MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, February 1st 2023 - 13:33 UTC



British forces during Falklands' war benefited from CIA Crypto AG decoded messages

Friday, February 14th 2020 - 09:55 UTC
Full article 25 comments

The Royal Navy, RAF, and British Army benefited from the CIA's secret ownership of a code-making machine company during the Falklands' War, a new investigation has claimed. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Livingthedream

    Your Welcome

    Feb 14th, 2020 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MarkWhelan

    That's what allies do for each other in time of war.

    Feb 14th, 2020 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brasileiro

    Which one is the neo-Nazi drug dealer named Jack Bauer?

    Feb 14th, 2020 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    This is old and very misleading news. Chile figured out that our UK allies were somehow reading our neighbors mail in the '80s, but the “cat escaped the bag” in 1993. Crypto AG marketed a fax machine that still is being used.

    Today spyware is incorporated in many types of electronic equipment, with China in the lead.

    Feb 14th, 2020 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Not sure that the composition of Galitieri's liquid lunch was of very much use.

    What information was passed, if any, remains unstated.

    Feb 14th, 2020 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Guillote

    If the great Roger Lorton says it, nobody can doubt :) :)

    Feb 16th, 2020 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Hello, Gullible's back ;-)

    Feb 16th, 2020 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Hey Rogers, thanks for the documents, for you it is something new, for me not, as they are all Spanish documents, because English documents have nothing true ?.
    By the way these documents are enlightening and totally contradict what you say or do not know how to read Spanish?
    Continue with your story, England in the west. That is false. After the English withdrawal there was no such thing as England in the west. You are very funny.
    You are the one who has distorted reality, the country that made no effort to regain possession of Port Egmont was England, which is simple and clear due to the 1770 agreement.
    You say that Spain did not replace the marks and signs of England.
    Spain did something more forceful, destroyed the buildings and symbols left by the English in bad faith.
    Not only that, ships and men were sent to watch Puerto Egmont, the Patagonian coast, Cape Horn and the rest of the Malvinas Islands.
    Do you think that after 44 years of absolute domination Spain would claim a single island?
    The documents are very clear.
    I must not lie.

    I must not lie.

    I must not lie.

    I must not lie.

    Feb 17th, 2020 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton

    Your distortions start to bore me, NoreCrap.

    One island claimed in 1811. It says so clearly in the Spanish documents. Island singular.

    The order = “Prior to verifying the abandonment of the establishment that you are leaving, nail in the place that you consider most appropriate the coat of arms of Spain, if it wasn't already there, and write in the proper place, not exposed to the elements, with uppercase letters the following - “This island with its port, buildings, dependencies and everything else inside belongs to the sovereignty of Sr Don Fernando 7th, legitimate King of Spain, and the Indies and the date” - having written such august name and (posted) in several places of the establishment, this act to be verified by both the captain and the chaplain to give it all the possible solemnity; everything as agreed in the War Council celebrated today in the house of Sr Governor of that place. … Jose Maria Salasar” [Jose Maria Salasar a Sr. Gm. Pablo Guillen 8 de enero de 1811 in Biblioteca Virtual del Ministerio de Defensa ref:

    Feb 17th, 2020 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    That is all you have to say that Spain claimed only one island! A singular writing!
    It is an extremely poor argument!
    However, the documents you provide contradict it and grant the reason to Spain.
    The documents mention Puerto Soledad, Soledad de Malvinas.
    It is mentioned: having abandoned these islands.
    It is also mentioned: “the deliberation formed in a war board leaves the Malvinas Islands for the reasons it expresses.” In Plural!! You can read it in the first document.!!

    I think age is affecting him.
    You must read more and learn.

