Comment Re:Yes, but... (Score 1) 139
5 air launched, another 6 or so ship mounted. 2 lorry mounted (no really.. they took two off a ship and put them on the back of an artic).
5 air launched, another 6 or so ship mounted. 2 lorry mounted (no really.. they took two off a ship and put them on the back of an artic).
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet from a Dassault Mirage two days later, most likely as revenge
Not really, firstly it was launched from a Super Etendard not a Mirage, secondly the Sheffield attack was the second or third attempt by the Argentinian Navy to attack the carriers using exocet, the Argentinian navy went to a lot of effort to get the Etandarts exocet capable and were intending on using them against the Royal Navy carriers long before the belgrano was sunk. If the exocet attacks were reveng then as advocated by most combat instructors they were trying to get their revenge in first.
. Critics are of the opinion that if UK hadn't been the first to sink an enemy vessel then none would have been lost on either side.
Critics are like arseholes....sorry no Opinons are like arseholes every critic is one. Sorry nope I'll get it right eventually
Yeah, but the Belgrano was running because word leaked out that she was a primary target and when she was engaged she was at full speed towards home
No, she was meandering along at cruising speed to a holding area whilst the Argentinian navy decided what to do next since their ari strike on the Carrier battle group couldn't get airborne because of low winds.
Conqueror had destroy orders even though Belgrano had left the field.
Field...? what field, she was at sea and she was a combatant...to paraphrase Shankly "if she wasn't interfering with play what the fuck was she doing on the pitch"
Some say she was in Argentine waters when she was sunk, but this has not been verified either way.
She was sunk at 5524S 6132W that's more than 12 miles away from anything.
yes, but they had been "Navalised" prior to the war
21 kills for no losses in the air to air role despite being outnumbered by aircraft with superior performance and viewed by the Argentinian Air forces and a difficult and challenging opponent ("La Muerte Negra") not bad going for an aircraft designed to shoot down recon aircraft.
No, The Fleet Air Arm tactics (calling navy pilots RAF will result in mild joking/ verbal abuse at best) varied throughout the war, before the landings they were part of a standard layered defence and were usually deployed up threat of the radar pickets which in turn were up threat of the carrier battle group. After the landings the Navy effectively defined a large rectangular box around the landing site and declared this a free fire zone for ships missile/gun systems and a no-go zone for aircraft. again Harriers were employed up threat but the lack of AEW meant that they often had to fly round the "box" to catch incoming raids. Also there was a significant difference in experience and performance in the use of the blue fox radar in the SHAR between 800 (Hermes) and 801 (Invincible) squadrons that meant that the 801 pilots could be more effective in the air defense role (see Sea Harrier Over The Falklands: A Maverick at War by Cmrd Sharkey Ward)
The fact that ships carried LDS is not news, it's mentioned in Woodwards book and various other Falklands war literature and when I went aboard HMS Plymouth in Glasgow in the 1990's they had some details about it on dispay boards. AFAICR it was mounted in the bridge wing and was on the "wrong side" of the ship when she was attacked. Most publications I've seen LDS mentioned state that it was never actually used.
given that he could be directly extradited from the UK to the US fairly easily, why bother messing with Sweden.
No no, I can suggest some really great roads for reading/posting whilst driving...some of the ones round Lashkar Gah are ideal for that kind of thing.
I knocked on the pearly gates
Neatly side-stepping the long queue
Waved hi to St. Peter
Who checked my card and let me through
I smiled, threw my hands in the air
Laughed and got arrested
They said hey man, you're in the wrong place
Your behaviour is a disgrace
Here we pray every hour, on the hour
Read extracts from the Bible and look solemn'
What, says I, no party?
No party?
Let me out
(Gillan,McCoy, Torme, Towns, Underwood) No Laughing in heaven
I guess Heaven or Hell is in the eye of the beholder
it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge,
Perhaps you noticed that the "unusual tenacity" came to be when Assange became a fugitive from justice? Think about it.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred.
As part of the extradition process Assange was released on bail, part of his conditions of bail were that he should remain overnight in the residence of one of his supporters who (from memory) guaranteed the majority of the bail. His residence in the Ecuadorian embassy means that a bunch of people are likely to be out of pocket.
Assange left Sweden weeks after the incident in question, with the express permission of the prosecutor's office. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge. He has offered numerous times to talk with the Swedish prosecutor or a representative while in the UK. None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
Worth noting, from a transcript of a Democracy Now discussion, emphasis mine:
"...Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. They refused to provide those assurances."
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
Cheers,
The UK can't give any such assurances if he were to be transferred to Swedish custody, we don't have any control over Sweden. If the US wanted to extradite him from the UK they've had months to make a case.
Right, because all they did, AFAIK, is spoof caller-ID information to gain access to the voicemail without a password, and IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL at the time.
The "This wasn't illegal at the time" comment has been made a number of times but surely gaining access to voicemail, whether by caller-ID spoofing or guessing passwords is going to be illegal under the computer misuse act which predates RIPA by a decade.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
