It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Venezuela threatens Britain over Falklands as its president vows to side with Argentina

page: 18
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gabrielxxx
 


gabrielXXX ???

Your grandad or uncle, Comodoro Ureta did indeed fly A4 Skyhawk aircraft during the ''Falklands'' Conflict and yes his aircraft DID hit a British ship.........

It was the Sir Galahad, a fleet auxillary ship which was Stationary in a harbour supporting troops landing on the Falklands.....

He did his job and killed over 50 British sailors and Soldiers and burned and maimed many more....

Look up a guy called Simon Weston, a member of the Welsh Guards who was disfigured by your grandads work.....

It was a war and a conflict and people were doing their jobs........... but research them both and think a little before spouting off about future conflicts......

Regards

PDUK




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabrielxxx
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Do you know they sunk the Belgrano outside the exclusion area that UK stablished before the war?
Very macho from the UK...


Did you know that a team of Argies were arrested by the Spanish before they got the chance to try to sabotage RN ships in Gibraltar harbour?

Looks like the Argie military had no problem with trying to attack RN ships 8,000 miles outside the exclusion zone.


edit on 7-2-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrKipling
reply to post by gabrielxxx
 


we heard of a quite a few American mercenaries caught by 3 para who duly took them behind the nearest rock and double tapped them.


Hmmm, interesting. I have heard that rumour myself. Do you have any evidence of this or any more information?



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrKipling
 


you are the ones that nvaded first!
Thats the thing you are not understanding!!!
The island were occupied!!!
And you illegally take them in 1833..

Is really funny to see UK guys worries about the feelings of the islanders when you came in 1833 took off the commander Pinedo and his partners out of the island and ban the enter of anyone from argentina there...


History is with me guys, you been killing ppl all arround the world because you live in a tinny island thats all!
Argentina only have one war and was against an invasor...
How many wars the UK fight outside their land??? Cause your conuntry its england, not here in south america, not in spain, not in asia, not in afrika... All those places were invaded by your ppl killing a lot of ppl who was there first and you never ask them if they want to stay...
Like you did with my country!!! You try two times to invade Buenos Aires!!!! Are you aware of that????
What happened if argentina was the one who invaded London??? What would be your feels for the argentineans??? You will say "no, its ok, they invade us, they put his ppl here, and now we have to do what this new ppl want"?????? come on...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by gabrielxxx
 


Did you read the god damn link I sent you?

The one that DISPROVES all your ramblings, credited and analysed by French, Spanish, Argentinian and British historians who disprove you?

I think you ignored it didn't you?

tsk tsk tsk.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabrielxxx
reply to post by MrKipling
 


How many wars the UK fight outside their land??? Cause your conuntry its england, not here in south america, not in spain, not in asia, not in afrika... All those places were invaded by your ppl killing a lot of ppl who was there first and you never ask them if they want to stay...


You do realise people were doing this all over the world for centuries, it wasn't a singularly British trait.

Now are you enjoying the electricity and the computers and the medicine and the life support machines and the irrigation and the railways? Or do you hate the British so much, that you'll give all these things up?

edit on 7-2-2012 by mr-lizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabrielxxx
reply to post by MrKipling
 


What happened if argentina was the one who invaded London??? What would be your feels for the argentineans??? You will say "no, its ok, they invade us, they put his ppl here, and now we have to do what this new ppl want"?????? come on...




So you are saying then, if Argentina invades the Falklands, the residents should put up their hands and say (Your Quote) "no, its ok, they invade us, they put his ppl here, and now we have to do what this new ppl want''

Get real Amigo.

Read some real History Books, not the propaganda you have been reading.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Ultimately, it's not like the Queen is forcing anyone to stay there.

It's not like she's denied the inhabitants any options of deciding their own fate.

Argentina have asked them to change identities, to give up the land, tried to bribe them, tried to kill them, but ultimately they WANT to stay British.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabrielxxx
The island were occupied!!!
And you illegally take them in 1833..


Perhaps the UK and Argentina could come to a deal.

The UK gives the Argentines the Falklands if the Argentine conquistadors give argentina back to the South American natives?

