Argentinian president accused of covering up details about the country's worst terrorist attack per The Guardian

The Guardian reports that:

'An Argentinian federal prosecutor has accused the country's president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, of attempting to cover up Iran's involvement in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in 1994, in which 85 people were killed.

Prosecutor Alberto Nisman said on Wednesday that he had issued a request that judge Ariel Lijo interrogate Fernández and the foreign minister, Héctor Timerman, "for being authors and accomplices of an aggravated cover-up and obstruction of justice regarding the Iranians accused of the Amia terrorist attack".

In a 300-page presentation to a Buenos Aires court, Nisman alleged that the president conducted secret negotiations with Iran through non-diplomatic channels in 2013, and offered to cover up the involvement of Iranian officials in return for oil to ease Argentina's chronic energy deficit. Under the deal, the oil would be exchanged for Argentinian grain, Nisma said.'

No discernible coverage on the institutionally anti Israel and pro any country that opposes British interests BBC.

The BBC just cannot help themselves

From the BBC's article entitled 'How did Doctor Who reflect the real world?':

The first David Tennant story, The Christmas Invasion, contains a scene which echoes former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's decision to sink the General Belgrano during the Falklands conflict in 1982.

Penelope Wilton's prime minister orders the destruction of a retreating alien spaceship, a decision condemned by the Doctor.

Doctor Who during the Russell T. Davies years often had politial echoes, this was one of the most clumsy. It was also perpetrtinga falsehood as the Argentinian ship's captain and others have admitted that The Belgarano was not retreating...

La Nación published a reader's letter from Admiral Enrique Molina Pico (head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s) in 2005 in which Pico wrote that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, but was holding off for tactical reasons. Pico added that "To leave the exclusion zone was not to leave the combat zone to enter a protected area". Pico explicitly stated that the sinking was not a war crime, but a combat action.^[48]

The Belgrano's captain, Héctor Bonzo, (in) an interview in 2003... stated that the General Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of cruiser's armament.^[51]

The BBC, any excuse to blacken the name of Lady Thatcher and the British Armed Forces, truth be damned.

I wondered why the BBC were so ecstatic at the choice of Pope

I thought the BBC were over the top in their elation at an Argentinian becoming Pope, but why?

In April last year, at a memorial mass in Buenos Aires 30 years on from the Falklands conflict, he said: 'We come to pray for all who have fallen, sons of the homeland who went out to defend their mother, the homeland, and to reclaim what is theirs, that is of the homeland, and it was usurped.'

Well that clears up that mystery. The BBC really are objectionable aren't they? And so transparent!

David Cameron is standing up for the right of self-determination for the Falklanders

Oddly he's not so keen on giving us British a referendum on whether we should stay in, or leave, the EU. Most odd!

The one hundred and sixty fourth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award derives from a tweet I saw yesterday:

'Aides admit Kirchner is using the Falkland Islands as a smokescreen to mask domestic failings #Falklands http://t.co/vZtkUlDM -- Falkland Islands (@falklands_utd)'

 Argentina's Kirchner is using the Falkland Islands as a smokescreen to mask domestic failings - "No shit, Sherlock"

Another Barack Obama verbal cockup by no interest at the BBC

I have previously posted about Barack Obama's various verbal misspeaks - 57 stats etc. and how the BBC just are not interested in the sort of misspeaks that they loved to report when made by George W. Bush. So I was not surprised to learn of this latest example and even less surprised not to see it on the BBC.

It was during a speech at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia that Barack Obama decided to call the Falklands by their Spanish name 'Malvinas', unfortunately he instead called them the Maldives, which is a group of atolls off of the south coast of India.No interest at the BBC either in his misspeak or the fact that a US President tried to side with the Argentinians over their ridiculous claim on the Falklands.

Forget the facts, the BBC have a narrative to tell

I found this page on the BBC news website devoted to the death of Diana Gould. The BBC explain this woman's importance thus (under the famous piece of audio):

'The Gloucestershire woman who famously clashed with Margaret Thatcher in a 1983 TV debate over the Falklands War has died, aged 85.