    Feb 17th, 2020 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton



    Execution certified = “Don Pablo Guillen second Pilot of the Royal Navy, Commander of the Zumaca del Rey la Carlota and of the Soledad de Maluinas Colony, Don Juan Canora Capellan of said Zumaca and Vicar of the expressed Colony, and Don Manuel Moreno second Pilot of the Royal Navy and Commander of the King's Bergantine el Galvez =
    We certify that on the 13th of February one thousand eight hundred eleven has been placed in the belfry of this Royal Chapel of the Arms of Spain and on a plate of lead the inscription that It continues “This Island with its Ports, Buildings, Dependencies and everything it contains belongs to the Sovereignty of the Lord Don Fernando 7th legitimate King of Spain and his Indies, Soledad de Maluinas February 7, 1811 being Governor Pablo Guillen” and in the other buildings and which dictated on paper, everything that has been verified with all solemnity, and for the record of the signature in the Soledad Colony of Maluinas thirteen February one thousand eight hundred eleven = Pablo Guillen = Juan Canora = Manuel Moreno” [Biblioteca Virtual del Ministerio de Defensa ref: BMDB20150201577]

    “Del Carril quotes Spanish scholar Gil Munilla who pointed out that the plates left by Lieutenant Clayton at Port Egmont and by Guillen at Soledad referred to “the Falkland island” and to “this island” respectively, both in singular, and therefore the reservation of dominion would apply only to West Falkland (Gran Malvina) in the first case and to East Falkland (Isla Soledad) in the second.” [Pena & Pena]

    Esta Isla = SINGULAR

    MoreCrap = Troll

    Feb 17th, 2020 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    Again, they are known documents and their argument is very poor.
    Island, islands, Puerto Soledad de Malvinas is mentioned. In singular and plural.
    In any case, it reaffirms once again the Spanish sovereignty of the islands.
    Try to find a similar English document from that time, it simply does not exist.
    England was established in bad faith in Port Egmont and in bad faith left symbols that are not important to establish sovereignty, with a population occupying the islands. In the crisis of 1770 England did not claim the Malvinas Islands, did not claim the island Trinidad, did not claim the Fort and the Egmont Port.
    Only claimed to save his honor.
    The islands were never English, they must return that piece of Argentina.
    More information here:

    I must not lie.

    Feb 18th, 2020 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    Another quote I did not have room for before =
    “There is no evidence of the Spanish settlement being extended to West Falkland, nor of the British settlement being extended to East Falkland.” [The Falkland Islands, 5th Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee Session 1983-1984 HC 268 25.10.1984 para.16]

    The documents are indeed clear, Morecrap, Spain claimed ONE island in 1811. And yes, you should not lie. But you do lie.

    Spain claimed one Island in 1811. Why? Because of the 1771 agreement. This is obvious.

    Now, to recap.
    1) The islands were considered an English possession from 1594.
    2) The French did not cede the islands (a handover is not the same as cession).
    3) The 1771 accord left the British in the west and the Spanish in the east.
    4) In 1811, Spain claimed only ONE island in 1811 as confirmed by Gil Munilla.
    5) MoreCrap is a Troll

    Oh, one more reminder - ARGENTINA IS NOT SPAIN

    You lose, yet again ;-)

    Feb 18th, 2020 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    1-Davies did not discover the islands, does not describe coordinates and its positioning leads to the open sea.
    2- The French yielded the islands, never claimed them again. There are documents, I already mentioned it in a previous post.
    3-England remained momentarily in the west to save its honor, Spain made express reservation of its sovereignty over the islands, in the plural. Then the English withdrew and never returned or made a claim.
    4- It is absurd to say that Spain claimed a single island after staying more than 40 years in the islands.
    Island, islands, Puerto Soledad, Soledad Island,Malvinas Islands are mentioned.
    Argentina is not Spain, but it was part of the Spanish territory, the islands depended on the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.
    The independence struggles are considered a civil war in international law, Argentina was a rebel province and the whole territory was not res nullius, therefore while these struggles were being fought no foreign power can be established not only in the Malvinas Islands, but in The whole territory.
    Oh Oh one more reminder, the United Kingdom is not England. ;-))))
    You must read more and above all stop lying.

