I don't think the military tactics or strategic justification behind of the sinking of the General Belgrano is really what Channon is talking about, Brecon. I think what Channon takes issue with (as do I) is with the blatant and unashamed trivialisation and even celebration of the loss of lives of the Argentinian forces. Regardless of whether they were 'enemies', it is still frankly appalling and very callous to celebrate the deaths of an enemy or indeed anyone, particularly if they were conscripts rather than volunteer soldiers.
You are making a military argument, which is debatable. Should we celebrate the deaths of the enemy combatants though? Do we celebrate the victory at Trafalgar or the death of the French? A tad insensitive? I am guessing that over 600 Argentinian parents would find a football analogy a bit irrelevant when it concerns the death of their Sons. Look, we may not agree on the military decision, but surely we can agree that the Sun's headline was more than insensitive?
From a humanistic standpoint, any loss of human life should be greeted with a certain reverence, irrespective of the circumstances. The Sun's headline after the sinking of The Belgrano appeals to the worst elements of people's emotions, misplaced nationalism and jingoistic bloodlust.
Lol what were you expecting them to say?Oh dear,sorry about that Argentina we're so sorry.No,it serves them right they got a good thrashing and they learned their lessons from it (sort of) they want another go at it again .
They could have reported it in a completely factual and objective manner rather than resorting to childish and distasteful jingoism. Although perhaps that's expecting too much from the Sun.
Well, I'd advise the Argentinians not to read The Sun. In fact, I'd advise anyone not to read The Sun I remember being told by my mother, that when her school assembly was informed that the Bismarck was sunk, everyone cheered. 2,100 young Germans killed! Don't recall which direction the ship was sailing at the time; in circles, I think? I agree that the headline may cause offence to many. Almost as offensive as having a military junta with an appalling human rights record invading your land. I don't approve of the Sun's gloating headline, but I'm not worried about it either. Their vile calumnies against Liverpool fans were worse. BTW, if military and strategic justifications were not central to the issue, why mention the old chestnut about the position and sailing direction of the Belgrano? Condemnation about the headline would have sufficed, though I'm sure it referred to the ship, not to the sailors. The rest is Tam Dalyell's territory.
I guess it was OK for the Argentines to sink our ships then but not for us to sink theirs? The exclusion zone was to warn any neutral country to keep away as accidents and or misunderstanding needed to be avoided. The loss of life on the Belgrano was unfortunate and deplorable. Just as the loss of life on the Galahad or the Sheffield or the Southampton or any of the ships. Just as deplorable for the land forces!! Conflict tends to be like that try thinking about it from the point of view of the people that were fighting. How would you feel having a mate cut down standing inches from you? I promise you, the headlines of a newspaper are the least of your concerns, good or bad. It is only in the cold light of day that you get the chance to laugh or cry at what has/is happening. As for the sun's humour or lack of it. It seems to have taken on the roll of the old News of the Screws. That is exactly how that newspaper got it's reputation as my title for it suggests and was known by that name by most. It is typical for that kind of headline and no different years ago to calling a certain England manager a "Turnip head". Luckily people in those positions are used to insulting headlines and no doubt the gutter press think it was funny. As then for the previous headline and today for there latest offering I doubt if Roy H is the slightest bit worried or concerned. Trouble is there are people out there that thrive on every sentence, every syllable, of such a trashy news paper. The whole ruddy Murdoch empire needs to be torn down for the way it has conducted itself. It is a boil that needs to be lanced and disposed of.
The Sun have been bl**dy hilarious with their headlines in the past, in fact that has often been their saving grace. It has been a popular misconception that you don't need much of a vocabulary to write for the Sun; it takes real writing talent to come up with regular pithy one liners like the Super Cally one MAJR refers to. But lately they have failed even in this. Once worthless but witty, The Sun is now just a worthless rag. Or wag. Rotever.
I think one of the reasons which made the headline so objectionable was that the Belgrano was sunk whilst diplomatic efforts were still ongoing and no attack had been made on any British vessel. These were the first lives lost if my memory serves, not a retaliation for sinking our ships. Even if the Belgrano had to be sunk and sunk right then, I still feel that the dancing on the graves of those sailors by the paper was detestable.
If the task force commander believed Belgrano to be a threat to his ships then the action was justified, even if it could be proved after the event that it was not a threat (although this is not the case with the Belgrano which did have hostile intent). What history shows more than anything is that modern war, however justified, is a failure of politicians and leaders that costs the lives of young men and women. It is easy to criticise the headline after the event and I count myself as one who does, but however distasteful it did not offend most of the Sun's readers who were on the more jingoistic end of the spectrum.
What makes things even worse, to my mind, Ted, is the fact that the Exocet missiles used by the Argies to attack and sink British warships, leading to a sad loss of life of our sailors, were manufactured in a French factory, operated by (I believe) the brother of the then French President Francois Mitterrand. And there is me, thinking that being in the EEC, France were on "our side". How wrong can one be...........
I don't think we had better get onto who sold arm to whom. The UK hasn't exactly got a blemish free record on that one..... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...-arms-used-to-invade-falklands_n_1414166.html
Not to mention the Super Sonic jets used to deliver the missiles were french as well. How ever that is no worse when you think about it the tanks that were up against us in the Iraq war were what we had sold Saddam a couple of years before!!
The Belgrano was not the first shipping casualty of the conflict...However looking at the Suns headline today well after the event has a different bearing on the whole unfortunate history of the conflict. I am not defending the sun by any means but can assure you at the time no body meant it to be a desicration of the loss of life involved. In truth if you were at sea like me you would have been just glad that it was not you that had suffered that type of a mauling.
We can all sit around discussing war till the cows come home. The poor frightened young men, placed in battle against their will, or lured by jingoistic politicians, on either side of the conflict, who are now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, can't.
If you think that diplomatic "efforts" were actually going anywhere, you must be overlooking the fortification, reinforcement, resupply and permanent intent of the Argentinians. We'd still be talking now! Meanwhile British subjects would have been invaded by a foreign power with no resulting sanction. A good example to set? Which British vessel do you think it would have been OK to lose, so we could say they attacked first? The Belgrano was a big lump of heavily armed (fifteen 6" guns!) fighting machine, operating within striking distance of our ships. Fair target. Every naval officer on both sides thinks so.They weren't the first lives lost, or ships sunk. The Royal Marines killed a couple of invaders at Moody Brook, and a detachment accounted for several more and a corvette on South Georgia- both cases in the initial invasion. An RN helicopter sank an Argentine sub in South Georgia on 25th April- the day before Belgrano left port! The Sun's headline was "GOTCHA - Our lads sink gunboat and hole cruiser". The photo of the Belgrano was labelled "crippled" not "sunk". The headline was changed when it was realised that the ship had sunk and the death toll became apparent. Hardly "dancing on their graves" (Not an apposite phrase in the circumstances). Jingoistic - yes! Crassly insensitive? Only in hindsight. Interestingly, the other headline below read "Unions boycott war" .........
