Why did the Falkands War Really Happen?

[hagbard_celine]

To this day, few question the official story of the war: that is was an act of redemption and justice. We see it in simple terms: Argentina stole the islands illegally and we went in to take them back, and to free the Falklander people who wanted to remain British. This would all sound very noble if it wasn’t for the fact that the govt has never done anything else motivated by the needs and aspirations of the common folk. No, they only do anything when they’re on the make! Let’s look at some interesting things that we don’t see in the media very often:

http://www.oilvoice.com/Falkland_Oil_Gas_Announces_Preliminary_Results_For _the_Nine/9194.htm . That’s right, almost inevitably, the Falkland Islands has a nearby oil and gas field. I guessed that and I’m not psychic!

Also if you look at the islands on an atlas you’ll see that they sit at an important strategic location: what navel tacticians call a “choke point”. All ships entering the Pacific Ocean, not using the Panama Canal have to pass around Cape Horn or through the Straits of Magallan, just a short distance from the Falklands! An easy place to base a permanent naval force to control the area. (Incidentally who controls the Panama Canal? The Panamanians? Hardly!) Another choke point is the Straits of Gibralter, which Britain also control, through our colony there. See a pattern emerging?

If it wasn’t for these factors I doubt if the UK govt would have made to much effort to reclaim the islands... And would Argentina have even bothered to invade them in the first place?

[21_12_2012]

Good points mate....only last week I was wondering what it was all about with the Falklands...

It's something we never hear much about at all nowadays....

It's true, the government never do anything unless they're 'on the make'....

[klinker]

Can't remember where I read it but another South American country (Peru?) apparently negotiated and agreed with Argentina an unconditional withdrawal of their forces from the islands.This agreement was in place before the UK forces set sail but the UK government ignored it.

[hagbard_celine]

Can't remember where I read it but another South American country (Peru?) apparently negotiated and agreed with Argentina an unconditional withdrawal of their forces from the islands.This agreement was in place before the UK forces set sail but the UK government ignored it.


Absolutely! All that destruction could have been prevented.

Some say that there was an urgency to free the Falklanders from oppression. Yes, the invasion was illegal and reprehensible, but the Argentines treated the local people comparatively well compared to other stories you hear about invasions. I've not heard any reports of mass-rape and pillage, no houses burnt down, no children carted off to slave camps. The Argentine forces who took Goose Green forced all the residents into the village hall and kept them locked up, but they gave the men and women separate toilets, for fucks sake! Yes, it was a bad shitty deal for the residents, but it could have been so much worse.

They could have easily let the situation be while they forced Argentina out by legal negotiations.

[notaslave]

Lets not forget the economy of Argentina at the time, was going down the pan and people were starting to complain en masse in the streets.

[klinker]

An article from Prisonplanet.com

Margaret Thatcher Threatened to Use Nukes During Falkland Islands War

Newsmax | November 21 2005

French President Francois Mitterrand made a stunning claim to his psychoanalyst during Britain’s Falkland Islands war with Argentina in the early 1980s:

Margaret Thatcher threatened to use nuclear weapons unless Mitterrand gave the British the "deactivate" codes used by anti-ship missiles that France had sold to Argentina!

That never-before-revealed scenario is disclosed in the new book "Rendez-vous: The Psychoanalysis of Francois Mitterrand,” written by Ali Magoudi, who was the French president’s psychoanalyst from 1982 to 1993.

Magoudi insists that all the quotes attributed to Mitterrand are genuine, but he cannot vouch for the truth of what the president said, the Sunday Times in London reports.

On May 4, 1982, two French-made jets in the Argentine air force attacked the British destroyer Sheffield as it steamed toward the Falkland Islands.
A French-made Exocet missile struck the ship, killing 20 crewmembers and injuring 24. The destroyer was scuttled and British naval officials feared that the Exocet was so effective that it jeopardized the entire operation to dislodge Argentine occupiers from the Falklands.

Shortly after that, according to Magoudi’s unsubstantiated disclosures, Mitterrand told him during one of their sessions: "What an impossible woman, that Thatcher. With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina – unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians.”

Magoudi said Mitterrand told him that he had ordered the Exocet codes to be handed over to the British at Thatcher’s insistence: "She has them now, the codes. If our customers find out that the French wreck the weapons they sell, it’s not going to reflect well on our exports.”

Mitterrand then complained to Magoudi: "To provoke a nuclear war for small islands inhabited by three sheep who are as hairy as they are frozen! Fortunately I yielded. Otherwise, I assure you, the metallic index finger of the lady would press the button.”