Diana Gould found fame after she questioned the Prime Minister's explanation of the sinking of the Belgrano - which she saw as wrecking a potential peace proposal being drawn up.'

Ah the sinking of The Belgrano, that totem of the left that proved Margaret Thatcher was evil - 'it was sailing away from the Falklands Exclusion Zone' was the cry of the left. The trouble is that wasn't true. In that interview Lady Thatcher said "One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published."

The BBC do not report that which The Telegraph reported at the end of the last year:

'Top secret papers are set to prove that the warship Belgrano was heading into the Falkland's exclusion zone when it was sunk, and not heading back to port as the Argentinians claimed.

For decades debate and recrimination has raged over where the ship was heading when it was torpedoed by a Royal Navy submarine.

Britain received international criticism after the sinking after the Argentine Junta announced that the warship had been returning to its home port and was outside the 200 mile exclusion zone imposed by Whitehall.

But Major David Thorp, who spent 34 years working as a signals expert in military intelligence, has disclosed for the first time that he was asked to carry out a trawl of all the intelligence on the sinking at the direct request of Margaret Thatcher a few months after the end of the war.

He was ordered to compile a report for the Prime Minister called “The Sinking of the Belgrano” that has never been published.

From his own signals intercepts and those from other Government agencies, he proved that the Argentine cruiser was heading into the exclusion zone.

Major Thorp was in charge of a top secret signals interception section hidden on the amphibious warship Intrepid as it steamed with the Task Force.

Around Ascension Island, 4,000 miles from the Falklands, his team began picking up naval communications sent to the Argentine fleet which they were easily able to decipher.

The report states that in late April 1982, they intercepted a message sent from naval headquarters ordering the Belgrano and its escorts to a grid reference within the exclusion zone and not back to base as the Argentines later claimed.

The Belgrano was sunk by two torpedoes fired by the hunter-killer submarine Conqueror on May 2 with the loss of 323 lives a number of miles outside the exclusion zone.

“For some reason they decided on a rendezvous point still within the exclusion zone,” Major Thorp said. “Whether they were trying to raise a thumb at us I don’t know. At the time I thought it was strange thinking why didn’t they go straight into port?”

In his new book, The Silent Listener, Major Thorp wrote: “The findings of my final report stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated but the objective of the ship was to relocate to a prearranged RV within the exclusion zone.”

Despite the report being read by Mrs Thatcher she never disclosed the information either in Parliament or elsewhere possibly because she did not want to reveal Britain’s eavesdropping capabilities.

But during her infamous BBC exchange with the schoolteacher Diana Gould who confronted her on the sinking Mrs Thatcher made an intriguing reference to the report saying: "One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published." Mrs Gould died earlier this month.

In recent years the Argentine navy has accepted that the sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate act of war.

In his book, that was cleared by the security services, Major Thorp also discloses for the first time how the British code-cracking operation gave the force a significant advantage.

Shortly before the Battle of Goose Green, Lt Col “H” Jones, the commander of 2nd Bn The Parachute Regiment, boarded Intrepid after hearing about the eavesdroppers through SAS colleagues.

“That morning we had picked up 10 grid references on intercepts and H looked at the map and realised that they were his own troops’ locations. He said “bloody hell we are sharing the same hill as the enemy.’”

“He wanted to know the strengths and weaknesses of the Argentines, then we looked at calibre of people on ground and he came to the conclusion that perhaps 600 Paras were worth 1,500 Argentines.”

The intelligence gave the commanding officer the “peace of mind” to start the battle that would lead in his own death, a posthumous Victoria Cross award and ultimately victory in the campaign. '

No mention of this fact by the BBC, the 'news' organisation never happier than when opposing British interests.

And bang goes my support...

I was reading The Standard's piece about the latest piece of Argentinian sabre rattling over the Falklands. I have covered the Falklands before on this blog and it is clear where my loyalties lie, so this article was successfully winding me up and then I read the last quotation from the president of the Falklands Chamber of Commerce, Roger Spink, apparently he told the BBC 'if we were Palestine, the European Union would be up in arms."

