BillB wrote: [QUOTE] It is becoming increasingly apparent that your aim is not to establish what happened at Moody Brook and why it has been sometimes perceived differently
, but to have the Argentine version of any and all events accepted over any other, irrespective of its accuracy or veracity. [/QUOTE]
Perceived differently??? LOL, that is the punchline for a good joke.
Ref the second bit, read one of my replies to OX, when he asked about myths in Argentina (stoned gurkhas, i.e.). I think I made it clear that I want to move people to read and find out the truth all alone by themselves.
[QUOTE] I assume
this is in a pitiful, straw grasping attempt to deflect attention form the inescapable reality that your then military dictatorship's miscalculations led to Argentina receiving one of the 20th Century's most comprehensive military defeats. [/QUOTE]
I'm not going to enter your "assumption" game. And I'm not going to divert form the Moody Brook topic either. Feel free to start a new thread on the "biggest misscalculation which lead to the most comprehensive defeat". I will grap my copies of Woodward, Moore and the sort, and share my views with the forum any time.
[QUOTE] Pathetic really, I think your war dead deserve a bit better memorial... [/QUOTE]
Pathetic it is that you try to play the emotional card, after you seized Jim Martins comment "about the insignificant islands" as a chance to bash on me and ridicule said war dead
, in the process trampling on your own fellow countrymen who also died by the hundreds to recover those insignificant islands.
Our (I mean our, yours and mine) servicemen, enlisted or drafted, are best honored by getting the thruth out. I won't dig your pseudo-emotional appeals, don't waste your time.
[QUOTE] LOL, I suppose you believe that nonsense about "the camera never lies" too, KJ. With all due respect, this picture proves nothing of the kind, as there could still be extensive damage within or on the other side of the buildings shown. [/QUOTE]
Sure, it also could be a mock-up
build on the same Hollywood set where the fake Apollo moon landing was filmed. If this is your reaction afetr you already know what the real events were, I can't even imagine what you would have said a month ago if I posted the picture then.
[QUOTE] However, the point at issue is no longer whether or not the barracks were "ferociously attacked". You are deliberately erecting a straw man argument because as I have already pointed out, this fallacy has been covered in British published works for at least sixteen years. Oh, and the British accounts you refer to actually mentions "phosphorous grenades", as do you below. If you are going to bandy things
about do try and be accurate. [/QUOTE]
Since when the point at issue is no longer if the barracks were ferociously attacked or not? When did yu decide to change the topic of discussion? Oh, wait a minute, you decided it from the very begining, when you started attacking me and pretending you could infere what my motives are. Since you decided to "steal" the credit for finding out that the fallacy is already covered by part of the british literature on the subject, which is precisely the fact you had no idea less than a month ago and only stumbled upon because I drove you to it by raising the issue in the first place? BTW, I provided a link on my very firts post to a serious and well researched british websource, where the Moody Brook episode is portrayed correctly. I already knew back then, as I still do now, that a part of the british literature portrays the correct account of the events. Its the early works containing the fallacy, which have been repeated over and over again, shaping the british public opinion on this. Its a fact that at least two british posters on this very forum have brought up the "myth" and even yourself were rather inclined to believe the myth, till you found out better.
Ref the bit about the "grenades", before you go about accusing me of distorting things, read the following:
[QUOTE] Around 0610 hrs the first firing was heard as the Buzo Tactico attacked the barracks at Moody Brook. The attack was ferocious, combining submachine guns with fragmentation and phosphorous grenades, hoping to catch the Marines in bed,
showing that later claims of attempts to spare British lives were completely false. If the barracks had not been already deserted, many men would likely have died. With the buildings at Moody Brook ablaze, the Argentine troops moved on toward Stanley.
So, its both, frag and WP. And the barracks where allegedly left on fire!!!. Aside from confusing Buzo Tactico and Cdo Anf, I think this summarizes the myth very well.
[QUOTE] The point at issue now is your repeated assertion that for some unstated reason the British have deliberately created and propagated a false version of events, in which you have directly accused at least one British servicemen (Major Norman) of lying. This is patently untrue, it is provably untrue, and I intend to present evidence to refute your nonsensical accusations once and for all. [/QUOTE]
You are completly dilutional. I have NEVER accused Norman or his men of lying. Read my last two replies. I merely said that they infered wrongly, and claimed that there was an attack, which they could not confirm. Happy postwar publishers then created the myth, IRCC, were my exact words.
I have NEVER said either, that the UK delibaratly spun a scheme about Moody Brook, altought the above websource seems to suggest it, and merely questioned what other secrets, apart from the nuclear depthcharges issue, may surface in the future.
[QUOTE] So how about a referenced translation of Sabarot's orders, so we can see what he was actually ordered to do? [/QUOTE]
You have already quoted Sabarots, and unless you are now implying that his testimony is false or untrue, the point about what orders he was given is already cleared.
