As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU

1101113151624

Posts

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Wait, what? You're accusing Britain of murdering 100 Argentine POWs?

    About that many, yes. It's not even something that is disputed, to my knowledge. 'Well, war is Hell you know' was essentially the excuse given by Thatcher's government for the unethical & illegal actions taken during the Falklands campaign.
    And yes, they were conscripts. When you're fighting against conscripts are you not supposed to fight back? What bearing on the war does the Argentine army being mostly conscripts make?

    And hey, looking at the armament of the Belgrano it seems that they had some Sea Cat missiles and anti aircraft guns. Hardly antique cannon.

    You certainly can fight back and I would expect you to; I have no animosity towards the various amphibious assaults in and of themselves, and the legitimacy of the operation is pretty plain. But you can't execute PoWs or non-combatants, and in my mind it makes things considerably worse when the people you're fighting are doing it because otherwise they'll be killed by their own CO and / or the local police when they go home, and then you go and celebrate a job well done rather than mourning a terrible human tragedy.

    The Sea Cats are ship-to-air weapons, not anti-ship missiles. Belgrando's primary armaments were her guns.

    With Love and Courage
  • poshniallo wrote: »
    I think we should accept how pointless further interaction with Sargasso will be and move on.

    Ender - is it your contention that the UK should not have defended the Falklands during the first war?

    Look man, if you are still mad about me using the word "anglo saxon" then I apologize, it won't happen again. It's not racist in my language and I had no way of knowing it would be in yours. peace

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    I see you took option one: refuse to knowledge any facts which destroy my argument and belligerently play the martyr.

    I see you took option 0: hurling abuse at a specific user without contributing to the discussion in any way.

    I have been contributing to this thread for a while, I quoted facts to you in my first response, you ignored them.

    If it makes you feel any better, no matter what I say in this thread, no matter how hard I try to make you guys see the truth, the UK will still keep its ill-gotten plunder.
    Nothing will change at all. So yeah feel free to be as sarcastic as you want, I will be crushed under the imperial boot whatever happens.

    What are you feelings about the current legal status of Kaliningrad then?

    Also when should the US return Florida and Puerto Rico to Spain? At what point should Mexico demand the reversal of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

    Or are you going to stop being a silly goose and concede that the governing principle behind sovereignty should be national self-determination and concede that the islanders, the people who were born and have lived on the island for the past 170 years, whose opinions actually matter wish to remain part of Britain?

    The Fourth Estate on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited March 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    Wait, what? You're accusing Britain of murdering 100 Argentine POWs?

    About that many, yes. It's not even something that is disputed, to my knowledge. 'Well, war is Hell you know' was essentially the excuse given by Thatcher's government for the unethical & illegal actions taken during the Falklands campaign.

    I'm going to need a citation of some kind here, because it most certainly is not generally accepted that British troops murdered 100 prisoners after the fall of Goose Green. A quick google reveals two disputed examples of POWs being killed after they surrendered involving five prisoners (three of whom were possibly US mercenaries, not Argentine troops) in total.

    Bogart on
  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Wait, what? You're accusing Britain of murdering 100 Argentine POWs?

    About that many, yes. It's not even something that is disputed, to my knowledge. 'Well, war is Hell you know' was essentially the excuse given by Thatcher's government for the unethical & illegal actions taken during the Falklands campaign.

    I'm going to need a citation of some kind here, because it most certainly is not generally accepted that British troops murdered 100 prisoners after the fall of Goose Green. A quick google reveals two disputed examples of POWs being killed after they surrendered involving five prisoners (three of whom were possibly US mercenaries, not Argentine troops) in total.
    To be fair to The Ender, there have been various rumours about 2 Para getting trigger-happy with prisoners after their CO was found to have been killed, but I'm not aware of any incidents that have been conclusively proven.

  • Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    I see you took option one: refuse to knowledge any facts which destroy my argument and belligerently play the martyr.

    I see you took option 0: hurling abuse at a specific user without contributing to the discussion in any way.

    I have been contributing to this thread for a while, I quoted facts to you in my first response, you ignored them.

    If it makes you feel any better, no matter what I say in this thread, no matter how hard I try to make you guys see the truth, the UK will still keep its ill-gotten plunder.
    Nothing will change at all. So yeah feel free to be as sarcastic as you want, I will be crushed under the imperial boot whatever happens.

    What are you feelings about the current legal status of Kaliningrad then?

