Discuss Lies, damn lies, and the Phoenix Think Tank in Royal Air Force on The Army Rumour Service; All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation ...
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
However if the Argentinians had used their 155mm and 35mm guns to better effect or actually used their Napalm launchers or their panhards with some form of combined opps then the situation could have been much different. The outcome was influenced just as much by the Argentinians inability or unwillingness to engage than it was for the own brilliance on our part.
They did use Napalm... Goose Green. Could have destroyed an entire Company with it, certainly would have cremated a Plt. Dozy cnuts didn't arm it, set it, drop it from high enough what ever you do to a napalm can to make it go boom. Two cans were found on the ground after.
I'm almost afraid to rake over the ashes, but I just saw this on the now-defunct Phoenix site.
Originally Posted by PhoenixThinkTank.org
N.B An opportunity exists for some investigative journalism into the conduct of a group known as “Think Defence”. It maybe discovered that the website is not as unbiased as it claims to be and has significant support and direction from various study and support groups of a specific service. It may become clear on closer inspection that the reader can identify a certain obsession with being more critical on some areas then others and as a group which always made it clear what we supported we feel after some of the overly aggressive and questionable tactics used against the PTT and some of its contributors that we have alerted you, the reader, to our opinion of that website and its editor(s). On the whole, we have enjoyed hearing the views and opinions of others across a broad spectrum of the defence community wither they agreed or disagreed with a PTT authors work. We also strongly advise a reader to show concern if information presented to them online, rather opinion or fact has an author hidden from identifying themselves. Constructive debate and criticism is essential not borderline defamation.
It's hidden at the bottom of the page, probably so that ThinkDefence won't see it. It is ironic that they see constructive debate and criticism as essential, as they tried to stifle any debate that did not agree with their skewed and somewhat myopic vision of things.