quote:

Argentina maintains to this day that on the last day of the war a successful exocet attack was launched against (I think) carrier ¨Invincible¨

I think the story is even on the airforce site, I could be wrong though I'll have to check.

But the British denied this. However the ship was never filmed returning to port with the other ships. Strange no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

Ike 99 - just so that you have some information on war crimes:

A war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN.


..cough*cough* h'Iraq*cough*cough

quote:

I note that you have also not bothered to answer any questions about the history of the Falkland Islands BEFORE the Spanish involvement. I wonder why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

quote:

I note that you have also not bothered to answer any questions about the history of the Falkland Islands BEFORE the Spanish involvement. I wonder why?

Come on Ike 99 - don't be shy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Argentina maintains to this day that on the last day of the war a successful exocet attack was launched against (I think) carrier ¨Invincible¨

I think the story is even on the airforce site, I could be wrong though I'll have to check.

But the British denied this. However the ship was never filmed returning to port with the other ships. Strange no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

I prefer the argument that the Invincibile was actually sunk. The Brits only had to build a replacement in secret and nobody would ever know. [No smiley sarcastic enough].

quote:

The Invincible was not hit by an Argentinian Exocet. That's just propaganda. And it was filmed returning to port. When she returned there was no damage on her, so the Argentinians claimed she was fixed on the way home to hide the damage. Load of rubbish.

quote:

A claim for a hit painted on the side of an Argentinian aircraft has exactly ZERO credibility... I believe the Germans sank HMS Ark Royal 6 or 7 times during WWII... Before they actually sank her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Unless of course we killed 2 of our own pilots during the conflict so we could say we attacked Invincible. [8|]

Why not? You threw people out of planes into the sea.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0420-06.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah, or maybe a decoy... A big inflatable look-alike strapped to a fishing trawler![8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Unless of course we killed 2 of our own pilots during the conflict so we could say we attacked Invincible.

Why not? You threw people out of planes into the sea.

quote:

quote:

I note that you have also not bothered to answer any questions about the history of the Falkland Islands BEFORE the Spanish involvement. I wonder why?

Come on Ike 99 - don't be shy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

By the way, would you care to address the issue of your picture's "Illustrious" missing her Phalanx guns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Unless of course we killed 2 of our own pilots during the conflict so we could say we attacked Invincible.

Why not? You threw people out of planes into the sea.

..edited..

So spare me the morality lecture mate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

I am surprised about the discussion over who owns the Falkland Islands[:-]. I would have thought that with this site consisting of gamers you would all know the rules of island possession, so here is a quick gaming history lession that I hope will clarify the position. In the 15, 16 17 and 18 centuries the European Countries got together to start the game called PLANT THE FLAG. Anyone with a flag could play and any land that the flag was planted into became the property of the flag owner. Advanced rules allowed for trading hence the Falkland Islands are British. By 1800 France was fed up with this game because the industrial revolution in Britain meant that she was mass producing flags so she had clearly won the game. France looked around for a new game and came upon European Conflict which under Napoleon she was very good at. Germany with their esteemed efficiently took the game and made it bigger and better calling it WW1. However the rules were not well thought out resulting in a stalemate. At this time the USA looked over the playground wall and asked to play so she was allowed to join in. Germany took another look at the rules and introduced Blitzkreig which made the came flow a lot better and this game was called WW2. However when the game had already started the USA and Japan were allowed to join. This was a mistake because the USA had obviously been practicing and trounced everyone. While Europe cleaned up after a rather messy game the USA decided to start its own game without the Europeans called COLD WAR. Now Germany was still annoyed that the USA had ruined their last game so they knocked down the Berlin Wall ending the USA's game. Something had to be done so the USA and Europe decided to stop the bickering and play nicely together. The game they started was called GLobal Warming. They were doing nicely, (again the USA was winning) when China and India wanted to join in. More worrying is that lately people who don't even own a flag have started their own game called Global Terrorism claiming that the USA has been playing a solo version of Plant the Flag. I hope this helps to clarify matters and anyone moaning about who owns what should have read the rules earlier.[;)]