregard of HM’s Minister of foreign affairs, who made the unfounded supposition that the correspondence had ceased by reason of acquiescence on the part of the Confederation or of both parties, according to the different versions that appeared in the newspapers (...) the Government ordered its Minister that when discussing this, he always uphold the same principles and base himself on the same facts that resulted from the correspondence followed on this topic, and transmitted other orders for upholding the unquestionable rights of the Confederation in the Malvinas islands.” Credits Kohen, Marcelo, Rodríguez Facundo.
END OF THE LIE.
Message of Governor Juan Manuel de Rosas at the opening sessions of the Legislature of the Province of Buenos Aires on December 27th, 1849 in Mensajes de los gobernadores de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, 1822-1849, Vol. II, La Plata, Archivo Histórico de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, 1976.
I've already told you that relying on the clowns P & P would make you look stupid.
Endorsement Think? I have always doubted Mr. Phillips' numbers whilst maintaining that there were more casualties than 3 at Stanley. Something that most historians believe.
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Malvinense 1883 - you still don't get it. Regardless of what Rosas told the Legislature, the treaty came into effect after he sent his message to them. Interpretation is clear. Rosas abandoned Argentina's spurious claim.
You can repeat your nonsense ad infinitum - fact remains that Argentina's protests to Britain stopped in 1850.
End of
Yessss..., laddie...
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -3E N D O R S E M E N T...
You even tried to make me invest £10 in his pile of lies...
Ya know how many bales of hay a tenner can buy in southern Chubut...?
And don't get me started about how many quintals of good horse manure I could get for 10 quid...
It's worth the money Think and how can you call it “lies” if you haven't read it. You should. Damned good read. Some excellent questions raised. Many facts plus a few fanciful theories. Is Mr. Phillips convincing in his suggestion that there were 100+ Argentine casualties = No. Were there more than 3 casualties at Stanley = undoubtedly.
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Stick to hay, old man, clutching at straws appears to be an Argie pastime.
AGAIN:
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature is of key importance, having been made a month after the signature of the Arana-Southern Treaty. The address relates in detail the negotiations that resulted in the signature of the agreement. Nothing emerges from the preparatory works of the treaty, nor from the debates in the British Parliament, that may prove that Argentina accepted to settle the issue of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands through that instrument. On the contrary, after presenting the Anglo-Argentine treaty, Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature continues by expressly mentioning the issue of the Falklands/Malvinas in relation to the reports in British newspapers concerning the exchange of notes between Moreno and Palmerston, and ratifies the actions of the Argentine representative in London. Therefore, it is absurd to claim that Rosas renounced the Falklands/Malvinas through the treaty, when he continued to officially claim the islands a month after having concluding the treaty! The fact of having discussed the subject separately clearly shows the difference between the two issues (the blockade of the Rio de la Plata and fluvial navigation on the one hand, and the issue of the Falklands/Malvinas on the other).
Credits Kohen, Marcelo- Rodríguez Facundo.
Argentina did not renuncing the Malvinas islands.
End of the lie.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You say...:
《“Were there more than 3 casualties at Stanley = undoubtedly.”》
I say...:
“Undoubtedly”...?
Big word for an amateur historian without any tangible evidence..., lad... Typical you...
Tell me...:
The only fatal casuality of the day was Captain Pedro Giachino...
A career officer..., and a real arsehole..., as we found soon afterwards...
Why wouldn't the MilitaryJunta misuse some young, fresh faced conscripted “Heroes”..., if we had so many..., huhhh...?
We all luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv... “Heroes”... don't we...?
Malvinense 1833 were you born stupid or is it the result of long studies in a dark cellar?
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +3St-John has just shown you that later constitutional presidents official speeches superceeded anything the unconstitutional dictator Rosas ever said or wrote.
End of story.
@ Don Alberto: Typical British game, when Rosas is no longer useful, then it is undemocratic, unconstitutional but the British tried to validate a Treaty of Roses that has no relation to the Malvinas Islands.
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -3END OF LIE.
Regards.
Sr. Malvinense 1833...
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Mejor ní le preguntei al inglés zanijador ese..., cuán “Democrática” era la Incalaperra del 1849... ;-)
Any official support from any UK Govt or Argentine Govt for the assertions of the book so far...?
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2How about UK or Argentine military associations or regiments...?
How about military historians...?
How about anybody...?
Thought not...
