Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'A deep-rooted hatred of the British': How Israelis 'armed junta' in Falklands conflict
The Daily Mail ^ | 20th April 2011 | Mail Foreign Service

Posted on 04/20/2011 8:08:52 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

'A deep-rooted hatred of the British': How Israelis 'armed junta' in Falklands conflict

Israel secretly provided arms and supplies to Argentina during the Falklands conflict, according to revelations in a new book.

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had such a deep-rooted hatred of the British that the Jewish state covertly became the biggest supplier of military equipment to the Argentine military junta.

Gas masks, radar alert systems, air-to-air missiles and fuel tanks for fighter bombers were sent from Tel Aviv to arm General Galtieri’s forces. The most audacious deal involved supplying 23 French-built fighter aircraft – Mirage IIICs – which were camouflaged with the insignia of Peru. But they arrived after the war was over.

Britain, under Margaret Thatcher, retook the Falkland Islands in June 1982, two and a half months after Argentina invaded. Some 255 British servicemen, more than 650 Argentines and three islanders were killed.

Although it was well known at the time that France was supplying missiles to Argentina – most infamously the Exocet missiles used to sink HMS Sheffield with the loss of 20 crew – Israel’s involvement went unnoticed.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: 79percent2vote4obama; amish; anything4abuck; argentina; consequences; cutoffforeignaid; falklands; immunefromcriticism; israel; lenin; liberty; marx; nyuprogressives; sellouts; sokolnikov; soldtochicomstoo; theamishdidit; theygetawaiver; trotsky; uk; uritsky; walker; walkerisatraitor; walkershouldbehung; whostartedcommunism; whoswappeddiamonds; whoswapsdiamonds; zinoviev
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

All smiles: Margaret Thatcher shakes hands with then-Isreali Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1979. But the Jewish leader's hatred of the British spurred him to send weapons to Argentina's military junta during the Falklands War

1 posted on 04/20/2011 8:08:58 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

2 posted on 04/20/2011 8:15:32 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Sounds like it too.

ML/NJ

3 posted on 04/20/2011 8:18:20 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
Is This You Too?

A "Love Note" Sent To Jim Robinson

“I do so enjoy these money raising pleas. Too bad you kicked off so many patriots back in the day that criticizing the big spending Bush was a cardinal sin on the so called conservative free republic.

Nope, I will happily continue to freeload information from this site. If the lights go dark, well, so be it...”

Become A Monthly FR Donor

4 posted on 04/20/2011 8:21:51 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Disinformation, not just horse manure.


5 posted on 04/20/2011 8:26:21 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

In 1982, Israel was neck-deep in a crisis in Lebanon. The idea that they would divert weapons to Argentina on someone’s personal whim is bull****. Argentina had switched dictators in 1981. And it was no secret that Israel sold arms in S. America, as did the USA and France.


6 posted on 04/20/2011 8:29:59 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Horse patootie..


7 posted on 04/20/2011 8:33:59 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I call BS. Argentina gave asylum to tons of Nazi war criminals. Israel would be the last country that would want to help them out.


8 posted on 04/20/2011 8:37:48 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

The way the article felt like it was sure the book and idea were true without any real proof, a few “he said’s” is scary. Did they do any fact checking? Would they have shared that in the article if they did? I would think with the obvious consequences this claim will have they would. I would. I googled the author, unless some one can translate spanish who knows what kind of guy he is.


9 posted on 04/20/2011 8:38:25 PM PDT by enduserindy (Conservative Dead Head)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Yeah, it's not like this hasn't been reported before (even before the conflict was over)

27 May 1982 ... Israeli military equipment on an Ecuadorean cargo plane detained by Federal authorities in New York on Tuesday was destined for Argentina

10 posted on 04/20/2011 8:51:28 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.- H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

While the book is likely to have plenty of crap, it is a fact that Israel sold arms to Argentina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Nesher


11 posted on 04/20/2011 8:54:54 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: enduserindy
This is such a transparent attempt to cultivate antisemitism that a gradeschooler could see through it with ease, let alone someone who has just a layman's expertise on modern international arms dealing.

It's just irrationally stupid, except to someone who hates Jews.

12 posted on 04/20/2011 8:59:54 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; Navy Patriot
Why am I thinking of the Exocet missiles that were sabotaged by Israel before they were sent to Argentina by, who, Chile?

yitbos

13 posted on 04/20/2011 9:09:08 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
The international arms trade goes on unceasingly, is extremely fluid, and driven primarily by economics.

