Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Accused crime in the Falklands

Discussion in 'Military History' started by flammpanzer, Jun 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. flammpanzer

    flammpanzer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. flammpanzer

    flammpanzer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. ozjohn39

    ozjohn39 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    31
    Serves them right!

    War Crime???


    HA!!
     
    von Poop likes this.
  4. Mussolini

    Mussolini Gaming Guru WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2000
    Messages:
    5,739
    Likes Received:
    563
    Location:
    Festung Colorado
    We've already dealt with one 'Pro-Argentina' Troll on these forums and we really don't like people who try to push their agenda here. Lets keep in mind its a World War 2 forum first and foremost. :pzp:
     
  5. texson66

    texson66 Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,095
    Likes Received:
    592
    Jack is spot on! here's a link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)
     
  6. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    If country A starts a war with country B, and subsequently sends warships to sea, it has to expect that country B will also send it's warships to sea and will, if possible, attack country A's warships without warning. This is precisely what happened in the case of the General Belgrano. No treaty or internationally recognized convention of war has ever been established to protect armed warships from surprise attack by enemy submarines during active hostilities. The General Belgrano was fair game, and it's sinking can, by no stretch of the imagination, be accurately termed a "war crime".
     
    WotNoChad?, RAM and von Poop like this.
  7. hucks216

    hucks216 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    54
    Totally agree, and if the British were intent on committing so called 'war crimes' (to use the original posters' words) at sea then they would of sunk the Argentine aircraft carrier, ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, as well as her group was being shadowed by another submarine at the same time as Belgrano, but was deemed less of a threat as she was further away from the Task Force.
     
  8. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,985
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    Ships were sunk on both sides , so if people talk about the Belgrano, they shouldn't forget the Sheffield was hit too. As Mussolini said, let us proceed, talking about this will only heat things up and eventually people might get offended.
     
    WotNoChad? likes this.
  9. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,985
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    Incredible you actually saw her during WWII
     
  10. ozjohn39

    ozjohn39 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    31
    SWPV,

    "She dodged the scrap yard, but fell in with bad company in the end."


    I could make an observation there, but I won't.


    John.
     
  11. IntIron

    IntIron Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    20
    My hats off to the the Captain of the HMS Conqueror. The only nuclear boat to sink a enemy vessel in action and fly the Jolly Roger.

    On the other side what the Argentina Air Force did with A4's, Super Étandards,and Exocets was quite astonishing considering the ships they were targeting.

    Yours,

    Bill
     
  12. AndyPants

    AndyPants Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,518
    Likes Received:
    135
    as said before ......it was a conflict - the belgrano was fair game

    i totally agree with you Intron, the Argentinan pilots had guts (anybody ever see the combat footage?.......it speaks for itself)
     
  13. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    If the Argentines had calculated their fuse timings a bit better the RN would have been devestated.

    As for the Belgrano, the none exclusion zone means nothing, it was a unilateral declared area mentioned by British. It was never stated no shipping would be stopped or attacked if entering that area. Once the Belgrano and its accompanying destroyers sailed over the bank they would have been lost to the conqureror and on their way to area of carrier location. The decision to sink had to be taken. The Belgarno could not be allowed to play cat and mouse in that area for ever. If conqueror had lost her over the bank then we would be discussing the launching of surface to surface exocets at the task force carriers and how the hell it was allowed to happen.
     
  14. WotNoChad?

    WotNoChad? Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    134
    :D I've heard Thatcher called a lot of things, but never this, all we need now is friend of the unions and we've got the set. :rolleyes:

    Tl:dr, Did he drown?

    Warship sunk in war shock horror? The Argentines don't lose very well do they?
     
  15. raider

    raider Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi dont know were any of you live ?????. The belgrano was sunk after due warning it,s skiper knew the risk,s , the argies lost there aircraft on pebble island but they did not cry about it .i cannot see any of the pics. or vidios that have been put up dont have to , seen it done it have the scars of it ....
    raider....for our today they gave there tomorrow
     
    SouthWestPacificVet likes this.
  16. Mussolini

    Mussolini Gaming Guru WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2000
    Messages:
    5,739
    Likes Received:
    563
    Location:
    Festung Colorado
    Well, I think the OP was just trying to Troll again since he hasn't come back to defend anything in this thread.

    On that note, I think I will close this thread as any further discussion not only feeds the Trolls, but also does the proverbial 'beat a dead horse' montage.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page