Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: 7 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: Yeah totally, that's why they've tried to sue the British government for it twice and complained to the UN. I'd love to see Thatcher further humiliated as a war criminal for that and anything else, but a quick google seems to discredit it. If you can show otherwise, by all means go for it, but apparently the Argentine Navy themselves acknowledged it is a legitimate act of war in court. Yeah in the same way the bullied kid in the playground after he's had a ten minute beating finally admits the bully was right and he is a fat speccy ginger c**t. What you'll find anyway is when right wing governments who want to suck up to the USA and are neoliberal wanks are in charge Argentina might have said things like that, but that's not their opinion. They literally tried to sue our government over it. As for what I can show, I don't really care if you agree. If you're interested look into it. There are two crucial, indisputable facts. One, it was not inside the exclusion zone, making it not a legitimate target, targeting it illegal under international law, and therefore by definition a war crime, and two, though legally less important, was heading away from the action at the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 1 minute ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: Yeah in the same way the bullied kid in the playground after he's had a ten minute beating finally admits the bully was right and he is a fat speccy ginger c**t. What you'll find anyway is when right wing governments who want to suck up to the USA and are neoliberal wanks are in charge Argentina might have said things like that, but that's not their opinion. They literally tried to sue our government over it. As for what I can show, I don't really care if you agree. If you're interested look into it. There are two crucial, indisputable facts. One, it was not inside the exclusion zone, making it not a legitimate target, targeting it illegal under international law, and therefore by definition a war crime, and two, though legally less important, was heading away from the action at the time. Unconvincing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Just now, Bairnardo said: Unconvincing. Again, when I start caring how convinced you are I'll let you know. I've given you the facts, if you were genuinely interested you could look it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: Again, when I start caring how convinced you are I'll let you know. I've given you the facts, if you were genuinely interested you could look it up. Purely as an outsider who doesnt care about Englands wars with Argentina you seem to care. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Again, when I start caring how convinced you are I'll let you know. I've given you the facts, if you were genuinely interested you could look it up.I dont think the Captain of the Belgrano agrees with your facts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 I once umpired a tennis match for Leopoldo Galtieri, and he said it was a war crime, and that Peter Shilton’s an arsehole. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 The Argentinian government of the time were straightforward murdering fascists, led by a military dictatorship. "Neoliberal" doesn't do them justice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: They had a 320km exclusion zone. The rules of war are very very clear. Inside that zone fair game, outside it a war crime. There is no ambiguity here, the only that exists has been created by the British press pumping out propaganda. Its quite interesting and depressinly predictable to watch literally almost everyone who grew up immersed in that propaganda 100% believes it. Belgrano was part of a two pronged attack on the British fleet and was a legitimate target which represented a severe threat. The uk government also contacted the Argentinans via the Swiss “In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty’s Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Forgot this gem from Diego's autobiography 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Tattiescone Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 https://www.ejiltalk.org/understanding-the-use-of-zones-and-the-concept-of-proportionality-enduring-lessons-from-the-falklands-war/ The Belgrano was targeted a month after the Falklands had been forcibly invaded. It is incontrovertible that an international armed conflict was in existence and that the UK was exercising its inherent right of self-defence. Indeed, the UK’s actions in recovering the Falklands shows such a right is not placed in abeyance merely because the Security Council has passed a resolution calling for one of the parties to the conflict to withdraw. Some commentators argue that once an armed conflict exists the only question to be asked under the jus ad bellum is who started the conflict (here). In other words, proportionality is irrelevant once hostilities are under way. Most commentators appear to disagree with this view (e.g. here, here and here) and, significantly, this is at odds with the position in the UK Manual (para 2.8). It is relevant, therefore, to ask whether the torpedoing of the Belgrano was a proportionate act under the jus ad bellum. Proportionality allows an injured State to do what is reasonably necessary to deal with the threat it is facing. In terms of the threat facing the British fleet, UK signals intelligence intercepted a communication prior to the torpedoing of the Belgrano that confirmed it was to rendezvous with other vessels back