Weapons both functional and defective are traded all the time, and clandestine "adjustments" are often made according to the fluidity of the situation, and generally follow the national interests of the nations involved.

35 year old personal grudges, if existent, simply do not play into national interests. If so, somebody in Washington must really hate the Brits for hanging Patriots, because we sold the Argentines complete submarines armed with really neat stuff, and on credit, no less.

Additionally, (be prepared to laugh) the Brits must have been feeling guilty about Israel, because they sabotaged Saddam Hussein's Babylon gun by not delivering the breech section (and two others), after building them and getting paid for it.

14 posted on 04/20/2011 9:57:39 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki; All

The real reason to doubt this story....is that Israel would never send weapons to the country that was hiding Nazis after WW II....no way Israel helps Argentina

While true that Menachem Begin did not like the British....there was a famous hotel bombing in the 1940’s that basically forced the British out of Israel...many believed Begin was involved....many Israelis at the time did not like the British because they were too coddling to the Arabs.


15 posted on 04/20/2011 10:27:14 PM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (Karl Rove = Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

That’s not borne out by facts. Israel has had defense ties with Argentina and there’s nothing particularly wrong with that since the US, France and even Britain had strategic ties with that regime.

How else would you explain the presence of Israeli made warplanes and missiles during the Falklands war.


16 posted on 04/21/2011 1:49:47 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

/bingo


17 posted on 04/21/2011 4:25:17 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

Wow, Israel sold arms to another sovereign nation. That's almost unheard of in this day and age, no one sells arms. What's next, Israel allied with a certain European island nation to recover their lost canal. Eight years after a certain island nation in Europe supplied arms and personel to the Arabs trying to destroy Israel. While boycotting arms purchases by Israel. There's a deep rooted hatred at work here, and it's not Israel hating the Brits. Next, how Israel traded arms to the IRA in exchange for English children. The Brits invented that charge.

18 posted on 04/21/2011 5:00:00 AM PDT by SJackson (Normal people don't sit cross-legged on the floor and bang on drums, WI State Sen Glenn Grothman (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Israeli made warplanes???


19 posted on 04/21/2011 5:02:19 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

For the second time in this thread-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Nesher


20 posted on 04/21/2011 5:17:30 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

All the British ever did was keep Jewish refugees from escaping to Israel during WW II, hire the Grand Mufti to incite Jew-hatred and pogroms prior to WW II, and lead the Arabs in massacring the Jews of Gush Etzion and bombard the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem after WW II. Why, for all that triviality, would Israel (gasp!) sell arms to the Argentine Junta?


21 posted on 04/21/2011 5:30:45 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

“Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had such a deep-rooted hatred of the British that the Jewish state covertly became the biggest supplier of military equipment to the Argentine military junta. “

Well, that does it. relations between the UK and Israel will not be the same again until Menachem Begin is out of office.


22 posted on 04/21/2011 5:33:08 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Many countries openly sell arms on the world market. Sounds like someone has a deep rooted hatred of da Jews.
23 posted on 04/21/2011 5:38:19 AM PDT by McGruff (I am not a Birther. But I am a Proofer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

Begin was head of the Irgun, one of the two Zionist/Jewish terrorist groups active in Palestine between 1944 and 1947, both groups bombed and murdered and tortured British soldiers and civilians, as well as native Arabs and even Jews. The bombing of the King David hotel in 1946 was just one of many acts by both groups.

The other group, the Stern Gang, were so extreme that Abraham Stern actually met Nazi agents in 1941 to agree a plan where the Stern would sabotage the British in Palestine in return for all Jews in Europe being allowed a move to a Jewish state in German occupied Middle East (the Jews would get their homeland and the Germans would get ‘rid’ of European Jewry....)


24 posted on 04/21/2011 6:49:14 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: McGruff
>>>>>>>Many countries openly sell arms on the world market. Sounds like someone has a deep rooted hatred of da Jews.<<<<

20/20. The purpose of the article is to put Israel in the crosshairs.

Let's talk about something else, about British war crime of sinking Argentinian Belgrano cruiser.

Or about France providing Exocet antiship missile codes sold to Argentina to the British prior to operation. It practically made Excocet inoperable against two British aircraft carriers.

That's what we get when the tradision of "rum, sodomy and the lash" code of honor is combined with French military victories

Scum are riding together in their aggresion on Libya.

