Falklands/Malvinas slagging match

Other Wars Falklands/Malvinas War
#61

I know I waste my time with you but I will not let you sully the memories of those, of both sides, who fell and drag the names of those who fought through sh1t.

You can not comprehend their actions from the comfort of your computer chair and make judgements on them, for either side.

I think you will find that, apart from the actions of thugs and imbeciles (ie mine laying), I do not hold your countries men in such bad light. That you would use every possible chance and seize on mere rumours to devalue my forebears on the other hand chaffes slightly.

The killings of the sailer and the wounded man have been explained. To many on this site, some of whom have smelt the cordite and blood of modern battlefields, both seem reasonable if tradgic.

The case of the ears has been investigated and was found to be one man, who was killed in action, acting alone. They were only found when the padre went through his kit. It would have been all to easy for the British to cover it up, with few actual witnesses and most of them only witness to the gruesom look of several severed ears rather than the actual cutting and finding.

Despite exhaustive searches and investigatons on the islands, none of the reported executions have occured. It seems strange that many of the stories relating to such executions seem to have more in common with the Argentine methods of dealing with people than the British.

As I have already mentioned, Pistols are NOT standard issue to British Troops and reasonably rare, in comparison with the Argentine Forces.

By all means bring forward all manner of information for the populace to read, but beware. I will research and destroy “stories” that are at best rumours out of hand and at worst out right lies.

In that way, those reading from a neutral stance will have access to all sides and as much information as possible. Which is what history is all about at the end of the day, and is in line with your intentions in dredging all this rubbish up.

Is it not?

#62

Well.This is ONLY my oppinion but i found a interesting moment in this links.
If you a attentively will read those reports you find out they make every think to avoid the serious critic of Israel tactic. To the contrasts the other states critisized much more vitally especially the such stetes like the China and the so called third world.
Besides the reports of AI about Lebanon there were never printed widely in mass media during the conflict. The figures of victims were decresed.

Abu-Ghraib, utterly wrong, the perpetrators are in prison, their officers demoted and reprimanded. Quite rightly so. However, it was not officially sanctuioned

I/m sorry but i can’t agree with you here in any points.
Firstly the people who were convicted were only a scapegoats.I’ve read a interview with one of them- Jeremy Sivits.( who were convicted for the one year in prison)

http://www.webtelek.com/news.php?url=/iraq/2004/05/13/methods/
The US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated into the medium of Senate Committee that the methods of the examination of the prisoners in Iraq were approved by the juridical service of the Pentagon, and it rejected charges in the fact that a similar practice disrupts international law and it can place under the threat of the life of the Americans seized into the captivity

http://topadm2.rbc.ru/index.shtml?/news/society/2004/05/16/16085120_bod.shtml
the discussion deals about the fact that the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sanctioned the expansion of the secret program, which allowed the possibility of applying the physical violence to the prisoners of prison “Abu Ghraib”
About this reports the American periodical “New Yorker” with the reference to the informed sources in intelligence services OF THE USA. Initially program was intended for the anti-terrorist campaign OF THE USA in Afghanistan.
It assumed destruction or seizure and the subsequent examination of those, who presented “special importance” in the combating of terrorism. In this case examination it was permitted to carry out with the use of force.
In its time the program was approved by the adviser of the President OF THE USA George Bush on the national security Condolisa Rise.
Itself Head of the White House was also up to date in the methods used. However, as publication writes, in the past year D.Ramsfeld permitted applying the methods of examination provided by program to the prisoners, who are contained in the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib;. Previously D.Ramsfeld rejected any charges in the fact that the procedures of examination in the American armed forces do not correspond to the world acknowledged Geneva conventions. As the head of the Pentagon stated, the deprivation of the prisoners of sleep and change in the nourishment they were asserted by jurists, who work with the Defense Ministry of the country. In turn, the head of the united Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers stated that in any situation during the application of this type of procedures to the prisoners they relate humanly.

So as you see the even Ramsfeld do not deny fact of “special treatment” of prisoners;)

Utterly wrong, it should be closed down.

Should be or not…:wink:
It is still working. And i do not think the USA closed it in nearest time.

If they exist, utterly wrong.

What is wrong- the fact it exists or the fact of treatment of prisoners?
The nobody doubt now there a several of secret prisons of CIA where the human rights is the latest thing that they care about.
Even the Amnesti Intermnational

Perhaps, a language barrier but I have no idea what you are on about.

Perhaps it is a barrier but not a only language;)
Endeed my point not against the method of Ameircan secret services agains terrorists.
I’am clearly understand the "innocent prisoners’ are not so holy as it try to portray in different “fifth column pseudo-human right organisations”.
I just wish to notice you the dual standards toward the other non-english speaking states- the Argentinian “junta” for instance.
Cheers.

#63

Rubbish?

It’s all solid evidence, just like the case of the psychopathic Lt. Childs which, surprisingly, hasn’t been thrown in yet as further evidence of well-documented war crimes by the British.

History … Childs was a Lieutenant in the Parachute Regiment during the Falklands War. He had illegally executed Argentinean POW’s but trod on a land mine before he could be court-marshaled.
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/childs.htm

There’s even a picture there of Childs using a pistol to shoot a clearly wounded Argentinian in the head. So it has to be true.

Could there be better evidence of the fact that the British used pistols to shoot wounded Argentinians in the head, for no reason at all? :wink:

#64

I have actually seen that comic before. Utter drivel.

I particularly like…

Real Name: Lieutenant Childs

Identity/Class: Human mutate, UK psychopath–oops–I mean citizen

Occupation: Sir Marcus Grantby-Fox’s psychotic bodyguard. Previously a Lieutenant in the Falklands War Parachute Regiment.