But then Mitterrand vowed to get revenge on Britain and its feisty prime minister – with a tunnel under the English Channel.
"I will have the last word,” Magoudi said Mitterrand told him. "Her island, it’s me who will destroy it. Her island, I swear that soon it will no longer be one. I will take my revenge. I will tie England to Europe, despite its natural tendency for isolation. I will build a tunnel under the Channel.”

Is Magoudi’s account credible?

It’s known that there were British nuclear weapons in the Falklands conflict zone, according to the Times. And two years after the war, the Labour Party demanded an inquiry into a report that Britain had sent a Polaris submarine to Ascension Island, the staging ground for Britain’s naval task force, to be on standby for a nuclear attack on the Argentine city of Cordoba if the war went badly.

But the admirals who had been in charge of the Royal Navy during he war flatly denied the report.

"Was Thatcher bluffing Mitterrand?” the Times asks. "Or was he exaggerating her ruthlessness?”

As for the Channel tunnel, Thatcher and Mitterrand reached an agreement to construct it in 1984. It opened in 1994 at a cost more than twice what had been projected, and has proven to be a financial black hole for both Britain and France.

[mcmenek1]

Hi,

I just wonder if there is another angle to this the Falklands story........we all know how "The Powers That Be" love to manipulate conflict and wars from behind the scenes.........what if "The Powers That Be" were behind Argentina’s actions and Britain’s response to create a war situation............could this war have been some bazaar ritual sacrifice to negatively effect the earth energy in and around the Falklands area........the deaths of hundreds of young men on land and sea.......

Quite often the real reasons for these conflicts and not the manipulated dramas played out on our TV screens we are lead to believe.......the real reasons are quite different something most of us don't fully understand or are even aware of........."The Powers That Be" are fully aware of how the 3rd dimension of duality works and they love nothing more than to manipulate those 3rd dimensional energies in their favour......

Love
&
Peace

[hew1]

To this day, few question the official story of the war: that is was an act of redemption and justice. We see it in simple terms: Argentina stole the islands illegally and we went in to take them back, and to free the Falklander people who wanted to remain British. This would all sound very noble if it wasn’t for the fact that the govt has never done anything else motivated by the needs and aspirations of the common folk. No, they only do anything when they’re on the make! Let’s look at some interesting things that we don’t see in the media very often:

http://www.oilvoice.com/Falkland_Oil_Gas_Announces_Preliminary_Results_For _the_Nine/9194.htm . That’s right, almost inevitably, the Falkland Islands has a nearby oil and gas field. I guessed that and I’m not psychic!

Also if you look at the islands on an atlas you’ll see that they sit at an important strategic location: what navel tacticians call a “choke point”. All ships entering the Pacific Ocean, not using the Panama Canal have to pass around Cape Horn or through the Straits of Magallan, just a short distance from the Falklands! An easy place to base a permanent naval force to control the area. (Incidentally who controls the Panama Canal? The Panamanians? Hardly!) Another choke point is the Straits of Gibralter, which Britain also control, through our colony there. See a pattern emerging?

If it wasn’t for these factors I doubt if the UK govt would have made to much effort to reclaim the islands... And would Argentina have even bothered to invade them in the first place?

I can remember a few months ago on the jeff rense web site,reading that the Falklands had the biggest oil reserve in the world.

[tickles]

My theory is that the queen needed a war so that Prince Charles could get some medals (It always looks good when a king has fought to defend his country)
So they needed a nice little war (that would be fairly safe) for the prince to fight in to earn his medals.

Its just my theory.

[hagbard_celine]

Hi,

I just wonder if there is another angle to this the Falklands story........we all know how "The Powers That Be" love to manipulate conflict and wars from behind the scenes.........what if "The Powers That Be" were behind Argentina’s actions and Britain’s response to create a war situation............could this war have been some bazaar ritual sacrifice to negatively effect the earth energy in and around the Falklands area........the deaths of hundreds of young men on land and sea.......

Quite often the real reasons for these conflicts and not the manipulated dramas played out on our TV screens we are lead to believe.......the real reasons are quite different something most of us don't fully understand or are even aware of........."The Powers That Be" are fully aware of how the 3rd dimension of duality works and they love nothing more than to manipulate those 3rd dimensional energies in their favour......

Love
&
Peace


Good point. I hadn't thought of that, but it wouldn't surprise me. All wars contain an element of ritual sacrifice about them, but this war might be one in particular.

