It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Argentina accused of plotting Falklands blockade

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
reply to post by justwokeup
 

My source was newspaper articles published no less when the Queen was visiting the US about 1990 or 91 was that Reagan was behind the Exocet transfer (from some Latin American country?) because he did not want the Brits to have an easy victory.


The US did not assist Argentina during the Falklands conflict. How far do you want to believe in conspiracy? There was no Exocet transfer. The only Exocets the Argentines had were the batch initially exported by France before the conflct plus the ship based version that the UK also had in service and deployed during the conflict. It was the US that assisted the UK with for example the release of NATO stocks of AIM-9L Sidewinders. Stinger missiles were also provided for UK Special Forces.

Peru assisted Argentina with the transfer of SA-7 Manpads. When I served in the Falklands we had one of the captured examples in a threat museum. The Peruvian supplied SA-7s were supplied to Air Force personnel to operate on the Islands. After the Argentine surrender Peru sold a number of Mirage 5s to Argentina as replacement for some of those lost in combat.

Argentina desperately tried to procure more air-launched Exocets but were thwarted by UK intelligence services. See following revalations by the then UK Defence Secretary, John Nott.

Telegraph Link


edit on 4-2-2012 by tommyjo because: Malformed link corrected

edit on 4-2-2012 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


So the main stream media, newspapers, not tabloids, decided to print such claims because.....................?
It never made the TV news to my knowledge as it was during a visit by the queen. Nor do I recall any retraction or denial by our government. I have a copy from the Chicago Tribune deep in boxes of 'history' in the attic. I'll try wikileaks first. I seem to recall mention they were provided by or thru Panama then ruled by CIA puppet Noriega.

You read/believe/repeat what you choose and I do the same.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggilo
reply to post by korathin
 


So we should class all those US installations in our country as occupation forces and kick them out accordingly then?
Maybe you would like to get your backsides out of Diego Garcia while your at it as well then.
The UK isn't the only fading power either...


You are deluding yourself if you think the UK could just "kick out" American forces. That will never happen unless the US wants to withdraw its forces willingly from the UK. Which is unlikely in the extreme, especially given how easily and how fervently your parties kowtow to them.
edit on 5/2/12 by Yazman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yazman

Originally posted by biggilo
reply to post by korathin
 


So we should class all those US installations in our country as occupation forces and kick them out accordingly then?
Maybe you would like to get your backsides out of Diego Garcia while your at it as well then.
The UK isn't the only fading power either...


You are deluding yourself if you think the UK could just "kick out" American forces. That will never happen unless the US wants to withdraw its forces willingly from the UK. Which is unlikely in the extreme, especially given how easily and how fervently your parties kowtow to them.
edit on 5/2/12 by Yazman because: (no reason given)



The original post was sarcasm, not intended as a serious threat.

However, in response to your statement, of course we could.

We won't, but we could if there was sufficient public support for such a move.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
reply to post by tommyjo
 


So the main stream media, newspapers, not tabloids, decided to print such claims because.....................?
It never made the TV news to my knowledge as it was during a visit by the queen. Nor do I recall any retraction or denial by our government. I have a copy from the Chicago Tribune deep in boxes of 'history' in the attic. I'll try wikileaks first. I seem to recall mention they were provided by or thru Panama then ruled by CIA puppet Noriega.

You read/believe/repeat what you choose and I do the same.


You are not making much sense. Why on earth would the US assist Argentina in a conflict against its major NATO member and ally the UK? The whole aim of the US was to assist where possible the UK. That included the use of US fuel stocks on Ascension Island plus the transfer of certain pieces of military equipment.

All the US military supplies to Argentina dried up on the commencement of hostilities. For example spares and support of US supplied A-4 Skyhawks. The opposite occurred with the UK. The US supplied AGM-45 Shrike missiles for use on RAF Vulcan and later Harriers. Paveway bomb weapons support was also provided along with the release of the latest version of the Sidewinder from NATO stocks.

You specifically detailed that Reagan was responsible for the supply of Exocet missiles to Argentina. That is clearly laughable and pure balloney. You are clearly mixing up Argentine attempts to procure air-launched Exocets on the world market with a fantasy story. Read the Telegraph article. Everytime the Argentines tried to procure additional air-launched Exocets from the international market they were thwarted. The French had only delivered 5 AM-39s prior to the conflict and the Argentines had only 5 to fire.

The Argentines fired five and no further air-launched Exocets were available once they had been fired. The Super Etendards used to launch them played no further part in the conflcit once the missile stock was expended. The French even stopped supply of Exocets to Peru during the conflict because they believed that Peru would sell them onto Argentina. The facts speak for themselves. If your claims of 'Reagan' supplying Exocets is true then why did the Argentine Navy stop at firing five air-launched missiles? The reason is because they had used up their stocks and had failed to procure any more. If they had more then they would have used them.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo

Read the Telegraph article. Everytime the Argentines tried to procure additional air-launched Exocets from the international market they were thwarted.


I think MI6 were given an infinite budget to outbid all buyers, Thatcher didn't take any chances on that one.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 

You seem to, like most people, believe everything the government releases for public consumption. I do not. So why would they supply Argentina? I recall the article claimed that Reagan did not want the Brits to have an easy victory. Why not? Ask Reagan. His 'wars' were Grenada ("The United States stood tall as our very existence was threatened by that Caribbean superpower Grenada." Reagan) and a few bombs on helpless Libya. Not very macho compared to a woman's handling of the Falklands. Old Bush had his moment of glory with Panama. Very sickening.

Regan wanted it close and it was.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Thirteen bombs hit British ships without detonating.[67] Lord Craig, the retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked: "Six better fuses and we would have lost"[68] although Ardent and Antelope were both lost despite the failure of bombs to explode. The fuzes were functioning correctly, and the bombs were simply released from too low an altitude.[66][69]"

----------------------

I make no claim as to how many Exocets were fired. We could have supplied them with some (I speculate from US forces stationed in Panama rather than risk a 3rd nation involvment) which they never got prepped and fired. I trust British claims as to how many hit targets but did any miss and were not counted? It matters not to me.



.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


The Queen was visiting the US May 14 thru May 26! What timing!

This is not the identical article as I recall clipping. I found it in the Tribune archives
search.proquest.com.covers.chipublib.org...


Files detail Noriega CIA connection: [NORTH SPORTS FINAL, C Edition]
Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Chicago, Ill] 16 May 1991: 8.
Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers
Hide highlighting
Abstract (summary)
Translate [unavailable for this document]

Manuel Noriega was "the CIA's man in Panama," controlling a $11 million agency slush fund and even supplying Washington with information on Mikhail Gorbachev, according to defense documents released Wednesday.

Noriega, backed by the CIA, also sent Exocet missiles to Argentina for use against British ships in the Falklands War and funneled hundreds of thousands of CIA dollars to Nicaraguan rebel leaders, his attorneys said.

The statements were included in 107 pages outlining classified information the defense expects to present at the ousted Panamanian leader's drug-smuggling trial. The material was released at the request of news organizations and Noriega's defense attorneys by the Justice Department security office, which is acting as custodian.

Full Text

Translate [unavailable for this document]

Manuel Noriega was "the CIA's man in Panama," controlling a $11 million agency slush fund and even supplying Washington with information on Mikhail Gorbachev, according to defense documents released Wednesday.

Noriega, backed by the CIA, also sent Exocet missiles to Argentina for use against British ships in the Falklands War and funneled hundreds of thousands of CIA dollars to Nicaraguan rebel leaders, his attorneys said.

The statements were included in 107 pages outlining classified information the defense expects to present at the ousted Panamanian leader's drug-smuggling trial. The material was released at the request of news organizations and Noriega's defense attorneys by the Justice Department security office, which is acting as custodian.

The Justice Department deleted key sections of the documents, including details of Noriega's contacts with President Bush.

Many deletions appear to deal directly with Noriega's aid to the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan rebels, known as contras.

The defense says the CIA cultivated Noriega even before he came to power in 1983 because the agency considered his populist boss, the late President Omar Torrijos, a "dangerous leftist."