25 posted on 04/21/2011 7:06:31 AM PDT by DTA (U.S. CENTCOM vs. U.S. AFRICOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj; dfwgator
Agree. Nations don't deal each other like this because of personal vendetta's - even if Begin was virulently anti-British, he's a politico first, and a pragmatic one at that. Besides, the British had supplied Israel with weapons (Centurion tanks) and even allied with them in 1956.

The French did NOT supply weapons to the Argentine. They HAD supplied weapons prior to the conflict, but on its outbreak they suspended further deliveries of exocet missiles. The Argentines cleverly managed to get the five they had working well enough to score three very impressive hits.

Finally, even IF Israel supplied weapons to Argentina, it would certainly been a pragmatic economic decision, not a political one. But they wouldn't have done it. Its too risky a move. They would certainly have been caught before now.

26 posted on 04/21/2011 7:11:22 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Yeah selling weapons to Argentina was an economic not a political act. The point is that said weapons were not sold while the Falklands war was on The Brits sold weapons to Argentina pre-Falklands war.
27 posted on 04/21/2011 7:17:01 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DTA
Let's talk about something else, about British war crime of sinking Argentinian Belgrano cruiser.

Not according to the lawyers.

Or about France providing Exocet antiship missile codes sold to Argentina to the British prior to operation. It practically made Excocet inoperable against two British aircraft carriers.

How do you reckon that? The Argentines only had five exocet missiles and three of them scored hits, sinking two ships. That's not a bad success rate! The Brits were lucky (and skilfull) in keeping the Carriers out of harm's way.

That's what we get when the tradision of "rum, sodomy and the lash" code of honor is combined with French military victories

What are you trying to say? (PS Tradition is spelt with a "t").

Scum are riding together in their aggresion on Libya.

Who are you referring to? (PS aggression is spelt with two "s"'s)

28 posted on 04/21/2011 7:26:14 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

There’s no deep rooted hatred anywhere here (except by the author of the book that contains this slur). It’s plain simple economics and realpolitik. The Brits sold arms to both Israel and certain Arab nations (I think you mean Jordan, not exactly the most virulent of Israel’s enemies. As I recall Egypt and Syria were in the Soviet’s pockets at this time and got all their weapons from them).


29 posted on 04/21/2011 7:33:20 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DTA
Let's talk about something else, about British war crime of sinking Argentinian Belgrano cruiser.

It was a war, Argentina started it, ships get sunk in war....it was no war crime.

30 posted on 04/21/2011 7:34:10 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
>>>>>>>>It was a war, Argentina started it, ships get sunk in war....it was no war crime<<<<<<<

Belgrano was outside of 200 miles exclusivity zone established by the British government and was sailing away from the Falklands.

Ms Thatchhore knew it very well but denied it publicly

The sinking of Belgrano was deliberete act, to stoke the fires of the war and prevent diplomatic settlement.

Any act against peace is penultimate crime.

31 posted on 04/21/2011 7:59:22 AM PDT by DTA (U.S. CENTCOM vs. U.S. AFRICOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DTA
Any act against peace is penultimate crime.

Take it up with Galtieri.

32 posted on 04/21/2011 8:02:35 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
>>>>>>>What are you trying to say? (PS Tradition is spelt with a "t").<<<<<<

That it is dihonest to accuse Israel of something Israel did not do, while at the same time both Britain and France acted dishonestly in the Falklands war.

When the British and the French work together, like premeditated attack on Libya no wonder the act of thuggery is it is touted as an honest act with honorable motives.

33 posted on 04/21/2011 8:18:32 AM PDT by DTA (U.S. CENTCOM vs. U.S. AFRICOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DTA
Britain and France did not act dishonestly in the Falklands war. I dont know where you dredged up this nonsense about exocet codes but it certainly cannot be true, as the dang missiles worked all too well.

The article here is true enough, in that it is describing a book that claims that Israel supplied weapons to Argentina, but the claims this book makes are obviously false. As has been stated very eloquently on this thread, everyone sells arms to everyone else all the time. Israel did sell arms to Argentina (pre-war), but so what? The US, Britain and France all sold weapons to Argentina pre-war. And this is not wrong because those weapons were not sold to the Argentine government that started the Falklands war, and in any case, none of the selling nations purposed their use.