The Falklands are among the most southerly lands in the world. Apart from the tip of South America and a few islands, there's nothing there between them and Antarctica. Antarctica is a very special place to both the Illuminati and other people. It's said to be a "pure place"; it has no native human population and a pristine widerness. It's the biggest SSSI in the world. People who go there say it has a beautiful, clean energy. (It's a long story, but I strongly recomend the novel Antactica by Kim Stanley Robinson for an understanding of this.) The Loomies might have felt it necessary to infect the region with a bit of Good Old Blood-and-Guts Brutality. Drag it kicking and screaming into the "real world". It's too big a subject to cover on this thread, but I've a feeling that they do this quite regularly in all aspects of life.

If the Hollow Earth Theory is true then this could also be a muscle-showing excersise. There's rumours of a secret war between the Illuminati and their equivalent in the Inner Earth. By using military might that close to the South Pole, and hence the gateway to the Inner Earth, they were sending out a clear message to their rivals: "Don't fuck with us! We can send forces to kill you if you poke your head out of your hole!"

[hagbard_celine]

An article from Prisonplanet.com

Margaret Thatcher Threatened to Use Nukes During Falkland Islands War

Newsmax | November 21 2005

French President Francois Mitterrand made a stunning claim to his psychoanalyst during Britain’s Falkland Islands war with Argentina in the early 1980s:

Margaret Thatcher threatened to use nuclear weapons unless Mitterrand gave the British the "deactivate" codes used by anti-ship missiles that France had sold to Argentina!

That never-before-revealed scenario is disclosed in the new book "Rendez-vous: The Psychoanalysis of Francois Mitterrand,” written by Ali Magoudi, who was the French president’s psychoanalyst from 1982 to 1993.

Magoudi insists that all the quotes attributed to Mitterrand are genuine, but he cannot vouch for the truth of what the president said, the Sunday Times in London reports.

On May 4, 1982, two French-made jets in the Argentine air force attacked the British destroyer Sheffield as it steamed toward the Falkland Islands.
A French-made Exocet missile struck the ship, killing 20 crewmembers and injuring 24. The destroyer was scuttled and British naval officials feared that the Exocet was so effective that it jeopardized the entire operation to dislodge Argentine occupiers from the Falklands.

Shortly after that, according to Magoudi’s unsubstantiated disclosures, Mitterrand told him during one of their sessions: "What an impossible woman, that Thatcher. With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina – unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians.”

Magoudi said Mitterrand told him that he had ordered the Exocet codes to be handed over to the British at Thatcher’s insistence: "She has them now, the codes. If our customers find out that the French wreck the weapons they sell, it’s not going to reflect well on our exports.”

Mitterrand then complained to Magoudi: "To provoke a nuclear war for small islands inhabited by three sheep who are as hairy as they are frozen! Fortunately I yielded. Otherwise, I assure you, the metallic index finger of the lady would press the button.”

But then Mitterrand vowed to get revenge on Britain and its feisty prime minister – with a tunnel under the English Channel.
"I will have the last word,” Magoudi said Mitterrand told him. "Her island, it’s me who will destroy it. Her island, I swear that soon it will no longer be one. I will take my revenge. I will tie England to Europe, despite its natural tendency for isolation. I will build a tunnel under the Channel.”

Is Magoudi’s account credible?

It’s known that there were British nuclear weapons in the Falklands conflict zone, according to the Times. And two years after the war, the Labour Party demanded an inquiry into a report that Britain had sent a Polaris submarine to Ascension Island, the staging ground for Britain’s naval task force, to be on standby for a nuclear attack on the Argentine city of Cordoba if the war went badly.

But the admirals who had been in charge of the Royal Navy during he war flatly denied the report.

"Was Thatcher bluffing Mitterrand?” the Times asks. "Or was he exaggerating her ruthlessness?”

As for the Channel tunnel, Thatcher and Mitterrand reached an agreement to construct it in 1984. It opened in 1994 at a cost more than twice what had been projected, and has proven to be a financial black hole for both Britain and France.

Christ Almighty! I read this the other day, but I've only just grasped its significance! As I said on the "Belgrano" thread, Thatcher threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons on Iraq if they used their WMD.

[klinker]

My theory is that the queen needed a war so that Prince Charles could get some medals (It always looks good when a king has fought to defend his country)
So they needed a nice little war (that would be fairly safe) for the prince to fight in to earn his medals.

Its just my theory.

Do you not mean Andrew?

[tickles]

Charles is the next inline to be king isn't he?. Thats what i thought anyway.
Like i said its just a theory and i havent researched it. Just wouldn't suprise me to see them do something like that.

Cheers.