Is it time for the gullible on here to start back pedalling...?
Time to pop down to Specsavers and exchange those...“They don't like it up 'em” rose tinted spectacles for proper ones...
I think the UK Govt. has more to do with it's time than comment on history books.
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +4This is getting TOO SILLY.
The bottom line is..the Argies invaded against minimal defence forces. Our lads were lucky none got killed....not by the goodwill of the Argentine forces.
Some not too pleasant things were done against the population including trashing their homes.
The UK invaded and after a struggle, kicked them out totally...tails between legs.
End of story.
Think
I see you posted 9 hours ago. That would be 0800 BST OR 0700 GMT. In Argentina about 0300/0400. Does your conscience bother you or are you an insomniac
tinkle “ ....the only fatal casuality of the day was Captain Pedro Giachino..”
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Giachino was implicated in crimes against humanity, as were so many argie naval officers. Of course that part was left out during the little hero-worship event they had for him here in Río Gallegos here some years ago.
He wasn't the only argie casualty that day.
Argentine military records indicate that LT García Quiroga was also seriously injured. Shot in the arm. Corporal (cabo) Urbina was also shot. Other casualties admitted by the argies include Horacio Tello, also hit by a bullet. Other casualties elsewhere but don't have their names handy.
Malvinense 1833
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +3tell us, birdbrain
1. was Rosas a constitutional, elected president?
2. was Rosas an unconstitutional usurper?
Are you for or against a dictatorship?
Who and what really counts:
1. the possible opinion of an usurper or
2. the clear and precise expression af presidents who were elected according to the Argentine constitution?
Malvinense 1833
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Rosas 1849 address is of no importance, not when there was an 1850 treaty that stopped all protests for more than 30 years. And 30 years is a magic figure :-)
Think - Argentina figures remain disbelieved. But then most of what the Junta said isn't much believed by Argies either. Live with it.
Voice - no great support for the fanciful theories in the book. General support for Argentina having massaged its casualty figures. With the amount of ammo expended, the Royal Marines should have hit more than 3 by accident.
Shrinkbrain “Think”:
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +31. I am not British
2. How come yo are suddenly able to spell 'inglés' and not 'ingrés'?
3. Trencher(man) is spelled 'zanjador', not 'zanijador'
4. preguntei is chilean castellano (along with trutros, etc.), while in Argentine castellano it is 'preguntes'.
5. are you born stupid, as in who is dummer than a dum Dane? that's a smart Swede. Oh! who then is dummer than a dum Swede? that's a smart Argentine.
Alway remember that, segun el presidente Sarmiento, argentino and ignorante are spelled using the same letters.
LOL - any date for that Sarmiento quote Don Alberto?
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Roger, -- the Sarmiento quote:
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Las palabras: ARGENTINO e IGNORANTE se escriben con las mismas letras. Luchemos para que no se transformen en sinónimos.”
As you have noted, Sarmiento's struggle to keep the two terms from becoming synonymous has been fruitless, and today they are for all practical purposes interchangeable.
@Roger Lorton
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I am not sure, but it was probably in 1869, re.:
Siempre consagrado a la educación, don Domingo escribió la siguiente frase: “Las palabras argentino e ignorante, se escriben con las mismas letras. ¡ Luchemos para que no se conviertan en sinónimos!”
Sarmiento hizo su primer censo en el año 1869, a los seis meses de haber asumido la presidencia de nuestro país.
Este censo arrojó los siguientes datos, que Domingo analizó con gran atención
población: 1.830.000 habitantes, analfabetos: 71%.
Leídos éstos resultados, el presidente llama a su secretaria y le solicita lo siguiente: “Convoque a Reunión de Gabinete de Ministros urgente para esta misma tarde”.
- - -
Always devoted to education, Don Domingo wrote the following sentence: “The words argentino and agnorante, are written with the same letters. Let's fight so they do not become synonyms!”
Sarmiento made his first census in 1869, six months after assuming the presidency of our country. This census gave the following data, which Domingo analyzed with great attention
Population: 1,830,000 inhabitants, illiterate: 71%.
Having read these results, the president calls his secretary and asks him to: “Call an urgent Cabinet of Ministers Meeting for this very afternoon.”
- - -
- although he may have written the sentence earlier than 1869, as Sarmiento opened his first school when he was only 15 years old (1826) in San Francisco del Monte de Oro, in the San Luís province.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!