With Noriega heading Torrijos' intelligence network, the CIA gave him "contingency funds" that, over the years, amounted to $11 million and were not listed on the agency's books, the defense said.

"It was officially justified as support for `institutional cooperation,' but in fact it was a slush fund turned over to the head of the `cooperating' agency to do with as he desired," said the defense.

The CIA and the U.S. Army have acknowledged direct payments to Noriega of about $300,000 during his career.

Some parts of the documents say Noriega faithfully reported to the CIA about Torrijos' meetings with Fidel Castro in Cuba and offered information about more distant communist countries.

In January 1985, Noriega met with Hans Juergen Wischnewski, East Germany's parliament president and foreign affairs chief. The meeting included discussion of personnel changes in the Soviet Union, information that Noriega immediately passed on to the CIA.

"This information was instrumental in U.S. support for then little-known Gorbachev and his people," the defense said.

Another section says that in the Falklands War, despite the official U.S. tilt toward England, the CIA "was concerned that Argentina's forces . . . would be crushed."

"Gen. Noriega shared their concern and arranged for the purchase of Exocet missiles which the Argentinians later used with great effect," the defense said. The Exocets sank several British ships and were Argentina's only effective weapon.

Noriega trial is set for July 22 on charges that he accepted $4.6 million in bribes from Colombia's Medellin drug cartel to turn Panama into a way station for U.S.-bound coc aine shipments.

Copyright Chicago Tribune Co. May 16, 1991
Word count: 439



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 

Sorry but please read my post to tommyjo about the CIA, Noriega and Exocets to Argentina. Noriega trial documents are probably available online but I doubt those 107 pages are.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
It matters not to me.


It matter not to you because the facts don't fit your claimed version of events. Facts. The Argentines fired 5 AM39s. They only had five delivered from France and that is all they had to work with. Think about it? If they had more then why did they not launch more and why no history of any more launches from either Argentine or UK sources?

Ask yourself why would Noriega's defence lawyer spin the Exocet story along with other sweeping assertions during the trial? He was trying to wriggle out of the charges and attempt to discredit US agencies and Reagan in the process.

alb.merlinone.net...


The deadly Exocets later were used successfully against British ships in the war. "The CIA had Noriega purchase the missiles to sink the British ships," his lead defense attorney, Frank Rubino, claimed. "We all know what the Exocets did." ........ The disclosure is part of a sweeping assertion by defense lawyers who hope to convince a judge that evidence of Noriega's assistance to Washington in anti-narcotics and intelligence matters should be admitted as evidence in his drug- smuggling trial. Some of the documentation, which the defense wants released, is classified.


Not a single scrap of evidence apart from a defence lawyer making exaggerated claims for his client. Claims that were never proven nor backed up in historical fact from both Argentine or UK sources. That claim led to you believing that the words of Noriega's defence lawyer were true and accurate. Not my fault that you can't work out fiction from fact?


Nott reveals that France and President Mitterand "were in many ways (Britain's) greatest allies". The most formidable weapon in Argentina's arsenal was the French built Super Etendard strike aircraft and Exocet missile which sank some British ships. Nott writes: "As soon as the conflict began Hernou (French Defence Minister) got in touch with me to make available a Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft so our Harrier pilots could train against them before setting off to the South Atlantic.

The French supplied detailed technical information on the Exocet, showing us how to tamper with the missiles. Britain launched a clandestine international plot to block supplies to Argentina. "A remarkable world-wide operation then ensured to prevent further Exocets being bought by Argentina. I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentineans. Other agents identified Exocet missiles in various markets and covertly rendered them inoperable, based on information from the French. It was a remarkably successful operation. In spite of strenuous efforts by several countries, particularly the Israelis and South Africans, to help Argentina, we succeeded in intercepting and preventing the supply of further equipment to the Argentines.


www.falklands.info...

Not a single Argentine Navy Pilot, nor any other Argentine source claim, that the FIVE AM39 Exocets launched from Super Etendards came from any other source other than France nor that any other missions were flown. The Super Etendard missions ceased when they exhausted the FIVE French delivered Exocets.

www.britains-smallwars.com...