[danielg]

I thought they started it as they were busy destroying the working class communities and working classes job rights, what better way to appease them than start a war and get them flagwaving for "our boys".

[klinker]

Charles is the next inline to be king isn't he?. Thats what i thought anyway.
Like i said its just a theory and i havent researched it. Just wouldn't suprise me to see them do something like that.

Cheers.

Andrew took part in the conflict as a helicopter co-pilot. Charles was not there and so far as I know, please anyone correct me, he has never taken part in any conflict. Charles is next in line to the thrown so no war for him and the same applies to his son William I guess.

[hagbard_celine]

I thought they started it as they were busy destroying the working class communities and working classes job rights, what better way to appease them than start a war and get them flagwaving for "our boys".

It certainly helped to get Thatcher reelected!

[hagbard_celine]

Andrew took part in the conflict as a helicopter co-pilot. Charles was not there and so far as I know, please anyone correct me, he has never taken part in any conflict. Charles is next in line to the thrown so no war for him and the same applies to his son William I guess.

Yet they're keeping Harry out of Iraq! And he's in the same position as Andrew was.

[deca]

Thatcher`s government was doing MOD cut backs in 1982

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_%281967%29

She was acquired by the Royal Navy in 1967, converted by Harland & Wolff and renamed. The vessel maintained a British presence in Antarctica and the Falkland Islands during the summer months. She also supported the British Antarctic Survey. Due to her bright red hull she was nicknamed 'Red Plum'. The Royal Navy intended to decommission the vessel in 1982, following the defence review of John Nott, but the Falklands War intervened.

[tickles]

Andrew took part in the conflict as a helicopter co-pilot. Charles was not there and so far as I know, please anyone correct me, he has never taken part in any conflict. Charles is next in line to the thrown so no war for him and the same applies to his son William I guess.

Ah, ok. Well that blows that little theory of mine :D

Cheers

[klinker]

Ah, ok. Well that blows that little theory of mine :D

Cheers

But Charles does have loads of medals though. :) What they are for I don't know.

[hagbard_celine]

But Charles does have loads of medals though. :) What they are for I don't know.

I think you don't have to do anything in war to get some medals. He was captain of a Ton-class minesweeper, so maybe he's got a command medal; does the RN give them out? I've seen his "ship". It's a cute little thing aboput the size of a fishing boat. It's the only RN ship built of wood except HMS Victory!

[klinker]

I think you don't have to do anything in war to get some medals. He was captain of a Ton-class minesweeper, so maybe he's got a command medal; does the RN give them out? I've seen his "ship". It's a cute little thing aboput the size of a fishing boat. It's the only RN ship built of wood except HMS Victory!

Quality, PMSL. :D

I think you get an extra medal for every five you collect. :D

[hagbard_celine]

Quality, PMSL. :D

I think you get an extra medal for every five you collect. :D

No wonder they build up such a huge collection! They must get a bit heavy. Some of these old soldiers have rows and rows of them and I swear they lean over to the right to compensate. I'd advise them to stay away from deep water! :D

[klinker]

No wonder they build up such a huge collection! They must get a bit heavy. Some of these old soldiers have rows and rows of them and I swear they lean over to the right to compensate. I'd advise them to stay away from deep water too! :D

and airports. :D

[emtec]

Can't remember where I read it but another South American country (Peru?) apparently negotiated and agreed with Argentina an unconditional withdrawal of their forces from the islands.This agreement was in place before the UK forces set sail but the UK government ignored it.


Lol did the Argies start to withdraw? Did they say look we dont want a fight when we got there? No way would they have left without getting kicked out look what happened to their leaders when they did get booted. Come on its not like the Brits set sail and were there the next day is it?

[them]

But Charles does have loads of medals though. :) What they are for I don't know.

It's a lesser known conflict, to be sure, but the Duke of Rothesay defeated a whole squadron of Red Army Ants along the borders of the Raspberry Terrace at Balmoral in 1956 armed only with a small stick.

He got mentioned in dispatches & was highly decorated before Afternoon tea.

[cheeb]

john Montague
4th Earl of Sandwich
Postmaster General
1762

credited as the first person in the history
of the universe
to put a peice of food
in between bread

I doubt it
seems incredible that no one ever though of this before,

but apparently they didn't

[hagbard_celine]

It's a lesser known conflict, to be sure, but the Duke of Rothesay defeated a whole squadron of Red Army Ants along the borders of the Raspberry Terrace at Balmoral in 1956 armed only with a small stick.

He got mentioned in dispatches & was highly decorated before Afternoon tea.

:D:D:D

:cool: