Diego Mara-goner

[Ross.]

Can we get the thread back on track please?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

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.

[Bairnardo]

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. 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

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.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

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. 

[Bairnardo]

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

[oneteaminglasgow]

I once umpired a tennis match for Leopoldo Galtieri, and he said it was a war crime, and that Peter Shilton’s an arsehole.

[welshbairn]

The Argentinian government of the time were straightforward murdering fascists, led by a military dictatorship. "Neoliberal" doesn't do them justice.

[bennett]

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.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Forgot this gem from Diego's autobiography 

[Newbornbairn]

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.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

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

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

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.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

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

[Gordon EF]

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

[KnightswoodBear]

That Maradona chap was good at the old football, eh?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

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.

[thisal]

Get this pish off God's thread.

[doulikefish]

https://www.facebook.com/euronews/videos/804286687091949/

[Ross.]

The big man has given his thoughts on how this thread is currently going