No son, it is unreliable because there are no independent sources to back up their claims.
Independent - look it up, I can’t do everything for you.
Erwin I did specify a non Argentine source
everycountry is doctrined with your version of the malvinas war,because you won :? .
Yes Erwin the whole world is lying, it’s a global conspiracy against Argentina. I bet all those disidents in Switzerland that are behind it.
thanks for the sarcastic words,also for beliving in the propaganda of your government,which won the war so they drive the information.
oh!,a big storm!,i have to look something,a sec please :shock:
thanks for the sarcastic words,also for beliving in the propaganda of your government,which won the war so they drive the information.
…[/quote]
Recently you have become very fond of the word I’ve underlined.
Did it come up in class ?
Storm ? It’s probably the voices arguing again.
Erwin I have found a reliable source regards Gurkhas and prisoners of war.
He was an officer in the Gurkhas during the Falklands.
Observe.
“Mike Seer fought with the Gurkhas in the Falklands War, being the Battalion’s Operations and Training Officer. In 2003 his book ‘With the Gurkhas in the Falklands - A War Journal’ was published in the UK by Pen & Sword Books. As part of his research he has travelled three times to Argentina to interview war veterans whom he fought against. This article records his third trip to Argentina.”
The bit I like
"I had met both during my second visit to Argentina in December 2002 in addition to interviewing a dozen Malvinas’ War veterans with my colleague Professor Lars Weisaeth of the Office of Disaster Psychiatry in Oslo.
These had included a survivor of the torpedoed Argentine Navy cruiser ARA General Belgrano who saw an anchor crash down on a full life raft that injured two men, and then himself endured thirty-four hours wallowing around the cold South Atlantic in another life raft whilst witnessing the death of a badly-burnt shipmate on board; a 25th Infantry Regiment soldier who had participated in the shooting down of two British Scout helicopters at Port San Carlos during the British landings on 21 May and, eight days later, had been one of the Goose Green garrison that sang the Argentine national anthem with deliberate gusto, “…to show them that we meant it,” in the surrender ceremony to 2 Para after the Battle there.
It also included a 10th Infantry Brigade HQ cook whose mortally wounded comrade had died in his arms after a Harrier air strike on Moody Brook Barracks near Stanley; a 7th Infantry Regiment number two on a 7.62 MAG (Mitrailleur a Gaz) machine-gun who had engaged the lead elements of 3 Para in a two-hour firefight during the latter’s initial assault on Mount Longdon, and whose platoon of forty-six took nearly fifty per cent casualties in a company which had a total of thirty-nine killed, before withdrawing to the centre of the feature where they heard the (untrue) rumour that it was the Gurkhas who were attacking and beheading Longdon’s Argentine defenders; and another 25th Infantry Regiment soldier who told me about his unit’s deep concern, particularly at night, of the Gurkhas’ combat reputation even thought the former were located at Stanley airfield, a considerable distance from the East Falkland battlefields.
All had fascinating and often poignant stories to tell, but now, on this third trip, I was privileged that evening to enjoy another three marvellous surprises provided by the irrepressible Alberto. He is acquainted with many high-ranking officers in the Argentine Army, including Brigadier-General Mario Benjamin Menendez, ‘former Governor of the Malvinas Islands’ and Commander-in-Chief of the Argentine Land Forces garrison on the Islands in 1982. We met on my first visit to Buenos Aires in April 2002 and I had promised him then a copy of ‘With the Gurkhas in the Falklands’. If ever one Argentine should learn the truth of what the 1st / 7th Gurkha Rifles did during the war and afterwards, then it had to be him."
And the crucial piece…
"As I packed up, one of the Argentine officers seated in the front row also approached me and, in halting English, introduced himself by saying “I am a Malvinas War veteran of the 4th Infantry Regiment and was taken prisoner in the war by some Gurkhas at Port Harriet House.” Initially a mystery, I realised later that this officer must have been one of the eighty-three enemy who had been captured during the Battle of Mount Harriet in the early hours of 12 June. Afterwards, in daylight, 42 Commando had handed these POWs over to our D Company who then escorted them to our TAC HQ location on Wether Ground prior to being flown back to Ajax Bay. But just to confirm there was no doubt in his conviction, I asked him, “Are you certain they were Gurkhas?” “Yes, of course,” the white-haired veteran replied firmly, “because I saw they had kukris attached to their belts!”