    Also when should the US return Florida and Puerto Rico to Spain? At what point should Mexico demand the reversal of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

    Or are you going to stop being a silly goose and concede that the governing principle behind sovereignty should be national self-determination and concede that the islanders, the people who were born and have lived on the island for the past 170 years, whose opinions actually matter wish to remain part of Britain?
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    I see you took option one: refuse to knowledge any facts which destroy my argument and belligerently play the martyr.

    I see you took option 0: hurling abuse at a specific user without contributing to the discussion in any way.

    I have been contributing to this thread for a while, I quoted facts to you in my first response, you ignored them.

    If it makes you feel any better, no matter what I say in this thread, no matter how hard I try to make you guys see the truth, the UK will still keep its ill-gotten plunder.
    Nothing will change at all. So yeah feel free to be as sarcastic as you want, I will be crushed under the imperial boot whatever happens.

    Even if we were to agree that Britain shouldn't have taken the islands, why should 3000 people be punished for the crimes of long-dead people by being removed from their home? Should all the Protestants in Northern Ireland be kicked out because of English colonisation attempts 400 years ago even though nearly every one of them was born here, as was their parents and grandparents? Should my Polish work colleague and his parents be evicted from their home in Elblag because 70 years ago it was the German town of Elbing? Should thousands of Russian inhabitants of the Karelian Isthmus be relocated or forcibly made part of Finland?

    After a point you can't just turn back the clock on these things.

    I'll admit that does make sense in a way.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    I see you took option one: refuse to knowledge any facts which destroy my argument and belligerently play the martyr.

    I see you took option 0: hurling abuse at a specific user without contributing to the discussion in any way.

    I have been contributing to this thread for a while, I quoted facts to you in my first response, you ignored them.

    If it makes you feel any better, no matter what I say in this thread, no matter how hard I try to make you guys see the truth, the UK will still keep its ill-gotten plunder.
    Nothing will change at all. So yeah feel free to be as sarcastic as you want, I will be crushed under the imperial boot whatever happens.

    You haven't actually presented anything!

    Frankly, the whole morning you've been yammering on about how terrible britain is and trying to compare the colonization of the falklands to the conquest of tibet all while trying to claim that you are somehow unbiased. Further, when people confront you with facts you try to play the victim and argue the bias of history.

    You are either a spectacular troll (in the classical sense) or a complete and utter ignoramus.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Wildcat wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    was not 'manoeuvring into a pincer action' as Thatcher later alleged
    To this day intelligence analysts from the UK assert that it was, from signal intercept evidence.

    Which signal intercept evidence? The discredited intelligence gathered by Russia, you mean?

    ARA.Belgrano.sunk.svg

    That's the position of the Royal Navy vs the two Argentinian patrols. Note the direction of Belgrano's route; does that look to you like she was on her way to intercept the British task force?

    With Love and Courage
  • I doubt the british (or the argentinians for that matter) committed war crimes during the fighting itself. That doesn't seem plausible in such a context

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited March 2012
    Wildcat wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Wait, what? You're accusing Britain of murdering 100 Argentine POWs?

    About that many, yes. It's not even something that is disputed, to my knowledge. 'Well, war is Hell you know' was essentially the excuse given by Thatcher's government for the unethical & illegal actions taken during the Falklands campaign.

    I'm going to need a citation of some kind here, because it most certainly is not generally accepted that British troops murdered 100 prisoners after the fall of Goose Green. A quick google reveals two disputed examples of POWs being killed after they surrendered involving five prisoners (three of whom were possibly US mercenaries, not Argentine troops) in total.
    To be fair to The Ender, there have been various rumours about 2 Para getting trigger-happy with prisoners after their CO was found to have been killed, but I'm not aware of any incidents that have been conclusively proven.

    All the results I'm getting say things like 'several', not 'one hundred'. Ender also made it plain that he was talking about 1000 prisoners being taken and then around 100 being executed. I think that's garbage, and would certainly disagree that it is 'not disputed'. I also dispute the idea that the UK government has issued a statement of some kind about 100 prisoners going missing was down to 'oh well war is hell'. It very much appears to be something he's pulled out of thin air and rumours.

    I can well believe that several Argentine soldiers were killed after surrendering. Not to dismiss it, as it's pretty awful, but that is the sort of thing that happens in isolated occurences in war. It doesn't excuse it, of course.

    Bogart on
  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    Wildcat wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    was not 'manoeuvring into a pincer action' as Thatcher later alleged
    To this day intelligence analysts from the UK assert that it was, from signal intercept evidence.

    Which signal intercept evidence? The discredited intelligence gathered by Russia, you mean?

    <snip!>

    That's the position of the Royal Navy vs the two Argentinian patrols. Note the direction of Belgrano's route; does that look to you like she was on her way to intercept the British task force?

    No, the claim has always been that the Ascension Island listening station (edit: not quite correct; apparently it was a listerning station on-board a vessel moored near Ascension Island) was able to pick up and decode some military communiques, I believe. Indeed, one of the officers involved reiterated the claim as late as last year.
    Bogart wrote: »
    Wildcat wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Wait, what? You're accusing Britain of murdering 100 Argentine POWs?

    About that many, yes. It's not even something that is disputed, to my knowledge. 'Well, war is Hell you know' was essentially the excuse given by Thatcher's government for the unethical & illegal actions taken during the Falklands campaign.

    I'm going to need a citation of some kind here, because it most certainly is not generally accepted that British troops murdered 100 prisoners after the fall of Goose Green. A quick google reveals two disputed examples of POWs being killed after they surrendered involving five prisoners (three of whom were possibly US mercenaries, not Argentine troops) in total.
    To be fair to The Ender, there have been various rumours about 2 Para getting trigger-happy with prisoners after their CO was found to have been killed, but I'm not aware of any incidents that have been conclusively proven.

    All the results I'm getting say things like 'several', not 'one hundred'. Ender also made it plain that he was talking about 1000 prisoners being taken and then around 100 being executed. I think that's garbage, and would certainly disagree that it is 'not disputed'. I also dispute the idea that the UK government has issued a statement of some kind about 100 prisoners going missing was down to 'oh well war is hell'. It very much appears to be something he's pulled out of thin air and rumours.

    I can well believe that several Argentine soldiers were killed after surrendering. Not to dismiss it, as it's pretty awful, but that is the sort of thing that happens in isolated occurences in war. It doesn't excuse it, of course.
    Oh, I agree with you on most of that; I just wanted to try to be fair.

    Wildcat on
  • Gaddez wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    I see you took option one: refuse to knowledge any facts which destroy my argument and belligerently play the martyr.

    I see you took option 0: hurling abuse at a specific user without contributing to the discussion in any way.

    I have been contributing to this thread for a while, I quoted facts to you in my first response, you ignored them.

    If it makes you feel any better, no matter what I say in this thread, no matter how hard I try to make you guys see the truth, the UK will still keep its ill-gotten plunder.
    Nothing will change at all. So yeah feel free to be as sarcastic as you want, I will be crushed under the imperial boot whatever happens.

    You haven't actually presented anything!

    Frankly, the whole morning you've been yammering on about how terrible britain is and trying to compare the colonization of the falklands to the conquest of tibet all while trying to claim that you are somehow unbiased. Further, when people confront you with facts you try to play the victim and argue the bias of history.

    You are either a spectacular troll (in the classical sense) or a complete and utter ignoramus.

    What do you mean by a troll in the "classical sense"? you mean as in norse mythology?

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    I see you took option one: refuse to knowledge any facts which destroy my argument and belligerently play the martyr.

    I see you took option 0: hurling abuse at a specific user without contributing to the discussion in any way.

    I have been contributing to this thread for a while, I quoted facts to you in my first response, you ignored them.

    If it makes you feel any better, no matter what I say in this thread, no matter how hard I try to make you guys see the truth, the UK will still keep its ill-gotten plunder.
    Nothing will change at all. So yeah feel free to be as sarcastic as you want, I will be crushed under the imperial boot whatever happens.

    You haven't actually presented anything!

    Frankly, the whole morning you've been yammering on about how terrible britain is and trying to compare the colonization of the falklands to the conquest of tibet all while trying to claim that you are somehow unbiased. Further, when people confront you with facts you try to play the victim and argue the bias of history.

    You are either a spectacular troll (in the classical sense) or a complete and utter ignoramus.

    What do you mean by a troll in the "classical sense"? you mean as in norse mythology?

    He's got you there, Gaddez.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    Not if that's what Gaddez meant.

    Confound it.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    What do you mean by a troll in the "classical sense"? you mean as in norse mythology?

    Behold, the writings of dirty, dirty wikipedia on the classical definition of troll (Meant internet troll by the by)
    The most likely derivation of the word troll can be found in the phrase "trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group, alt.folklore.urban (AFU).[12][13] Commonly, what is meant is a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone that only a new user would respond to them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been discussed a lot, but new subscribers to the group would not realize, and would thus respond. These types of trolls served as a practice to identify group insiders. This definition of trolling, considerably narrower than the modern understanding of the term, was considered a positive contribution.[12][14] One of the most notorious AFU trollers, Snopes,[12] went on to create his eponymous urban folklore website.

    By the late 1990s, alt.folklore.urban had such heavy traffic and participation that trolling of this sort was frowned upon. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    All the results I'm getting say things like 'several', not 'one hundred'. Ender also made it plain that he was talking about 1000 prisoners being taken and then around 100 being executed. I think that's garbage, and would certainly disagree that it is 'not disputed'. I also dispute the idea that the UK government has issued a statement of some kind about 100 prisoners going missing was down to 'oh well war is hell'. It very much appears to be something he's pulled out of thin air and rumours.

    I can well believe that several Argentine soldiers were killed after surrendering. Not to dismiss it, as it's pretty awful, but that is the sort of thing that happens in isolated occurences in war. It doesn't excuse it, of course.

    ...So when 1,000 men surrender, and only 900 make it back home, where did the other 100 go? On fucking vacation?

    Jesus, I hate western revisionism when it comes to our own war crimes.


    First-hand accounts of some of the executions and methods behind them can be found in a (probably pretty cheap these days) book called 'Excursion to Hell', which was written by 3 Para Lance Corporal Vincent Bramley.

    With Love and Courage
  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    All the results I'm getting say things like 'several', not 'one hundred'. Ender also made it plain that he was talking about 1000 prisoners being taken and then around 100 being executed. I think that's garbage, and would certainly disagree that it is 'not disputed'. I also dispute the idea that the UK government has issued a statement of some kind about 100 prisoners going missing was down to 'oh well war is hell'. It very much appears to be something he's pulled out of thin air and rumours.

    I can well believe that several Argentine soldiers were killed after surrendering. Not to dismiss it, as it's pretty awful, but that is the sort of thing that happens in isolated occurences in war. It doesn't excuse it, of course.

    ...So when 1,000 men surrender, and only 900 make it back home, where did the other 100 go? On fucking vacation?

    Jesus, I hate western revisionism when it comes to our own war crimes.


    First-hand accounts of some of the executions and methods behind them can be found in a (probably pretty cheap these days) book called 'Excursion to Hell', which was written by 3 Para Lance Corporal Vincent Bramley.

    I've found the '983 men captured' figure; is there a source available online for the asserted figure of those returned home?

  • Venkman90Venkman90 Registered User regular
    I can believe 2 Para did that.

    I don't see how it has any bearing on either us (who didn't do that) or the 3000 people there now who didn't do that though.

  • Gaddez wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    What do you mean by a troll in the "classical sense"? you mean as in norse mythology?

    Behold, the writings of dirty, dirty wikipedia on the classical definition of troll (Meant internet troll by the by)
    The most likely derivation of the word troll can be found in the phrase "trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group, alt.folklore.urban (AFU).[12][13] Commonly, what is meant is a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone that only a new user would respond to them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been discussed a lot, but new subscribers to the group would not realize, and would thus respond. These types of trolls served as a practice to identify group insiders. This definition of trolling, considerably narrower than the modern understanding of the term, was considered a positive contribution.[12][14] One of the most notorious AFU trollers, Snopes,[12] went on to create his eponymous urban folklore website.

    By the late 1990s, alt.folklore.urban had such heavy traffic and participation that trolling of this sort was frowned upon. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author.

    Well I am both ignorant AND a troll. A potent combination.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • MidshipmanMidshipman Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.

    Let's break this down for you.

    Pre 1764 - No inhabitants on the Falklands Islands. No claims on the Falklands Islands.
    1764 - The French establish a small settlement on East Falkland.
    1766 - The British establish a small settlement on West Falkland.
    1767 - The Spanish acquire control of the French colony.
    1770 - The Spanish invade and drive the British out of West Falkland, but then sign a peace treaty and the British return.
    1774 - The British depart from the Falklands. Continues to claim ownership.
    1806 - The Spanish government departs. Continues to claim ownership.
    1811 - Remaining Spanish settlers removed from the Falklands by the precursor to the modern Argentinian state.

    1811-1828 - No inhabitants on the Falklands.

    1820 - An American privateer/pirate (Jewett) under commission by the precursor to the modern Argentinan state claims the Falklands but does not settle them.
    1828 - A German of French (Vernet) descent settles a seal-hunting colony on the Falklands in 1828 with authorization from both the British and Argentian governments.
    1829 - Vernet is appointed governor of his colony at Puerto Luis by the Argentinian government. The British government objects, citing their claim to the islands.
    1831 - Vernet antagonizes United States fishing/hunting expeditions around the islands. The US government responds by heavily damaging the colony and arresting its leaders for piracy (later releasing them). The US declares the islands as "free from all government". The workers of Vernet's seal-hunting colony continue.
    Nov 1832 - The Argentinian government sets up a penal colony on the Falklands. A mutiny occurs within days, killing the Argentinian commanding officer.
    Jan 1833 - The British return to the Falklands and request that Argentinian forces withdraw. The Argentinian commanding officer protests, but complies. A British businessman (Brisbane) previously employed as Vernets deputy is placed in charge of the remaining seal-hunting colony.
    Aug 1833 - Members of the seal-hunting colony revolt, killing Brisbane and other colony leadership.
    1834 - The British navy rules the Falklands as a naval station.
    1840 - The British establish a permanent colony that has continued to this day.

    So, if you subscribe to first come first serve as the rule of sovereignty...

    France/Spain claims/settles first, Britain claims/settles second, and Argentina claims/settles last. All three abandon their settlement at some point, but never their claims (maybe Spain has abandoned their claim more recently). The only tenuous connection that Argentina has to continuous settlement is that approximately 12 Argentinian workers in the multi-national seal-hunting colony were present when the British reestablished control of the Island in 1833. That's a pretty tenuous claim to current sovereignty over the Islands.

    If you examine the intent of the Vernet "colony", it seems pretty obvious that the leaders as well as the members had no more intention of settling and colonizing than workers on-board oil-rigs have of settling whatever patch of ocean they are occupying. They merely decided to set up a more permanent shop for hunting seals in the hopes of discouraging competition by means of claiming exclusive rights. Seal hunting ships of several nations had been making expeditions to the Falklands for many years before Vernet got permission to base there. In fact, when Jewett first claimed the Falklands for Argentina, he recorded seeing 50 US and British seal-hunting ships present. As previously mentioned, Vernet's colony pissed off the US by seizing a ship that was hunting seals. Vernet tried to justify it by claiming that his operation had exclusive hunting rights, and the US called them out on that by arresting the leaders and declaring the islands as basically not being governed by anyone. The "colony" never contained any women, no children were ever born during it's existence, and after the murder of it's management by some of the workers in 1833, basically ceased to exist.

    Aside from the Vernet "colony", the only other Argentinian presence during the entire history of the Falklands was the 2-3 months that they maintained a prison colony before leaving.

    Looking at all of the above, it seems pretty clear that any claim that Argentina can make along those lines is greatly outweighed by the claims that the British are able to make, not to mention the stated desire of the current residents with regard to sovereignty.

    The only remaining claim that Argentina can make that is stronger than Britain's is a purely geographical one. The Falklands are 300 miles off the coast of Argentina. That is well outside any internationally recognized range of ownership (12 miles for territorial claim and 200 miles for exclusive economic claim). However, admittedly, 300 miles is much less than nearly the nearly 8000 miles to England (only ~1000 miles to the nearest British territory in Antarctica and 5000 miles to British islands in the Caribbean). However, claiming inhabited territory away from its residents based solely on closer proximity than to "the rest" of the country or its capital is rather ridiculous. I see that Bermuda is less than 700 miles from North Carolina yet over 3000 miles from the coast of England, should the United Kingdom cede that Island to the United States? I see that Guam is only about a 1000 miles from Indonesia yet almost 6000 miles from the western coast of the United States. If Indonesia decides that they want Guam should the US hand over that Island? Does Morocco have a better claim to the Canary Islands than Spain. Where do you draw the line on geographical claims, and how do you justify overruling the current residents. It seems pretty pompous to glance at a map and then tell people that all their lives they have been living in the wrong place and either need to move or change their identity.

    midshipman.jpg
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Asking for evidence for a claim I've never heard before and for which there appears to be scant evidence is western revisionsm now? That book seems to cover the incidents I mentioned earlier.

    Seriously, find a decent citation for 100 men being murdered after surrendering. Or even a citation that says 1000 prisoners were taken and only 900 were repatriated and no one knows what happened to the other 100 but hey look at this big grave. You've conjured a large scale war crime out of figures for which you've provided no support.

  • Midshipman wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.

    Let's break this down for you.

    Pre 1764 - No inhabitants on the Falklands Islands. No claims on the Falklands Islands.
    1764 - The French establish a small settlement on East Falkland.
    1766 - The British establish a small settlement on West Falkland.
    1767 - The Spanish acquire control of the French colony.
    1770 - The Spanish invade and drive the British out of West Falkland, but then sign a peace treaty and the British return.
    1774 - The British depart from the Falklands. Continues to claim ownership.
    1806 - The Spanish government departs. Continues to claim ownership.
    1811 - Remaining Spanish settlers removed from the Falklands by the precursor to the modern Argentinian state.