Now maybe Roger Spink was trying to appeal to the BBC's hatred of Israel, a hatred that trumps their 'anti-colonial' support for Argentina's claim on the Falklands, if that is the case then I could almost excuse his remark. However I doubt that was the reason and so although I will continue to support the rights of the Falkland islanders to stay British, it will be with a degree of reluctance whilst Roger Fink (deliberate misspelling) holds any position of influence in those islands.

What is going to happen in the Falklands?

The Telegraph reports that 'Brazil's decision to prevent a Royal Navy ship docking in Rio de Janeiro was probably motivated by political expediency but will still raise concerns that Britain is becoming increasingly isolated in relation to the Falklands Islands.' and has also produced an interesting timeline of which this is the end:

'Feb 2010 – Argentina gains the backing of 32 Latin American and Caribbean states to demand the UN intervene over the Falklands as British firms begin drilling for oil in the region.

March 2010 – Hillary Clinton says that the US would be willing to mediate between Britain and Argentina.

Sept 2010 – Uruguay prevents HMS Gloucester from docking in Montevideo in act of solidarity with Argentina.

Jan 2011 – Brazil bans HMS Clyde from docking in Rio de Janeiro. '

Is this history repeating itself

We may be on the cusp of a Conservative government as we witness the dying twitches of a failed Labour government, just as we did in 1979 and so should we surprised that once again Argentina are laying claim to The Falklands? This time the complication is the possibility of oil off of The Falklands, maybe 60 billion barrels of it. The Argentinians want that oil and are blocked a ship carrying drilling equipment from leaving an Argentine port last week.

Keep an eye on this story and after 13 years of Labour's mismanagement of our armed forces could the UK retake the Falklands if we had to again?

How long before the Falklands are handed over to the Argentinians

The news reaches me via The Mail that:

"Gordon Brown today dismissed Argentina's calls for talks over ownership of the Falklands.

The Prime Minister ruled out negotiations over the disputed territory during a 15 minute discussion with President Cristina Kirchner.

The bilateral meeting between the leaders took place at a summit in Chile where the groundwork is being laid for next week's crunch G20 meeting in London.

A British official said: 'The Prime Minister set out the British Government's long standing position on sovereignty in very clear terms. He emphasised the importance of self-determination."

So that's it, the Falklands will be Argentinian any day now. I have a simple rule at the moment - whatever Gordon Brown says will happen, won't.

Why does Gordon Brown want to destroy the UK's armed forces?

Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer and now as Prime Minister has starved our troops of equipment and finance. The latest stories concern first the proposed ending of the UK's current fixed wing carrier plane force before the ever more delayed replacement carriers come into service. The second story concerns the near insane decision to leave the Falklands "without the protection of a British warship for the first time since the war with Argentina because the Royal Navy no longer has enough ships to meet all its commitments."

Why anyone would think it a good idea to replace HMS Northumberland, a frigate armed with guided missiles, torpedoes and a Lynx helicopter,with RFA Largs Bay, a landing ship crewed by civilian sailors, I do not know. Maybe Gordon Brown and his Labour government don't care about the Falklands and their resident population. I suppose a predominantly white population who want to stay British may not fit in the mindset of the UK left who would far prefer some radical Imams who preach hatred and violence against the UK population, far more multi-cultural and they do eat such interesting food... Also don't forget that to many on the left, the retaking of the Falklands under Margaret Thatcher's premiership was just so embarrassing, really we should just have negotiated with the Argentinians like civilized people not used our armed forces like savages.

An important innovation

Today is the 90th anniversary of the battle at Cambrai, the first major land battle on the First World War in which tanks were used en-masse. 500 tanks were used to break through the German lines, a victory that was reversed when the UK generals couldn't consolidate the territorial gains.


The tanks was first used in battle just over a year earlier during the Battle of Flers-Courcellette (part of the Battle of the Somme), on 15 September 1916.

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month - Remembrance Day

Remembrance Day is important especially as with every year that passes the percentage of people in this country who served in armed conflict decreases. I believe that there is now just one man who served in the trenches during the First World War, Harry Patch who still survives. The World War II veterans are now all in their 60s or older and so the young of today need to be reminded of those who died in order that they might live in freedom.







