Belgrano- The Last Shot of the War

The sinking of Argentina’s flagship, the Battlecruiser General Belgrano was the most controversial action in the Falklands War, whose 25th anniversary took place this year. (This post is based on an article I wrote at the time.)

On the 2nd of May 1982 the Royal Navy submarine HMS Conqueror (what an apt name!) received orders to sink the General Belgrano. The Argentine fleet was heading for the British taskforce with the obvious intent to attack it. Their aircraft carrier Vincento de Mayo was looking for a windy spot to launch its strike aircraft. The decision was made to sink the ship before the fleet passed over a shallow bit of sea where the submarines couldn’t follow. Conqueror was Britain’s second-oldest nuclear submarine and the weapon it used to sink the ship was the old WWII Mark 8 torpedo; the ones you see John Mills firing in those old war movies, which could only be fired in a straight line. She had other more modern torpedoes with homing and directional capabilities, but they had a smaller warhead. Captain Wreford-Brown, unaware that he was serving the Illuminati agenda for global control, fired the torpedoes and sunk the ship killing 400 Argentine sailors. The following morning, the headline in the Sun newspaper read: “GOTCHA!... OUR LADS SINK GUNBOAT AND HOLE CRUISER!”

It’s a not well known fact, but another British submarine, HMS Splendid, had Vincento de Mayo in her sights too and would have sunk her literally minutes before the entire Argentine fleet turned around and headed back to port. The Argentine Navy never deployed again for the rest of the campaign (Tom Clancy- “Submarine” Harper-Collins 1993). Without a naval force their occupation of the Falkland Islands could never have lasted (Which is, incidentally, also why the official motive for the Hiroshima bomb was a lie). The remaining war was a set-piece battle between the two air and land forces, but really it was a foregone conclusion despite propaganda like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/falklands/story/0,,678047,00.html#article_continue . How could we have lost? It’s a joke when you see things like this!: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/145709.shtml Interestingly Thatcher also threatened to retaliate with nuclear weapons in the 1990 Gulf War if the Iraqis used WMD, so I wouldn’t put it past her. At the end of the day, she did her duty for Queen and Country… sorry, Illuminati and Reptilians. We’ve got the oldest, brightest, best bloody navy in the world and WMD that could turn all of Argentina into a radioactive gravel pit! And “It was a near thing"!? Bollocks! The invasion was also highly illegal and totally contrary to the wishes of the islands’ population, who unanimously wanted to live under British rule.

There’s been a lot of controversy over the sinking of the General Belgrano. This was because the Illuminati public-relations officer (UK branch), Margaret Thatcher, had told Argentine ships that they could not sail within 200 miles of the Falkland Islands without being attacked. Belgrano was further away. Personally I don’t see what all the fuss was about. There was nothing immoral about sinking the Belgrano compared to any other action in that war, or any war. Once you’ve made the decision that it's fine to kill people for money and power then it’s hypocritical to shilly-shally about it. Either go in and slaughter every one of the subhuman motherfuckers you can target, or reject war and violence as an option altogether!

To this day, few question the official story of the war: that is was an act of redemption and justice. We see it in simple terms: Argentina stole the islands illegally and we went in to take them back, and to free the Falklander people who wanted to remain British. This would all sound very noble if it wasn’t for the fact that the govt has never done anything else motivated by the needs and aspirations of the common folk. No, they only do anything when they’re on the make! Let’s look at some interesting things that we don’t see in the media very often: http://www.oilvoice.com/Falkland_Oil_Gas_Announces_Preliminary_Results_For_the_Nine/9194.htm . That’s right; almost inevitably, the Falkland Islands has a nearby oil and gas field. I guessed that and I’m not psychic!

Also if you look at the islands on an atlas you’ll see that they sit at an important strategic location: what navel tacticians call a “choke point”. All ships entering or leaving the Pacific Ocean, not using the Panama Canal, have to pass around Cape Horn or through the Straits of Magallan, just a short distance from the Falklands! An easy place to base a permanent naval force to control the area. (Incidentally who controls the Panama Canal? The Panamanians? Hardly!) Another choke point is the Straits of Gibralter, which Britain also controls, through our colony there. See a pattern emerging?

If it wasn’t for these factors I doubt if the UK govt would have made to much effort to reclaim the islands... And would Argentina have even bothered to invade them in the first place?