inside the TEZ in order to engage in a pincer attack (here). Moreover, far from retreating from the Royal Navy, the Captain of the Belgrano confirmed any change of direction was a temporary manoeuvre and that he had been commanded to attack the British fleet wherever he encountered it (here and here). The threat posed by the Belgrano meant its targeting was necessary and proportionate despite it being positioned just outside the TEZ. To say otherwise would see the jus ad bellum imbued with a quixotic understanding that is at odds with military realities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 11 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: Purely as an outsider who doesnt care about Englands wars with Argentina you seem to care. I'm making the point that's how they see it so that's why beating England in 86 was such a big deal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 11 minutes ago, welshbairn said: The Argentinian government of the time were straightforward murdering fascists, led by a military dictatorship. "Neoliberal" doesn't do them justice. No doubt, so were ours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said: https://www.ejiltalk.org/understanding-the-use-of-zones-and-the-concept-of-proportionality-enduring-lessons-from-the-falklands-war/ The Belgrano was targeted a month after the Falklands had been forcibly invaded. It is incontrovertible that an international armed conflict was in existence and that the UK was exercising its inherent right of self-defence. Indeed, the UK’s actions in recovering the Falklands shows such a right is not placed in abeyance merely because the Security Council has passed a resolution calling for one of the parties to the conflict to withdraw. Some commentators argue that once an armed conflict exists the only question to be asked under the jus ad bellum is who started the conflict (here). In other words, proportionality is irrelevant once hostilities are under way. Most commentators appear to disagree with this view (e.g. here, here and here) and, significantly, this is at odds with the position in the UK Manual (para 2.8). It is relevant, therefore, to ask whether the torpedoing of the Belgrano was a proportionate act under the jus ad bellum. Proportionality allows an injured State to do what is reasonably necessary to deal with the threat it is facing. In terms of the threat facing the British fleet, UK signals intelligence intercepted a communication prior to the torpedoing of the Belgrano that confirmed it was to rendezvous with other vessels back inside the TEZ in order to engage in a pincer attack (here). Moreover, far from retreating from the Royal Navy, the Captain of the Belgrano confirmed any change of direction was a temporary manoeuvre and that he had been commanded to attack the British fleet wherever he encountered it (here and here). The threat posed by the Belgrano meant its targeting was necessary and proportionate despite it being positioned just outside the TEZ. To say otherwise would see the jus ad bellum imbued with a quixotic understanding that is at odds with military realities. That's a legal opinion not a statement of fact. Here is another https://en.mercopress.com/2005/08/11/sinking-of-belgrano-as-a-war-crime-advocates-present-case 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: You have to understand it from their point of view too. Imagine say Japan had bought the Shetlands from Australia 300 years ago. There was nobody there and they just moved a couple of thousand Japanese people there like two hundred years later. Now they claim its theirs. and they're a bigger stronger country than us with a better military. They also claim all the oil in the North Sea is theirs too cause the Shetlands are theirs. Imagine how angry and humiliated you would be. So you invade to try to right this wrong, and are slaughtered by the imperial might of the colonial oppressor, who commit several war crimes in the process. A national humiliation, that endures to this day as we still have the Falklands. Then imagine you get the chance to knock them out of the WC four years later.... You're 100% correct. When do we take the Faroes from the Danes? Edited November 26, 2020 by Gordon EF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 That Maradona chap was good at the old football, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: You're 100% correct. When do we take back the Faroes from the Danes? You make no point except other countries have done bad stuff too. That doesn't make doing bad stuff okay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisal Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Get this pish off God's thread. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 https://www.facebook.com/euronews/videos/804286687091949/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 The big man has given his thoughts on how this thread is currently going 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Just now, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: You make no point except other countries have done bad stuff too. That doesn't make doing bad stuff okay. Well no. I'm making the point that of course everyone understands why feelings were running high in the aftermath of the Falklands War but the attitude of Argentina towards the Falklands is generally ridiculous and so is any attempt to excuse it. It's the equivalent of folk in Scotland getting angry about the Faroe Islands being under Danish control and wanting to start a war over it. Everyone would think a person that thought like that was an idiot. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.