Doesn’t seem to mention any of his men being harmed though.
This is source is a little more substantal than the rantings of the pot heads on libreonions isn’t Erwin.
Also whilst interviewing a vetran of the war, who opposed the Gurkhas.
Even though our conversation continued to be carried out via Natalia, after only five minutes I sensed that the small but stockily-built Argentine was a man to be relied upon in a crisis situation. This extraordinarily modest Warrant Officer had also served twice with the United Nations in Croatia in 1992 and 1996. On his first tour of duty there he served alongside not only a Nepalese Army infantry battalion, from which he had acquired a kukri, but also British Army logistics and medical units.
I attempted to prise more information from Nicolas about his war, but he did not want to talk too much about the details. Perhaps this reluctance of verbalising traumatic experiences mirrors that of other Malvinas War veterans, and which exacerbates psychologically the majority’s current unhappy situation in which seventy per cent are unemployed and there have been a plethora of suicides amongst them.
Nicolas Urbieta revealed that whilst his sub-unit, C Company, was located in defensive positions on Wall Mountain during May 1982 as part of Task Force Monte Caseros, its officers had told the men about our Battalion’s deployment. the ensuring rumour quickly spread that Gurkhas cut off their enemy’s ears in combat and he also confirmed that this piece of information kept 4th Infantry Regiment soldiers well awake whilst on night sentry duty in the East Falkland khuds.
My red. So he can mention the rumour of the possible Gurkha cruelties but chooses not to mention any actual acts? Or did they never happen?
My green. this is how I know that you and your pals IrishDuck and the rest of the pillocks on libreonions couldn’t possibley interview real soldiers or veterans of the conflict. The only thing you would get out of them is their disgust!!!
Oh yes, all found in the following site.
www.falklands.info/history/hist82article16.html
This guy has talked to some seriously high up people on both sides. And he is writing a book, for which he is legally responsible to ensure that what he writes is true.
Unlike the space cadets on libreopinion. Does’t libre also mean balanced?
libreopinion = balanced opinion… HA HA HA HA HA HEHE HAHAHA HEHEHEH HAHA, no really HA HAHAHAH HEHEHEH AHE HEHAE
Edited for spelling and to remove full stop from end of link.
I can’t believe you’re trying to bring actual facts into an argument with Erwin, you know that’s now how to conduct an argument.
Correct argument drill:
(a) Lose a war due to poor training and poor leadership against a smaller enemy force 8,000 miles from home.
(b) Justify that defeat by making up reasons for it - see, as reference, Gurkhas raping conscripts, plans to nuke Cordoba, US and French material support for the UK.
(c) Soften the blow of the defeat by lying about enemy losses - see, as reference, HMS Invincible being sank, 1,000 British casualties, Fleet Air Arm losing more Sea Harriers than they actually owned.
Now, ferment for 20 years and we can move onto the actual argument:
(d) Join a website dealing with military matters.
(e) Start threads discussing the lies you’ve been fed for the last 20 years.
(f) As soon as someone puts you right, argue that black is white and that the whole world is allied against your country.
(g) Be sure to glorify mass murdering scum because their uniform is ‘cool’.
(h) Get yourself made up to Moderator and then use your position to issue ‘official warnings’ to anyone who disagrees with you.
(i) Get sacked as a mod because you keep throwing girly hissy fits and making a fool of yourself. Blame this one your ‘enemies’.
(j) Continue to post lies that you cannot back up with any media other than your own country’s, which no other souce in the world can substantiate.
(k) Should proof against your arguments be posted, either:
(i) Ignore it
(ii) Post a smiley in reply
(iii) Reply that the source is all lies, refuse to accept that anything other than your opinion can possibly be true. Refuse to answer any questions raised and post a pointless question which you demand answers for.