Was the Falklands War Parachute Regiment a specially formed unit?

#65

Exactly the point I was trying to make with the silly Lt. Childs link about Panzerknakcer’s selective and florid interpretations of events which he chooses through his blinkered eyes to see as war crimes, without any apparent grasp of the very nasty choices that present themselves to some people in war who would rather not have to choose.

#66

No offence to Panzerknacker, but he is falling in to the trap that many civies (and some military types) fall in to. Too much book knowledge and not enough practical experience in the nuances of combat ops.

#67

P.K.

I have been meaning to ask for the longest time.

What does your site name mean?

To us Anglo-Saxons, it implies that either you have armoured testes, or that you are a clapped-out tank.

Could you please clarify. :confused:

#68

Well I was under the impression that it meant someone who puts tanks out of their misery or is just really good at putting tanks to death. Looking at the definition of Knacker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knacker im guessing im not far off!

But the questions still remains?

#69

But note also the correct entry in Wiki:

‘Knackers’ is British/Australasian slang for testicles

The singular ‘knacker’ is a testicle.

Which suggests that PK is the testicle from, or the ball in, a German tank. :smiley:

Knackers is also a friendly term in Australia, although not heard often nowadays, as in “Ow yer goin’, knackers?” = “How are you, mate?”

Now that I’ve had my fun, here’s the real meaning of Panzerknacker. It’s the common name for the tank destroyer’s badge awarded by the Germans in WWII for single-handed destruction of a tank.

The original name for this decoration is the “Sonderabzeichen für niederkampfen Panzerkampfwagen durch Einzelkämpfer”, but most commonly it was referred to as “Panzervernichtungsabzeichen” or “Panzerknackerabzeichen”.

The tank destruction badge was instituded by Hitler on March 9th, 1942 to honor individuals (anti-tank units were not eligible for this award) who single handedly destroyed an enemy tank with hand held explosives such as a panzerfaust, satchel charge or grenade. This award was made retroactive to the beginning of the invasion of the Soviet Union (June 22, 1941).

As individuals earned multiple badges, it became evident that a higher class was needed. Therefore on December 18, 1943, a gold class was instituted to signify the single-handed destruction of five tanks.

Upon presentation, the badge was pinned to the sleeve of the recipient in a ceremony and was later sewn on the uniform by the individual.
The silver badge was worn on the upper right arm of the tunic with subsequent awards being attached directly below the first one until four were attached at one time. On the award of a fifth badge, the four were taken off the uniform and replaced with a single gold badge. On the award of a sixth badge, a silver class was attached below the gold class. The process repeated itself until a tenth badge was awarded, then the silver badges were replaced by a second gold badge. Again, the process continued. The highest numbers of awards given to a single man were twenty-one, awarded to Oberstleutnant Günther Viezenz.
http://www.ww2awards.com/award/98

Visit the link for illustrations of the badges following the quoted section above.

#70

Just to expand on RS’s first response, as it’s relevant to my question.

As well as the testes being defined as nacker or nackers, we also use the term ‘nackered’. Basically, it implies something worn out and no longer working. Somewhat akin to when one has been working very hard to please a demanding partner, or partners, and ends up firing blanks. I believe this was a term used for castrated animals. I seem to recall that old, worn-out horses were taken to the ‘nackers yard’ and processed into dog food. Considering the definition of nackers, I never had any impulse to follow this line of enquiry and, therefore, never quite got to the bottom of it.

found this:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nackered

#71

Im sure that when he gets back PK will decipher the puzzle for us…back to the topic at hand! :wink:

#72

War crimes, or is it war?
Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war!
Meaning
The military order Havoc! was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare’s parlance ‘the dogs of war’) to pillage and chaos.
Origin
The Black Book of the Admiralty of 1385 is a collection of laws, in French and Latin, relating to the English Navy. In the ‘Ordinances of War of Richard II’ in that book we find:
“Item, qe nul soit si hardy de crier havok sur peine davoir la test coupe.”
I text in English that comes nearer to defining the term is Grose’s History of the English Army, circa 1525:
“Likewise be all manner of beasts, when they be brought into the field and cried havoke, then every man to take his part.”
Shakespeare was well aware of the use of the meaning of havoc and he used ‘cry havoc’ in several of his plays. The ‘cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war’ form of the phrase is from his Julius Caesar, 1601. After Caesar’s murder Anthony regrets the course he has taken and predicts that war is sure to follow.
ANTONY:
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter’d with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
The term also appears in The Life and Death of King John - “Cry ‘havoc!’ kings; back to the stained field…” and in Coriolanus -
“Do not cry havoc, where you should but hunt with modest warrant.”
The term is the predessor of ‘play havoc’ (with). This is now more common than ‘cry havoc’ but has lost the force of the earlier phrase - just meaning ‘cause disorder and confusion’.

#73

Armored what ?? :shock: :smiley:

Bravo you will find all your answers here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1932&page=12

#74

Welcome back.

So, why are you called Panzerknacker? The tank destroyer badge term, or something else?

#75

Welcome back.

Thanks :wink:

Since I am a metal worker and the german panzerknackers were experts breaking steel things…you can see the relation.

#76

I hope you’re rather more constructive in your metal work than the tank destroyers were.

There’s not a lot of scope for a panzerknacker in modern civilian occupations. :smiley:

#77

Yes, I can - you have armoured testes - all is made clear! :smiley:

#78

But not as clear as Panzerknacker being pleasured. :smiley:

#79

Hardly any pleasure with those…:rolleyes:

#80

Here is a war crime that emerged from the documentary:

The entire civilian population of Goose Green was imprisoned in a hall with no beds and insufficient toilet facilities for a month. This is objectively in contravention of the Geneva conventions.

End of.