You are so off-beam with this accusation of "thuggery" and "touting as honest acts and honor". In the first place, all the nations of the world are primarily concerned with their own interests, and honor and nobility are usually excuses they use to cover their actions. I'm not as cynical about this as many people - I happen to think that honor and an altruistic desire to improve the lot of others really does have some weight in the councils of the mighty, but at the same time I'm not so naive as to believe such things cannot be shelved if they become "inconvenient".

In the second place, it is an astounding event when Britain and France work together on anything, and it rarely works very well. I would be very, very surprised if the attack on Libya is premeditated. I know that both have got it in for Gaddaffi, and lets face it - the world would be an immensely better place if he wasn't in the picture anymore. But removing him by force is just too darn risky in this day and age. And in any case, what has either nation to gain from such an act? Seizing oil? The stuff is largely extracted from Libyan soil by western techies anyway. Besides, very little of the product reaches either country (<1% for Britain).

And look at what both countries stand to lose! Oil prices have shot up since this all kicked off, because the markets hate instability. They are both heavily involved in other conflicts, especially the British (Afghanistan), and neither has the money or manpower to become entangled in another. If there is a major civil war in Libya there will be a huge refugee problem, and a lot of it is going to rebound on southern Europe. The French have closed their border with Italy already to keep fleeing libyans out. There is no guarantee that any new Libyan government is going to be any more friendly than the last one, and what happens if Gaddaffi wins anyway? He's not going to be well pleased with the people who attacked him, and he is the type to hold grudges.

No, I'm sorry. This neo-colonial libyan aggression conspiracy theory just doesn't float.

34 posted on 04/21/2011 8:55:57 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DTA
The sinking of Belgrano was deliberete act, to stoke the fires of the war and prevent diplomatic settlement.

Any act against peace is penultimate crime.

And Kumbya to you too.

The order and sinking of the Belgrano occurred on the afternoon and evening of 2 May

On the Morning of 2 May the Argentinians ordered an Alpha Strike from the carrier Veinticinco de Mayo against the British Fleet. Due to unseasonable calm weather, they couldn't get enough Wind Over Deck to launch a fully loaded A-4 Skyhawk so the strike was postponed.

If it has been launched and succeeded, you don't think that would have stoked the fires of the war and prevented a diplomatic settlement?

It was war. Potential enemy threats get taken out when the opportunity presents.

If the Belgrano had been able to lose contact with Conqueror by heading north over the Burwood bank, and getting within range of the British carriers, well questions would have been asked in the House

Commander Wreford-Brown, "The Royal Navy spent thirteen years preparing me for such an occasion. It would have been regarded as extremely dreary if I had fouled it up".

35 posted on 04/21/2011 9:05:58 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.- H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]



Tough Dog Says "Donate"


Click the Pic

36 posted on 04/21/2011 9:12:36 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DTA
"Any act against peace is penultimate crime."

Well, Kumbaya and imagine whirled peas to you too ---

The Brits should have sent their subs into Argentinian harbors and sank everything afloat with an Argentine flag, especially that carrier that they were hiding.

37 posted on 04/21/2011 9:34:04 AM PDT by BlueLancer (You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going because you might not get there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DTA

Firstly, the Belgrano was not sailing back to Argentina as modern myth has it, it was sailing to link up with other ships and launch a pincer attack on the Royal Navy.

Secondly, like many, you seem to misunderstand what the exclusion zone actually was. All it was was a publicly declared zone in which the British stated any non-British ship could be sunk. There is a misunderstanding then and now that it was a legal zone under international law under which no ship could be sunk outside it.

The Argentines under international law were entitled to sail to Portsmouth or Faslane or Belfast and sink every RN ship, as we would have been legally allowed to sail into Argentine ports and sink the enemy.


38 posted on 04/21/2011 10:34:59 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Israel abided by pre-war arms deals with Argentina. Israel had a horrible experience of being betrayed by the perfidious creator of Eurabia Charles De Gaulle, when France refused to honor arms deal with Israel starting in 1966. And the British were no better. Israel helped the British design the Chieftain tank. In 1969, the British stopped sale of this tank to Israel even as they were sold to Iran, Kuwait, Oman, and Jordan. th elast three of which were still in a state of war with Israel. Perhaps Begin would have betrayed Argentina if Thatcher declared that Perfidious Arabist Albion would stop screwing Israel, but Israel needed to sell weapons to keep its domestic arms industry alive and security assured.