    1811-1828 - No inhabitants on the Falklands.

    1820 - An American privateer/pirate (Jewett) under commission by the precursor to the modern Argentinan state claims the Falklands but does not settle them.
    1828 - A German of French (Vernet) descent settles a seal-hunting colony on the Falklands in 1828 with authorization from both the British and Argentian governments.
    1829 - Vernet is appointed governor of his colony at Puerto Luis by the Argentinian government. The British government objects, citing their claim to the islands.
    1831 - Vernet antagonizes United States fishing/hunting expeditions around the islands. The US government responds by heavily damaging the colony and arresting its leaders for piracy (later releasing them). The US declares the islands as "free from all government". The workers of Vernet's seal-hunting colony continue.
    Nov 1832 - The Argentinian government sets up a penal colony on the Falklands. A mutiny occurs within days, killing the Argentinian commanding officer.
    Jan 1833 - The British return to the Falklands and request that Argentinian forces withdraw. The Argentinian commanding officer protests, but complies. A British businessman (Brisbane) previously employed as Vernets deputy is placed in charge of the remaining seal-hunting colony.
    Aug 1833 - Members of the seal-hunting colony revolt, killing Brisbane and other colony leadership.
    1834 - The British navy rules the Falklands as a naval station.
    1840 - The British establish a permanent colony that has continued to this day.

    So, if you subscribe to first come first serve as the rule of sovereignty...

    France/Spain claims/settles first, Britain claims/settles second, and Argentina claims/settles last. All three abandon their settlement at some point, but never their claims (maybe Spain has abandoned their claim more recently). The only tenuous connection that Argentina has to continuous settlement is that approximately 12 Argentinian workers in the multi-national seal-hunting colony were present when the British reestablished control of the Island in 1833. That's a pretty tenuous claim to current sovereignty over the Islands.

    If you examine the intent of the Vernet "colony", it seems pretty obvious that the leaders as well as the members had no more intention of settling and colonizing than workers on-board oil-rigs have of settling whatever patch of ocean they are occupying. They merely decided to set up a more permanent shop for hunting seals in the hopes of discouraging competition by means of claiming exclusive rights. Seal hunting ships of several nations had been making expeditions to the Falklands for many years before Vernet got permission to base there. In fact, when Jewett first claimed the Falklands for Argentina, he recorded seeing 50 US and British seal-hunting ships present. As previously mentioned, Vernet's colony pissed off the US by seizing a ship that was hunting seals. Vernet tried to justify it by claiming that his operation had exclusive hunting rights, and the US called them out on that by arresting the leaders and declaring the islands as basically not being governed by anyone. The "colony" never contained any women, no children were ever born during it's existence, and after the murder of it's management by some of the workers in 1833, basically ceased to exist.

    Aside from the Vernet "colony", the only other Argentinian presence during the entire history of the Falklands was the 2-3 months that they maintained a prison colony before leaving.

    Looking at all of the above, it seems pretty clear that any claim that Argentina can make along those lines is greatly outweighed by the claims that the British are able to make, not to mention the stated desire of the current residents with regard to sovereignty.

    The only remaining claim that Argentina can make that is stronger than Britain's is a purely geographical one. The Falklands are 300 miles off the coast of Argentina. That is well outside any internationally recognized range of ownership (12 miles for territorial claim and 200 miles for exclusive economic claim). However, admittedly, 300 miles is much less than nearly the nearly 8000 miles to England (only ~1000 miles to the nearest British territory in Antarctica and 5000 miles to British islands in the Caribbean). However, claiming inhabited territory away from its residents based solely on closer proximity than to "the rest" of the country or its capital is rather ridiculous. I see that Bermuda is less than 700 miles from North Carolina yet over 3000 miles from the coast of England, should the United Kingdom cede that Island to the United States? I see that Guam is only about a 1000 miles from Indonesia yet almost 6000 miles from the western coast of the United States. If Indonesia decides that they want Guam should the US hand over that Island? Does Morocco have a better claim to the Canary Islands than Spain. Where do you draw the line on geographical claims, and how do you justify overruling the current residents. It seems pretty pompous to glance at a map and then tell people that all their lives they have been living in the wrong place and either need to move or change their identity.