[QUOTE] And for the umpteenth time, there is no "myth" excpet in your fevered imagination. The fact that a couple of British websites cite the fallacy proves nothing except the site owners have not done their research properly. I have seen websites claiming just about everything, from alien abduction to Elvis spotting. It doesn't make them true either. [/QUOTE]
Last time I checked, raf stands for Royal Air Force, mod stands for Ministry (Mistery?) of Defense, and uk stands for United Kingdom. And I double checked, the Falklands History page is actually a part of the offical RAF site.. No obscure dot.com, as you suggested
. And it was last updated October 1st, 2004. Pretty old info those guys still handle, right? BTW, I had already provided this link in my very first post, just to prove how widespread the myth is. A myth, I repeat, you were inclined to believe less than a month ago.
Last time you prompted me to take action against those ill-informed website owners. Being yourself a british taxpayer, assuming you pay your taxes and do not live in Andorra, YOU should take action against the RAF website, cause they are wasting your citizens money on a 16 years superseeded and fairly crappy history consulting service....
[QUOTE] I don't like blowing my own trumpet, but I have an honours degree and a PhD in history from two front rank British universities, I teach part-time at one, and have had several pieces and two books published with a third on the way. Your qualifications to belittle my training are what, precisely? Ref the last bit, how pathetic. I had a position, and I reassessed and changed it in light of additional evidence. Not to do so would have been ridiculous. Unlike you, apparently, I am not arrogant enough to think my position is the absolute and final word on anything. [/QUOTE]
I will give you three reasons why your degree in history bears no meaning whatsoever in the context we are discussing. In fact I could give a rats a..., sorry, a rats tail if you were to complement your history degree with an indoor plumber license as well.
1) Your history degree is totally irrelevant, because here at the forum you are not a collection of framed papers on your office wall, you are simply BillB, Member Number 979 of Tank Net
. Here, my friend, you are judged by what you post, and your posts are taken apart for consistency, accuracy and sense, regardless of what you may or may not have accomplished in life or what your credentials may be.
2) I don't know on what history period your area of expertise is, nor if you are actually renown or recognized for it. I won't question it either. But your history degree still is irrelevant to this topic, because you have shown through your posts, by posting numerous mistakes or missconceptions (see numbers of artillery, see number of troops on Goose Green, see number of argie casualties on said battle, and not lastly the Moody Brook episode also...) which have been pointed out not by myself alone, but also by other posters, that the Falklands/Malvinas war is NOT your area of expertise. You have admitted so yourself, BTW
, along this present thread. Moreover, you have also shown some basic lack of knowledge of british history (see Utrecht treaty validity, see precise circumstances of failed british invasion of Buenos Aires, see precise circumstances of american warship raid and how it relates to the british seizure of the Falklands, see UN decolonization comitte resolution and status, see precise legal status of islands and kelpers in brit law, etc etc). Strikes me as broad gaps. I'm not making a judgement of your professional credentials, I'm simply pointing out what I have read in your posts.
3) Your degree in history is furthermore irrelevant to this discussion, because you have jumped in "with both feet" in your own words, to deride me and my credibility, instead of approaching the issue according to the researchers precautionary principle
You entered the debatte having a position, for which YOU had not enough evidence, despite ranting about MY lack of evidence, or the alledged lack of evidence of spanish (argie) published works or accounts of the war.
It strikes me as odd that you draw the "serious researcher" card but have n-times made assumptions or infered
about my personal or political motivation. After finally having found out better, which you selfindulgingly call "reassesing" said position, you have failed to openly admitt
your previous ignorance on the subject.
[QUOTE] Scoring points says it all about your approach and mindset I think, KJ. I'm more interested in finding out what happened and why it happened, no matter how personally unpalatable the results might turn out to be. And "stated" is the key point there, as you have not provided a shred of verifiable evidence until today's photograph to support your statement(s). [/QUOTE]
Three reason why I took my time to post the picture:
1) I was creating suspense
, sort of the same expectation you are trying to create with your loudly announced "cornerstone" of historical research.
2) I was allowing you and others time to read
, research and elaborate.
3) I do not need to present any evidence, because the argie version is correct, and brit literature has already acknowledged so
. I only needed you to make your homework. I hope, and it would make me happy, if other posters are doing just the same.
As for me, I think I'm done clarifying the myth, and I expect that I will not be presented with the fallacious account of the alledged argie attack on Moody Brook again by posters of this forum.
As for you, if you have caught enough mommentum to gather information and put together a comprehensive account of all the events which took place on Stanley that 2nd April 1982, I can only congratulate you, and offer my help, if you care to accept it.
Edit: Don't know what the format tags are doing, they seem to have a spirit of their own today. Quote simply doesn't work at all.
Edited by King Jester, 09 January 2005 - 2249 PM.