What a load of rubbish you write. Can you not research things before hand?
In 1994, Argentina itself admitted that the sinking of the Belgrano was entirely legal.
In August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report written by armed forces auditor Eugenio Miariwas was released which described the sinking of the
Belgrano as "a legal act of war", explaining that "acts of war can be carried out in all of the enemy's territory" and "they can also take place in those areas over which no state can claim sovereignty, in international waters."
Interviewed by Martin Middlebrook for his book,
The Fight For The Malvinas, the Belgrano's Captain Bonzo (who died in 2009) said he was not angry about the attack on his ship: "The limit [exclusion zone] did not exclude danger or risks; it was all the same in or out. I would like to be quite precise that, as far as I was concerned, the 200-mile limit was valid until 1 May, that is while diplomatic negotiations were taking place and/or until a real act of war took place, and that had happened on 1 May".
Bonzo wrote memories about the sinking in the book
1093 Tripulantes del Crucero ARA General Belgrano, published in 1992. In this book he wrote that it is "improper to accept that (...) the attack by HMS Conqueror was a treason". During an interview in 2003
he had stated that the Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of the cruiser's armament.
Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano.
And here are the words of the declaration of the exclusion zone....
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Belgrano was an armed warship of a belligerant power and therefore was a legitimate target regardless of her location, intent or heading
Here's an interesting fact: the Belgrano was the only ship in history ever to have been sunk in anger by a nuclear-powered submarine and only the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II, the first being the Indian frigate INS Khukri by the Pakistani Hangor during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War.
HMS Conqueror on her return to Faslane after the war in 1982. She is flying a Jolly Roger flag adorned with torpedoes, a customary act of Royal Navy submarines after a kill. She served in the RN between 1971 and 1990.
Well, it wouldn't come from the loony left, would it?
If Thatcher was so hellish, then why did she win two elections in a row (1983 and 1987) by two of the most massive landslides in British electoral history? Why does a YouGov poll show her to be the most popular PM since 1945, even more popular than Churchill?
Most British people disagree with you.
.