    This is exactly what I was looking for in this thread. By using the Socratic method throughout the thread to make people think hard about their preconceptions and challenge them, I've made a user produce a well argued commentary on the situation that makes perfect sense. I was on the british side all along. My work here is done.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Pretending not to hear answers when they're given to you and ignore facts that dispute your claims while making ridiculous analogies is the Socratic method?

    No wonder they executed that guy. He must have been incredibly annoying.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I don't see how it has any bearing on either us (who didn't do that) or the 3000 people there now who didn't do that though.

    It doesn't have any bearing on you or the current citizens of the Falklands; I was just explaining why there are some international sympathies, and not all unwarranted, for Argentina (though not Argentina's claims).
    I've found the '983 men captured' figure; is there a source available online for the asserted figure of those returned home?

    I've looked and cannot find one. I've only got the Red Cross hard copies at home.

    If Bogart and yourself insist, I'll change my argument to 'at least a dozen' executed prisoners. That's ridiculous, but whatever, I don't have an online source.

    With Love and Courage
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    It's ridiculous that people won't accept sources that aren't available to them? Since when?

    Red Cross article about their actions during the war, which mentions no executions

    Captain Carrot on
  • Bogart wrote: »
    Pretending not to hear answers when they're given to you and ignore facts that dispute your claims while making ridiculous analogies is the Socratic method?

    No wonder they executed that guy. He must have been incredibly annoying.

    Annoying to those in power. He died because he refused to do the tyrant's bidding.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    You find having to change your first statement, for which you seem to have no proof you can provide, from 'The British murdered 100 prisoners' while drawing a comparison with the policy of the Argentine government disappearing thousands and claiming the UK government made a statement excusing this action (no evidence provided for that either) and that everyone knows this happened (this is the very first time I've ever seen it mentioned), to something like 'maybe a dozen prisoners were killed after surrendering' to be ridiculous? You're right. How dare I ask for evidence.

    Jesus Christ. I have no problem with confronting war crimes committed by 'western troops', as you put it. But I'd a little more than your word before accepting one occured.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Asking for evidence for a claim I've never heard before and for which there appears to be scant evidence is western revisionsm now? That book seems to cover the incidents I mentioned earlier.

    The book covers British troops shooting PoWs and dumping them into open pits full of dead bodies (as well as Argentinian war crimes, like shooting a British unit that was clearly disarmed and approaching a position with a white flag raised).

    With Love and Courage
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Pretending not to hear answers when they're given to you and ignore facts that dispute your claims while making ridiculous analogies is the Socratic method?

    No wonder they executed that guy. He must have been incredibly annoying.

    Annoying to those in power. He died because he refused to do the tyrant's bidding.

    You're kind of beyond parody.

  • I have to agree with Bogart on this one, there is simply no evidence of british war crimes in the Falklands. If you want that kind of thing, there is plenty of it elsewhere, just not in the south atlantic.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    If you have a hard copy that you are basing your numbers on you should probably quote the relevant paragraph and cite the document.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Venkman90Venkman90 Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    This is exactly what I was looking for in this thread. By using the Socratic method throughout the thread to make people think hard about their preconceptions and challenge them, I've made a user produce a well argued commentary on the situation that makes perfect sense. I was on the british side all along. My work here is done.

    RqSsN.gif

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    The Ender wrote: »
    Asking for evidence for a claim I've never heard before and for which there appears to be scant evidence is western revisionsm now? That book seems to cover the incidents I mentioned earlier.

    The book covers British troops shooting PoWs and dumping them into open pits full of dead bodies (as well as Argentinian war crimes, like shooting a British unit that was clearly disarmed and approaching a position with a white flag raised).

    From an Independent article about the book: "In one incident outlined in his book, Mr Bramley quotes an eyewitness account of the alleged shooting of three American mercenaries by two fellow Paras, who took them prisoner during a firefight. One of the two, referred to as Y, told him: 'We pushed them the 15 metres, out of view, then suddenly X let rip, shooting them all dead. I helped make sure they were completely dead.'"

    Another excerpt from the same report: "A group of our guys had assembled some Argie prisoners on a cliff above where we had dug a body pit for their dead. Now, with the battle over, they were shooting prisoners and toppling them down to be buried. It was an outrage and senior officers stepped in immediately before the executions could get out of hand. But in the cauldrons of emotion after the battle they decided not to take further action. Court martials were the last thing we needed."

    Those were the reports I mentioned earlier. The second paragraph is also quoted in another report from the same paper, which numbers the people shot before an officer intervened as two.

    Like I said, I don't doubt that this happened. This is very different from your claim that 100 were murdered, and I'm not willing to accept your assertion of that figure without proof. The fact that you think this is ridiculous is, frankly, ridiculous.

  • Bogart wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Pretending not to hear answers when they're given to you and ignore facts that dispute your claims while making ridiculous analogies is the Socratic method?

    No wonder they executed that guy. He must have been incredibly annoying.

    Annoying to those in power. He died because he refused to do the tyrant's bidding.

    You're kind of beyond parody.

    From Wikipedia:

    "Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[13] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. But perhaps the most historically accurate of Socrates' offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic."

    "Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggests a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spends as Athens' benefactor.[15] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[16] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock."

    Unlike the Malvinas, this is a section of history that isn't ambiguous. So I don't see what was factually incorrect with my post this time.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited March 2012
    Sargasso, you are not the modern Socrates, and your posts here do not adhere to the Socratic method. They are of different method, that of 'making wild claims with no proof, little reliance on facts and heavy reliance on silly analogies.' We will call it the "Sargasso Method".

    Bogart on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    It's ridiculous that people won't accept sources that aren't available to them? Since when?

    Red Cross article about their actions during the war, which mentions no executions

    -.-

    The Red Cross recorded prisoners transferred & released - they were not on the scene to witness any war crimes that took place as troops surrendered or were taken prisoner.

    It's ridiculous to me because I have a Red Cross document right here that says Port Stanley received and released 900 people (approximate figure; I'm rounding up or down by about 10 people, I think - my stuff is in boxes) from the impromptu Goose Green prison tents, and I have the British report stating that 1,000 (or, as Wildcat has pinned-down the exact figure, 983) men surrendered and were captured.

    What happened to 100 PoWs?

    Bramley's narrative provides an unwelcome answer.

    With Love and Courage
  • Venkman90 wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    This is exactly what I was looking for in this thread. By using the Socratic method throughout the thread to make people think hard about their preconceptions and challenge them, I've made a user produce a well argued commentary on the situation that makes perfect sense. I was on the british side all along. My work here is done.

    RqSsN.gif

    Thanks man, I'm glad I was able to pull off this whole argumentative tightrope act and blow your mind in the process. Your support means a lot to me.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    No, it provides an answer that satisfies you without much in the way of proof. Why are you assuming that everyone from Goose Green went to Port Stanley?

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Venkman90 wrote: »
    I see you took option one: refuse to knowledge any facts which destroy my argument and belligerently play the martyr.

    I see you took option 0: hurling abuse at a specific user without contributing to the discussion in any way.

    I have been contributing to this thread for a while, I quoted facts to you in my first response, you ignored them.

    If it makes you feel any better, no matter what I say in this thread, no matter how hard I try to make you guys see the truth, the UK will still keep its ill-gotten plunder.
    Nothing will change at all. So yeah feel free to be as sarcastic as you want, I will be crushed under the imperial boot whatever happens.

    Even if we were to agree that Britain shouldn't have taken the islands, why should 3000 people be punished for the crimes of long-dead people by being removed from their home? Should all the Protestants in Northern Ireland be kicked out because of English colonisation attempts 400 years ago even though nearly every one of them was born here, as was their parents and grandparents? Should my Polish work colleague and his parents be evicted from their home in Elblag because 70 years ago it was the German town of Elbing? Should thousands of Russian inhabitants of the Karelian Isthmus be relocated or forcibly made part of Finland?

    After a point you can't just turn back the clock on these things.

    Technically, restoring the Karelian Isthmus would be the right thing to do, with plenty of people still around who were originally expelled from Karelia by the Russians and had their homes and lands taken by force. I believe that Karelia should be restored to Finland, and the current residents given a choice of relocation or a change of citizenship. Russia has zero claim on the land, apart from an aggressive war of conquest with fabricated justifications, and not enough time has gone by for the event to have passed from living memory. Technically all of these modern inhabitants are living in stolen houses, many of which are still recorded in deeds by the original owners. Once generations have passed, arguments about taking over land become moot against the wishes of the inhabitants, but many of the original inhabitants(read: the expelled Finns) still live.

    Nothing will come of this, of course, since the Russian government is a collection of shitheads, and they're just playing for time until none of the original claimants live so they can legitimately claim the land to be Russian. Nothing will happen, since they won't give it up of their own free will, and Finland can't force them. People recognize this, and most have given up any hope of getting it back.

    This is a bit of a different issue still for a few decades, while the wronged party is still alive.

This discussion has been closed.