    Feb 18th, 2020 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    1) No coordinates were correct before de Weerdt accurately plotted the Jasons in 1600. Davis is recognised as the first certain European discoverer. There is no evidence that Davis made a claim. Hawkins followed in 1594. Hawkins did claim. That claim required effective occupation to become substantial. That did not occur until 1766.
    2) France yielded its base. France did not cede its rights. France then made a claim for an establishment in the islands in 1801. A claim made during the Amiens Treaty negotiations against the recognised owner - the British.
    3) Spain made no express reservation of sovereignty in 1771. The words are quite clear - “The Prince of Masseran declares, at the same time, in the name of the King his master, that the engagement of his said Catholic Majesty, to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.” All that was reserved was the question. That question was never debated again. Britain in the west. Spain in the east. A compromise that became the status quo. That became the norm.
    4) Absurd or not, that is what Spain did. It claimed just one island in 1811. ESTE ISLA should be understandable even to you. Spain never gained effective possession over the western islands, nor did it replace the marks & signs of sovereignty removed in 1771. Spain could only claim one island.
    5) Argentina is not Spain. Inheritance before 1863 is a myth. Spain recognised British sovereignty in 1863.
    6) Your civil wars do not figure in what then passed as international law at all. The UP/Confederation gained no effective control over the archipelago. Did not even claim the islands until 1829. No inheritance. No sovereignty. Nothing.
    7) Britain became the UK in 1707. The UK's sovereignty is dated from 1766 with its occupation of the western islands.

    Go learn, little troll.

    Feb 18th, 2020 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    1-Davies and Hawkins did not discover the islands. That's a fact.
    Sebald de Weerdt is considered the first European navigator to discover the Falklands by giving the precise coordinates of the Sebaldina group (Jason).
    Although we know that the islands appear in numerous Spanish maps long before this supposed “discovery.”
    2-There is no official document where France makes a claim for the islands.
    You confuse Bougainville's request for Spain to renounce its sovereignty in favor of Spain.
    And that England approve this request as the power of the time.
    England had the opportunity to make a claim but it did not. Evidence once again the Spanish sovereignty of the islands.
    3-Spain made reservation of its sovereignty. England no.
    England was given back the possession of the Fort and Port Egmont. Not Trinidad Island, not the Great Malvina, not the Falkland Islands.
    The only one who says otherwise is you.
    Read the discussions in parliament. Read what Junius, Chatham, Dr Johnson etc. say.
    Read Masserano's full statement and Rochford's acceptance.
    4- Spain did not claim only one island in 1811.
    The link provided by you clearly reads Island and Falkland Islands.
    Spain controlled the entire archipelago as indicated by the link provided by you.
    It is clear that it was not necessary to replace symbols that are just that: symbols and that lack value to establish sovereignty. And also why should they be replaced if they have control and possession of the entire archipelago?
    5-6 The Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata was Spanish territory and included the islands.
    “they were soon afterwards (1820) claimed, and a year or two later occupied, by the United Provinces of Buenos Ayres, as the successors in title of Spain from whom the colony had just won its Independence”.
    Ronald H. Campbell - Foreign Office.
    7- There was no sovereignty in 1766. The islands were already occupied. However, with the diplomatic defeat of 1771 they accepted Spanish sovereignty and withdrew in 1774.

    Feb 19th, 2020 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    You waste my time MoreCrap. Every point you make is in error. Davis is recognised as the first certain discoverer. France published its claims in 1802. Spain made only a reservation as to the question of right being unaffected by the 1771 accord and yes, Spain claimed only one island in 1811 having failed to exert effective control over the whole archipelago. As the documents say - one island. The last seat of the Viceroyalty was Montevideo, not Buenos Aires and so Argentina could not succeed to anything. Not that there was any inheritance before 1863. British sovereignty dates from 1766.

    Your distortions are risible. You repeat old Argie indoctrinations. In fact - you lie.

    This tedious conversation is over. My evidence is fully laid out over 1700 pages.

    It destroys all your assertions.