39 posted on 04/21/2011 10:36:26 AM PDT by rmlew (No Blood for Sarkozy's re-election and Union for the Mediterranean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
Begin was head of the Irgun, one of the two Zionist/Jewish terrorist groups active in Palestine between 1944 and 1947, both groups bombed and murdered and tortured British soldiers and civilians, as well as native Arabs and even Jews. The bombing of the King David hotel in 1946 was just one of many acts by both groups.
If the British had not kept Jews out of Palestine, while importing Arabs from 1927 until 1946, this would not have happened. The Irgun worked with the British during the first part of World war 2. Its leader, David Raziel was killed in a mission to help the British war effort in Iraq. This lead LeHI under Stern to split from the Irgun. The Irgun betrayed Stern to the British after he tried to reach an agreement with the Germans. Teh British turned around and arrested members of both REvisionist Zionist groups. As the British ended co-operation and restarted persecution, the Irgun retaliated. In 1946, the bombed British occupation headquarters at the King David Hotel, after warning people to leave. (The French left, the British told the called to f--- off, and hid the news from civilians.) The British were busy arming Arabs to kill Jews, and returning Jews to Europe in 1946, just as they had sent Jews to their deaths during the war. The communist-friendly LAbor government wanted to the screw the Jews in Palestine, and British soldiers paid the price.
40 posted on 04/21/2011 10:46:25 AM PDT by rmlew (No Blood for Sarkozy's re-election and Union for the Mediterranean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DTA

Sinking an enemy cruiser is no war crime. It’s war.


41 posted on 04/21/2011 10:49:16 AM PDT by rmlew (No Blood for Sarkozy's re-election and Union for the Mediterranean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
Secondly, like many, you seem to misunderstand what the exclusion zone actually was. All it was was a publicly declared zone in which the British stated any non-British ship could be sunk. There is a misunderstanding then and now that it was a legal zone under international law under which no ship could be sunk outside it.

"could be sunk" applied to any ship considered a threat to the task force

Inside the Total (how often that word is ommitted) Exclusion Zone, any non British ship would be considered a threat automatically.

42 posted on 04/21/2011 11:30:17 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.- H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
"The Argentines under international law were entitled to sail to Portsmouth or Faslane or Belfast and sink every RN ship, as we would have been legally allowed to sail into Argentine ports and sink the enemy."

Not sure how legal any of this would have been, or how legal what happened was, seeing as how neither Argentina nor Britain was in a declared state of war when they were sinking each others ships and killing each other's servicemen...

43 posted on 04/21/2011 12:34:22 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

It is the British who hate PM Begin for besting them in Mandate Palestine. The British never fail to call PM Begin a “terrorist.”


44 posted on 04/21/2011 9:49:30 PM PDT by dervish (One person's Libyan al Qaeda terrorist is another person's Libyan freedom fighter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish

Because he was one.

Sorry, but thats the truth.


45 posted on 04/22/2011 2:55:52 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Sounds like Media analysis from Soros,Inc.


46 posted on 04/22/2011 8:43:38 AM PDT by cricket (Osama - NOT made in the USA. . . .and Obama, not made in the USA either.. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Begin was less of a terrorist than the folks who forcibly stopped ships with Jewish refugees and made Arab appeasement a religion.


47 posted on 04/22/2011 9:45:39 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Bret Stephen’s Eye on the Media: Fear and loathing at ‘The Economist’
Internet Jerusalem Post | Jul. 4, 2002 | Bret Stephen’s
Posted on 07/04/2002 6:26:21 PM PDT by Phil V.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/711016/posts


48 posted on 04/22/2011 11:54:56 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
>>>>>>Not sure how legal any of this would have been, or how legal what happened was, seeing as how neither Argentina nor Britain was in a declared state of war when they were sinking each others ships and killing each other's servicemen...<<<<<

That was my point also, naval law can not be applied partially. Following logic that it was war, London could nuke Buenos Aires.

Britain had every right to declare war on Argentina, but did not bother.

I agree that states act in their own interest. So why accuse Israel of selling arms to anyone? There was no international arms embargo against Argentina. States act thuggish if they break the laws, treaties and agreements they ratified. It was ok for France to try to prevent Argentina from purchasing Exocet from third countries. But it was thuggish to provide data of Exocet sold to Argentina to Britain.

49 posted on 04/22/2011 2:30:32 PM PDT by DTA (U.S. CENTCOM vs. U.S. AFRICOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Bollocks.


50 posted on 04/22/2011 4:24:32 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson