The sinking of the Belgrano

[James G]

Thirty-six years ago, in the middle of the Falklands War, the Royal Navy sunk an Argentinean warship: ARA General Belgrano.
It was a warship. There was a war going on. It was engaged and sunk. The Argentinean government has since said it was a legitimate act of war and so did her surviving captain.
However, there remains controversy and the absolute determination of some to 'prove' that it was wrong, murder and a war crime.
This article explains the view that it was a war crime and such an idea is wholly debunked in the comments at the bottom of the article.

[stevep]

Jul 12, 2018 21:12:34 GMT James G said:

Thirty-six years ago, in the middle of the Falklands War, the Royal Navy sunk an Argentinean warship: ARA General Belgrano.
It was a warship. There was a war going on. It was engaged and sunk. The Argentinean government has since said it was a legitimate act of war and so did her surviving captain.
However, there remains controversy and the absolute determination of some to 'prove' that it was wrong, murder and a war crime.
This article explains the view that it was a war crime and such an idea is wholly debunked in the comments at the bottom of the article.

  I love that last point.   Very true.

  Think the government made a rod for its own back by trying to deny there was an actual war but for all its flaws and mistakes it was absolutely right on this issue to seek to protect British citizens from an illegal invasion and occupation by a brutal dictatorship that had already murdered thousands of their own people.

[steffen]

Jul 12, 2018 21:12:34 GMT James G said:

Thirty-six years ago, in the middle of the Falklands War, the Royal Navy sunk an Argentinean warship: ARA General Belgrano.
It was a warship. There was a war going on. It was engaged and sunk. The Argentinean government has since said it was a legitimate act of war and so did her surviving captain.
However, there remains controversy and the absolute determination of some to 'prove' that it was wrong, murder and a war crime.
This article explains the view that it was a war crime and such an idea is wholly debunked in the comments at the bottom of the article.

Well... i know that at some point (mad) people claim that if you kill somebody in a war you are a criminal. 

I have zero love for the british empire - really. But that article is just silly. If you are in a war and you kill a war ship (it was no hospital ship) you commit no crime. If you later come to the surface and slaughter the swimming survivals (as the americans did in WW2), that IS a war crime. But that? Stupid and utterly wrong.

But i am surprised - i have thought that some moron would claim that the sinking of HMS Hood was a war crime or shooting down allied bombers in ww2. But that? puh... on a 1-10 level of idioticy that get a 11.

But wait - such things allready happened. As Erich Hartmann was in court, he was sentenced as a war criminal because the shells of his airplane fell to ground and COULD have killed russian civilians. (no joke). But that was post-ww2 in the USSR... (the russian government post 1990 removed that silly thing, but before he was blamed a war criminal for that.