Not that there are many natives left in stolen land that is called Argentina, as the Argentine conquistadors killed most all of them.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The plot thickens!!! Found this oldie

Subject: HMS Invincible?
merman 2/20/2007 3:18:58 PM
Hello everyone! There's much controversy around what happened that 30 may 1982 during the Falkland War. Some say the Invincible was not attacked, that it was attacked but not damaged, attacked and damaged, while others go as far as to claim it was ultimately sunk. The thing is that there is supporting evidence to at least doubt in some way the official british version. For example, after the war all the Task Force returned to port but the Invincible, which remained at sea for two more months (?). It wasn't seen until august when it docked in the Falklands. It later returned to Portsmouth in mid September but (here another particularity) it looked brand new, instead of battle wary, like HMS Hermes looked upon returning (though it supposedly wasn't damaged during the conflict) There are a number of theories supporting each point of view, however I'd like to know what do you people think about this matter. I'll provide links shortly. Thanks



There seem to be some differencies between the Invincible that went to war...
Invincible...

And the one that came back in 17 September:
Illustrious?...

Such as the phalanx system that seems to appear in the photograph
Phalanx?...

Also, these pictures here show Hermes and Illustrious meeting in the South Atlantic in June-July. However the British government says Illustrious was in the UK on August.
Hermes and Illustrious...
You can see Hermes meeting another carrier in the South Atlantic that should not be there according to the british government.
Illustrious and Hermes...

The theory would be that the british government conceals the lose of the Invincible with its sister ship Illustrious until another carrier was built in secret.

I don't know if that is plausible but thats the idea. And believe it or not there are further discrepancies that took place those days that might allow people to think of this theory.

The first british announcement was on June 1 1982, when the Ministry of War announced that the Argentinean Air Force attacked the bulk of the Atlantic Conveyor, not the Invincible, and one of the attackers was shot down. But the attack on the Atlantic Conveyor took place on May 25 and far away from the attack on the 30.

The second british announcement dismissed the last stating that in actuallity the ship attacked was the Avenger and that this ship had downed two attackers with Sea Dart missiles. But this ship was not equipped with this system at that time.

A third version extracted from the book "The Battle for the Falklands" (or so I believe it is translated) by Hastings and Jenkins 1983 states this:
"On may 30 the battle group survived another air attack by Exocet, when the Avenger managed to shoot down the missile with a 4.5 inchs gun, 45 seconds after the alarm". There is no mention of other aircrafts attacking the Avenger.

The fourth version, and the official British version: two A4C were shot down with Sea Dart by HMS Exeter and a 4.5 inch gun from Avenger may have hit another. The Exocet missile could have impacted on the bulk of the Atlantic Conveyor or intercepted by the Avenger's anti-missile system, and the pilots may have mistaken the silhouete of the Atlantic Conveyor with that of the Invincible.

It's all too blurry to understand what happened that day and the english versions don't help much.
I for one, don't know what to believe.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


Was my uncle and yes he was doing his job. And like i told before, after that he never sleeps good. Here are a lot of ppl talking about attack Argentina cause we want back the islands in a diplomatic way...
England is the one sending ships without any agrresion from Argentina...
Thats why i told that. Is nothing cool in killing another ppl. Less when you after the war start to know the families from the ppl you kill..
That's why i cant understand how some are asking to attack us.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


Mate i have internet, i read the same newspappers like you and also the argentinean ones...
You know how to speak spanish?
I speak english portuguese and spanish.. and im learning italiano...
I love to read! I read more than 500 books, all of economy, politics, history... all real things...
Im graduated from international bussiness school...
I know a lot of English history, what do you know about Argentiean history?
I also give job to 50 ppl here...
You think that i will buy any kind of propaganda of any goverment???
Lets say i have a good life here... some of my friends are sons of very important ppl here. Rich ppl, and if you know something about argentina is there is not a lot of rich ppl here... Im friend of the sons of ex presidents, ex USA embassy from Argentina, even my ex girlfriend from chile is the daughter of the owners of the TV in chile.
So i met a lot of masons here...
They dont worried about the islands they dont even care about the ppl of the island or the continent...
It's all a show!
maybe some day you will see it...
jejeje



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabrielxxx
Was my uncle and yes he was doing his job. And like i told before, after that he never sleeps good. Here are a lot of ppl talking about attack Argentina cause we want back the islands in a diplomatic way...
England is the one sending ships without any agrresion from Argentina...


So you invade the Falklands in 1982, lose the war but now you object to the RN sending ships to defend the islands?

And now the argies are throwing their dummy out of the pram because the British have warships 300 miles off of the Argentine coast?