Incidentally, this year it is 25 years since the Falklands were retaken from the Argentinian invaders, maybe you should read this article about the many lies that have been accepted as truth about the sinking of the General Belgrano during that war and the actual truth.

General confusion

Thanks to Devils Kitchen for reminding me that last week was the 25th anniversary of the sinking of the General Belgrano. I remember this happening, I was at school and the Falklands War brought out a surprising amount of anti-war sentiment amongst some of the pupils and much discussion in history lessons. I also remember the May 1983 episode of Nationwide when Diana Gould seriously embarrassed Margaret Thatcher about the sinking of the Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone and whilst heading away from the Falklands. This questioning became a favourite piece for the BBC to repeat as often as possible so as to attack "Thatch" and something that Tam Dalyell and Anthony Wedgwood Benn wold bang on about as often as possible during the 1980's and much of the 1990's until 1997.

Over the years it has become accepted by most in the UK that the General Belgrano was sunk illegally or at least immorally. I would like to try and reverse this accepted opinion. The following facts are extracted from this Wikipedia article and from documents referenced there, including this one:

Fact 1. The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200 mile total exclusion zone around the Falklands. (W)

Fact 2. During war, under international law, the heading of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. (W)

Fact 3: The captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate. (W)

Fact 4. Hector Bonzo, admitted that the Belgrano's decision to sail away from the Task Force on the morning of 2 May was only a temporary manoeuvre. "Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack," (R1)

Fact 5: Though the ship was heading away from the Falkland Islands, it had been moving towards the task force all the previous day, and had only turned around because an air attack on the task force was cancelled due to lack of wind to launch planes from the aircraft carrier operating to the north of the Falklands. (W)

Fact 6. Belgrano had in fact been ordered back towards the coast to wait for more favourable conditions for an attack. Her captain, Hector Bonzo, said "We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders" (W)

Fact 7. Though the ship was outside of the 200 mile exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action — on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read: "In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly." (W)

Fact 8. Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear-Admiral Allara who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of said, "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano". (W)

Fact 9. Also the rules of engagement were changed specifically to permit the engagement of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking - This is per Admiral Sandy Woodward's book one Hundred Days (page 219). "At 1330Z she (HMS Conqueror) accessed the satellite and received the signal from Northwood changing her Rules of Engagement. ... The change said quite clearly he may now attack the Belgrano, outside the TEZ" (W) and other

Fact 10: Admiral Woodward also made it clear that he regarded the Belgrano as part of the southern part of a pincer movement aimed at the task force, and had to be sunk quickly. He wrote: "The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention" (W) and other

Fact 11. In 1994 the Argentine government conceded that the sinking of the Belgrano was "a legal act of war" (W)


Some things, no a lot of things, about the "left" in this country really annoy me. The automatic assumption that what is done in the name of the UK is wrong. The assumption that what our Government tells us (particularly if it is a Conservative Government) is a lie.

How many anti-war commentators criticised the Argentinians for any of the following?:
a) invading the Falklands in the first place
b) killing UK armed forces personnel
c) attacking HMS Sheffield (not an attack craft but there to provide a long-range radar and medium-high altitude missile "picket" far from the British carriers)


As Margaret Thatcher said on the same Nationwide interview "I think it could only be in Britain that a prime minister was accused of sinking an enemy ship that was a danger to our navy, when my main motive was to protect the boys in our navy".

I think that much of this attitude to our armed forces continues today in much of the coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and indeed most conflicts that the UK, rightly or wrongly, gets involved in.

I also note that the left wing commentators tend not to comment on how defeat in the Falklands War led to ever-larger protests against the military regime and is credited with giving the final push to drive out the military government that had overthrown Isabel Perón in 1976 and participated in the crimes of the Dirty War. Galtieri was forced to resign and elections were held on 30 October 1983 and Raúl Alfonsín, the Radical Civic Union (UCR) party candidate, took office on 10 December 1983. See here.