The claims by Noriega and his defence lawyer are very much like the attempts to discredit the French Government after the conflict.


'France launches inquiry into Exocet aid claim. The French Government has launched a full investigation into a claim in the 'Sunday Times' that a nine-man French engineering team helped the Argentine Navy prepare Super Etendard aircraft and weapons systems during the Falklands conflict. It is alleged also that these engineers fitted missile launchers from which Exocet misiles were fired, sinking the destroyeer Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor. Eight empolyees of Dassault Aviation, manufactuerers of the Etendard, and one from Aerospatiale, the state-owned manufacturers of the Exocet missle, were said to have helped the Argentinians throught the war'


News Article Link

That claim, just the Noriega claim, was pure fabrication. So much so that many people still claim today that France was assisting the Argentines. You are simply doing the same in relation to 'Reagan and the US'.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by tommyjo

Read the Telegraph article. Everytime the Argentines tried to procure additional air-launched Exocets from the international market they were thwarted.


I think MI6 were given an infinite budget to outbid all buyers, Thatcher didn't take any chances on that one.


Correct. See my earlier post. Noriega and his defence lawyer were simply trying discrediting tactics in order gain leverage during the trial. The facts stand that the only AM39s received were those from the initial delivery supplied by France before the conflict. Five French supplied AM39s used up resulting in the Super Etendards missions coming to an end.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 

Slow down, relax. It matters not to me because the NUMBER of Exocets FIRED is not an issue. I accept any number you offer. I will also accept that France sold only 5 and that MI6 had the 'international market' covered. These are not issues and I will not entertain them as such. Can you accept that a secret/classified CIA operation would not employ the use of the 'international market'?

IMO the veracity of the CIA/Noriega story has plenty of wiggle room.

1. The Exocets may have been SOLD but not DELIVERED on a timely basis.

2. The Exocets may have been DELIVERED but to late to be DEPLOYED.

3. Noriega may have crossed the CIA and kept them for later use/sale.

I do not know if you are a Brit or Yankee but you seem to have a problem believing that the US could treat an ally, a staunch ally, in such a manner. History reveals that other allies have been treated much worse. The CIA seems to be a player in most such cases. When you sleep with dogs you get fleas.

I would love to obtain copies of those referenced 107 pages, some of which deal with the Exocets. The trial judge ruled them out saying that they would only confuse the jury. (LOL and reflect poorly on Bush) That ruling, but not his conviction, was overturned by the Appeals court.

As for why his lawyer would even introduce the Exocet event, his trial was held in Miami Florida which is heavily Hispanic. His trying to help a Hispanic nation defeat an Anglo nation could easily have influenced a Hispanic juror.

Fact is neither of us knows the truth nor most likely will we ever. Got to run now.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   


Fact is neither of us knows the truth nor most likely will we ever. Got to run now.


Sorry, but it is just the wild exaggeration of a conspiracy theory. One that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I suppose that is the utter madness of conspiracy theorists is that they will believe the absurd at all costs. That is why I dip into ATS now and again as it is sometimes better than the Comedy Channel.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


Did I mention that there is a wormhole time travel space portal on the Falklands which the Argies want?

Be well



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Now they are making a formal complaint to the UN;

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I don't know what she thinks the UN are going to say that's any different, they will back the islanders right for self-determination, i.e to remain British.

On a side note, if you think the UK would be unable to liberate itself from occupation you are greatly mistaken, we WOULD need most of our country to wake up first and realise this fact though.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I spoke to a work colleague who is Argentinian and he said that no one outside of the capital cares about the Falklands. There is greater concerns with massive inflation and a corrupt government than islands that have never belonged to Argentina in any Argentinians lifetime. I think this war of words will mean nothing, the bottom line is the inhabitants want to stay British, Britain has given them every chance to say otherwise. If anyone agrees with Argentina's claim, then those people are for the exact thing which I should imagine they say that they are against. You're either for people's freedom of choice and democracy or you are against! Your either for the inhabitants choice to remain British or you're against!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


Ello Brits, have a nice pint of your own medicine!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 


and it has to do with Peru because???



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by spolvil
 


More of a reply to the first post with the article. Not to the poster.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join