You guys are hilarious.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


Word of mouth mate... There was a book written about it called 'green eyed boys I think.. Have a read of this

www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
For the last time.

The UK is not sending down any ships that otherwise would not have been sent down if only to do a shift change, which is something that the Royal navy has routinely done since 1982. The submarine and destroyer that are currently underway will be replacing a patrolling submarine and a frigate.

If Argentina could be trusted, which the conflict in 1982 shows that they cannot be, then there would be no need to have a permanent UK Armed forces presence in The Falklands as they are now, apart from the token forces that were stationed there prior to 1982.

Argentina has brought all of this on by themselves and are trying to turn the tables around by accusing the UK as aggressors ........ luckily, for most of the countries of the world outside of South America, they can see Argentina and what it is trying to do for what it really is.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


yes i read it, but it's not all the true...
and get chill boy... no bomb will be drop on you, you dont need that mask... hehehe



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gabrielxxx
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


yes i read it, but it's not all the true...
and get chill boy... no bomb will be drop on you, you dont need that mask... hehehe


And no bombs will land on you either.

I want peace like you, but i am disputing our conflicted versions of events.

Anyway. Peace



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


and still repeating the invasion of 1983.... 1833 kid... 1833 was the year that was invaded!!!
And your country try to invade us two times before!!! 1806 and 1807!!!!
Cause they couldnt invade the continent they came back a lot of years after and took the islands...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
The plot thickens!!! Found this oldie

Subject: HMS Invincible?
merman 2/20/2007 3:18:58 PM
Hello everyone! There's much controversy around what happened that 30 may 1982 during the Falkland War. Some say the Invincible was not attacked, that it was attacked but not damaged, attacked and damaged, while others go as far as to claim it was ultimately sunk. The thing is that there is supporting evidence to at least doubt in some way the official british version. For example, after the war all the Task Force returned to port but the Invincible, which remained at sea for two more months (?). It wasn't seen until august when it docked in the Falklands. It later returned to Portsmouth in mid September but (here another particularity) it looked brand new, instead of battle wary, like HMS Hermes looked upon returning (though it supposedly wasn't damaged during the conflict) There are a number of theories supporting each point of view, however I'd like to know what do you people think about this matter. I'll provide links shortly. Thanks



There seem to be some differencies between the Invincible that went to war...
Invincible...

And the one that came back in 17 September:
Illustrious?...

Such as the phalanx system that seems to appear in the photograph
Phalanx?...

Also, these pictures here show Hermes and Illustrious meeting in the South Atlantic in June-July. However the British government says Illustrious was in the UK on August.
Hermes and Illustrious...
You can see Hermes meeting another carrier in the South Atlantic that should not be there according to the british government.
Illustrious and Hermes...

The theory would be that the british government conceals the lose of the Invincible with its sister ship Illustrious until another carrier was built in secret.

I don't know if that is plausible but thats the idea. And believe it or not there are further discrepancies that took place those days that might allow people to think of this theory.

The first british announcement was on June 1 1982, when the Ministry of War announced that the Argentinean Air Force attacked the bulk of the Atlantic Conveyor, not the Invincible, and one of the attackers was shot down. But the attack on the Atlantic Conveyor took place on May 25 and far away from the attack on the 30.

The second british announcement dismissed the last stating that in actuallity the ship attacked was the Avenger and that this ship had downed two attackers with Sea Dart missiles. But this ship was not equipped with this system at that time.

A third version extracted from the book "The Battle for the Falklands" (or so I believe it is translated) by Hastings and Jenkins 1983 states this:
"On may 30 the battle group survived another air attack by Exocet, when the Avenger managed to shoot down the missile with a 4.5 inchs gun, 45 seconds after the alarm". There is no mention of other aircrafts attacking the Avenger.

The fourth version, and the official British version: two A4C were shot down with Sea Dart by HMS Exeter and a 4.5 inch gun from Avenger may have hit another. The Exocet missile could have impacted on the bulk of the Atlantic Conveyor or intercepted by the Avenger's anti-missile system, and the pilots may have mistaken the silhouete of the Atlantic Conveyor with that of the Invincible.

It's all too blurry to understand what happened that day and the english versions don't help much.
I for one, don't know what to believe.



Errr...what about the crew. Did they pop some replacements out of a clone vat?

Truly bizarre.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by gabrielxxx
 




so funny, one problem with your little bigoted rant, WHAT YEAR WAS ARGENTINA FORMED



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join