No sabre-rattling is possible. Don't confuse democratic Argentina with past dictatorship-ruled Argentina.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/12/argentina-falkl...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/05/falklands-under-ou...
Both links you cited specifically rule out military intervention. Allow me to quote from your first link:
Quotes from your first link:
----
"Argentina will seek legal punishment, including prison sentences, for anyone who drills for oil in the Falklands and the surrounding waters it claims as its territories, the country's newly created Malvinas secretary has told the Guardian. [...] In his first interview with the international media since taking the post on Monday, Daniel Filmus also warned that companies involved in exploration of the disputed areas will be disqualified from potentially more lucrative work in Vaca Muerta (the giant shale oil deposit in Argentina's Patagonia region) and offshore areas.
"We will go to the international courts. It must be known that Argentina will defend its claim," Filmus told the Guardian at his office in the ministry of foreign affairs. "Whoever doesn't obtain authorisation will not only face administrative consequences but will also face prison sentences.""
----
You may or may not like Argentina's policies and position on the matter of the Malvinas, but all this is:
a- Not military posturing. b- Within legal bounds. See mentions of legal action, prison sentences, international courts. I don't see any threats of military aggression, do you?
So we can rule out sabre-rattling from your first link. Let's go on with your second link.
First sentence after the heading of second link:
----
"Argentinian foreign minister rules out military solution but says 'not one single country' supports UK right to govern islands"
----
So a military solution is ruled out then? I rest my case.
No, it has continued as recently as this year (actually, its been on a notable upswing in the last couple of years, and a similar upswing happened, IIRC, in the early-to-mid-1990s.) Its true that it reached a fever pitch and an actual brief war with the UK in the time you describe, but the sabre rattling didn't end there.
Argentina in democracy has continued to assert their sovereign rights over the Malvinas Islands via diplomatic means. You are fully entitled to believe the claim is invalid or wrong, but this that not make it sabre-rattling. Sabre-rattling is making veiled threats of invasion, suspicious missile tests, flybys by military aircraft, and in general any display of military power.
If by sabre-rattling you merely mean "Argentina continues to complain about the issue using strong language and tries to bring it to international courts", then that's a pretty misleading wording.
Which Argentina, particularly by way of its Navy, has been engaging throughout the 2010s over the Falkland Islands.
> Argentina in democracy has continued to assert their sovereign rights over the Malvinas Islands via diplomatic means.
Among other things, enforcing a de facto blockade using naval forces to prevent innocent passage of civilian vessels is -- as well as arguably a violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea -- clear saber rattling, not "diplomatic means".
> You are fully entitled to believe the claim is invalid or wrong, but this that not make it sabre-rattling.
You are fully entitled to believe that the claim is valid or right, but that doesn't change the fact that the Kirchener government has been, for years, engaging in, alongside diplomatic efforts, saber rattling in regards to the Falkland Islands.