    Go learn

    Feb 19th, 2020 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    False. Davies' description does not allow them to be identified with the Falklands. Sebal de Weert is considered the first European navigator to accurately locate the islands at 50 ° 40 ”south latitude and 60 leagues from the southern coast. However, they were already shown on Spanish maps much earlier. There is no claim of France in 1802, were negotiations between France and England on fishing and whale hunting. In those negotiations England did not make any claim of sovereignty. In 1801- 1802 Spain had an effective presence, there was no such thing as England in the west, there was no English population at any cardinal point. The agreement was a restitution of Fort and Port Egmont to save the insult, the English honor as read in the acceptance of Rochford, without this restitution affecting the previous right of Spanish sovereignty. It is hilarious to think that the Spanish King in his declaration makes a mutual reserve of sovereignty. Subsequent events confirm this. Junius, Chataham, Dr. Johnson, English Parliament, etc.) Strange that Spain in 44 years could not exercise effective control of the archipelago. Is it clear that if British sovereignty dates back to 1766, was it able to effectively control the archipelago or not? 1811? As the documents say, island, islands, Masserano's own statement reads islands in the plural. And yes, the Spanish forces withdrew to Montevideo to resist the advance of the patriotic forces, it was the last Spanish headquarters that is irrelevant in the dispute. Montevideo was another city of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Navy captain Mr. Felipe Ruiz Puente proceeded to take possession of said islands, on behalf of His Catholic Majesty and in his capacity of governor, and on April 1st, 1767 the Spanish flag was raised at Soledad bay. Since then, the peaceful possession of the Malvinas was not disturbed again, as possessions of the Spanish Crown and its viceroyalty of Buenos Aires. Navarrete in response to President A. Jackson

    Feb 20th, 2020 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    You continue to waste my time, MoreCrap.

    1) Davis?
    “Iſles decouv. par Davis Anglois” [Mappe-monde, dressé sur les observations de mrs. de l’Academie royale des sciences et quelques autres et sur les memoires les plus recens Nicolas Sanson 1696]
    “Those islands called by us Falkland's, and by the French the Malouines, were first discovered in the year 1592, by Capt. Davies (sic), who went out the associate of the brave and unfortunate Candish (sic), and is supposed to have basely deserted him in that fatal voyage. Davis, however, was too distressed at the time to make any particular observations of these islands; nor did he even give them a name,..” [The Annual Register for the Year 1771 printed for J. Dodsley 1772]
    “These islands were discovered on the 14th August, 1592, by John Davis, the commander of one of the vessels of the squadron sent to the Pacific under Cavendish.” [Memorandum Respecting the Falkland Islands and Dependencies John W. Field 1928]
    2. The Sanson islands were not the Falklands.
    3. “... Napoleon ... dared to claim the Falklands in preliminary negotiations of the Peace of Amiens, ...” [La Primera Unión del Sur, Orígenes de la Frontera Austral Argentino-Chilena Patagonia, Islas Malvinas y Antártida by D. L. Molinari 1961]
    4. No reservation of right in 1771.
    “The expedition is disavowed, and the island is restored. The Spaniards have stipulated that the grant of possession shall not preclude the question of prior right; a question which we shall probably make no haste to discuss, and a right of which no formal resignation was ever required.” [Thoughts on the Late Transactions Respecting Falkland's Islands S. Johnson 1771.]
    “A treaty between Spain and England was concluded, whereby the latter gained quiet possession of Falkland Isles.” [The Universal Chronologist and Historical Register from the Creation to the years 1835… Henry Boyle 1835]

    Uruguay may have a claim of inheritance. Not Argentina.

    Goodbye, little troll.

    I'm off to the beach ;-)

    Feb 20th, 2020 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Napoleon Bonaparte? There is no such thing as a claim from France to Spain. Can you provide the claim text from France to Spain? In any case I do not see how this can benefit in the British position.
    If the islands belonged to the United Kingdom then why would the French claim the Spaniards?
    As for the crisis of 1770, everything is resolved in Masserano's declaration and Rochford's acceptance of 1771.
    Subsequent events confirm the agreement. The British withdraw and the Spanish remain with the possession of the islands.
    There is no English possession in the west, east, north, south, Patagonian coast, Cape Horn, etc.
    Uruguay? Of course. For that reason the United Kingdom has had this conflict with Argentina since 1833.
    Davis? I almost forget it. He did not discover the islands. His story is inconsistent, he does not name them. The islands were already on the Spanish maps. In any case, it is not relevant for the acquisition of sovereignty.
    And remember that you should not lie misrepresenting the facts of the story.