(l) Continue points (e) and (f) and (k) ad nauseum.
editted to correct lettering
I think it means free actually. Presumably free from all the constraints of truth and accuracy that you find on other sites…
Getting confused between Libre and Libra. Sorry.
BDL, you forgot (h)*
- Make up rules gagging those members you abuse on other means to cover your own sorry arse.
PMs, email and MSN messenger by any chance, Cuts?
Or, in the short time you are a mod, edit or delete posts that you find not to your taste or inline with your view on events.
Or in extremis.
Make up claims that particular members of the forum have called you names such as Dago or Spic, completely forgetting that the reletively simple search button on the site will reveal that the only person ever to use such words in an insulting fashion is yourself!!!
Also complain bitterly over every perceived insult, no matter how small or obscure despite posting and laughing heartlily at various other slightly more insulting posts that you and your cronies posted.
I think that Erwin’s rants about the Gurkhas has more to do with racism. OK, the Gurkhas have a reputation as fierce fighters (though I don’t know how much of it is true, I have heard contradicting stories by British soldiers, some praising them, others telling that the reputation is largely exagerated, fine light infantry, but nothing more), but I have never heard any stories about them deliberately commiting war crimes, especially en masse. I also find it highly doubtfull that those heterosexual blokes would go to rape Argentinian conscripts.
They rather have the reputation that they like both booze and women.
Erwin and his ilk seem more to be infuriated how the British dared to send non-white soldiers against them. Even worse was that they got beaten by them without even firing a single shot.
Jan
Getting back to the topic.
The chances of a democracy commiting “human rights” breaches is alot less than that of any other sort of government.
In democracy, true democracy, everyone has a voice, and media and other means of expressing oneself are not censored.
If you look at a dictatorship then as a rule human rights are almost routinely overridden.
In fact in most dictatorships the very freedom to speak is often extremly hampered.
And the more “wobbley” the position of the dictatorship the more cruel it becomes.
The context of human rights violations however should be explained properly, however.
The killing of people who disagree with you ie, Nazism and communism to name just 2, is a far cry from imprisoning, with or without trial, people who may harm others.
For example in Burma, a British man was arrested and bangged up for handing out flyers stating what a cruel dictatorship the Burmese government is.
In Britain, citizens have been arrested in the belief they were members of a murderous terrorist organisation. And so were arrested, and imprisoned with out a formal trial, for the good of the nation.
Are the two governments in the above statements similar?
Erwin, a reasonably acceptable independent source for you allegations would be an organisation such as the UN, the International Red Cross or Amnesty International (although the last is probably not popular in your circles as it published numerous reports on the maltreatment of dissidents).
Any of these should be able to provide evidence of mistreatment of Argentinian PoWs or at the very least they would have noted claims of abuse. I believe the Red Cross was involved in PoW repatriation at some point so they would have had the opportunity to listen to any complains made by returning PoWs.
A website written by Argentinian nationals with an axe to grind cannot be considered an impartial or reliable source unless it has information from a third party to support the allegations.
Please not another Falklands thread, Im Malvinased out!
Back onto the topic.
Getting back to the topic.
The chances of a democracy commiting “human rights” breaches is alot less than that of any other sort of government.
In democracy, true democracy, everyone has a voice, and media and other means of expressing oneself are not censored.
If you look at a dictatorship then as a rule human rights are almost routinely overridden.
In fact in most dictatorships the very freedom to speak is often extremly hampered.
And the more “wobbley” the position of the dictatorship the more cruel it becomes.
The context of human rights violations however should be explained properly, however.
The killing of people who disagree with you ie, Nazism and communism to name just 2, is a far cry from imprisoning, with or without trial, people who may harm others.
For example in Burma, a British man was arrested and bangged up for handing out flyers stating what a cruel dictatorship the Burmese government is.
In Britain, citizens have been arrested in the belief they were members of a murderous terrorist organisation. And so were arrested, and imprisoned with out a formal trial, for the good of the nation.
Are the two governments in the above statements similar?
All Ex-Communist countries had them.
All still-Communist Countries have them.