    Feb 20th, 2020 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    MoreCrap. I have worked out your problem. You are relying on the Rodriguez and Kohen fantasy book. I reviewed it here (awful and full of lies) -

    I recognised the Navarrete quote - of which I have rather more in the Timeline. If you need to rely on Argie lawyers, I suggest you try Pena y Pena. Not 100% accurate, but so much better than R & K. They tell too many lies.

    Let me recap - Davis discovered as proven by the quotes I have given you. Spain did not reserve anything but a question, as proven by the quotes I have given you. The French claimed in 1801, as proven by the quotes I have given you. The last seat of the Viceroyalty was Montevideo - fact. The islands were not on Spanish maps before Davis. AND Spain only claimed on Island in 1811 as proven by the quotes I have given you.

    You need to stop lying. You need to read more than Kohen and Rodriguez. You need to read more, period. You need to read my Timeline. I have all the quotes. I have all the documents.

    Tomorrow I drive to the beach. I leave you to your fantasies.

    Feb 20th, 2020 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    Kohen, Rodriguez and many historians around the world live a world of fantasies, that's your problem.
    Davis did not discover the islands, did not give his position, did not name them.
    France made no claims, where is the text in its timeline?
    The last seat of the Viceroyalty was Montevideo and?
    With whom are diplomatic exchanges made since 1833? with Montevideo?
    “... deliberation taken at the war board MALVINAS ISLANDS ABANDONED.” In plural.
    ... the Regency Council of having abandoned the useless establishment of MALVINAS. In plural.
    You need to read understand and above all not to lie.

    Feb 20th, 2020 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    “According to the slight evidence available in the Journal of John Jane, Davis located land 50 leagues or more north-east of the Straits of Magellan, but the weather was such as to prevent him from determining his latitude and making any close observations. As a result the evidence in favour of his claim carries no more weight than do those of Magellan and Alonzo de Camargo.” [Memorandum on the Falkland Islands 1947 in LCO 2/490]

    “It will be also granted to the French Republic, to promote fisheries in the South Seas, an Establishment in the Malouines Isles or Falkland, which will be defined by a subsequent convention.” [PRO 30/11/264 p.76V]

    “It seems that the articles proposed by Mr. Otto and rejected by Lord Hawkesbury had intended to state: 1. the exchange of islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon against part of the island of Newfoundland; 2. the cession of a fishing establishment in the Falkland Islands; 3. Fishermen neutrality in wartime.” [Histoire abrégée des Traités de Paix, entre les puissances de l’Europe, depuis la paix de Westphalie Christophe Koch 1817 p.132]

    “At the end of the old year he (Napoleon) put out a counter project, amounting almost to a new treaty, claiming extended fishing rights in Newfoundland, the restoration of the fortifications of Pondicherry at British expense, an establishment in the Falkland Islands and the abolition of the right of salute at sea... Cornwallis and Hawkesbury had the utmost difficulty in resisting these claims.” [The Years of Endurance: 1793-1802 Arthur Bryant 1942]

    “ESTA ISLA con sus Puertos, Edificios, Dependencias y quanto contiene pertenece a la Soberanía del Sr. D. Fernando VII Rey de España y sus Indias, Soledad de Malvinas 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.” [BMDB20150201577]

    Now do stop wasting my time, idiot Troll. You can attempt to distort all you like. You fail to convince. Better if you stop lying, and read more.

    Now, I have a 5 hour drive. Hasta la vista baby ;-)

    Feb 20th, 2020 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • SantiagoM

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Feb 23rd, 2020 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “There are two kinds of forecasters: those who don’t know, and those who don’t know they don’t know.” John Kenneth Galbraith

    Feb 23rd, 2020 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!