From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Mon Mar 01 2004 - 04:09:28 MST
Hey Mermaid,
Read the link I posted and all is explained.
Observer took a report out of context, misreported its origins for a
pointedly political broadside at Bush which was fraudulent on several
levels.
It is good propaganda, but only when you disguise what it really is - a
make-believe scenario for military planners prepare plans for as unlikely,
but a contingency.
Furthermore, the link with Bush and his policies is spurious.
Regards
Limbic
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Mermaid
Sent: 28 February 2004 12:08
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: Pentagon predictions
[quote from: Jonathan on 2004-02-27 at 07:17:02] Hi Eva,
That Observer story was badly flawed. The report was not a report by the
Pentagon but a report for the Pentagon - a deliberate what if scenario for
their planners to use in the unlikely event those circumstances came about.
This link has the background...
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006051.php
This looks like one where zeal overcame integrity at the Guardian/Observer.
Regards
Limbic
[Mermaid]Hey limbic, how is the story flawed? Because it reported bad facts
or because the report was prepared for the pentagon instead of being
prepared by the pentagon? Which begs the question..WHO prepared it FOR the
pentagon? Third parties? Greenpeace? Observer? concerned citizens?
commissioned by the lady who cleans the McD toilets situated next to the
Pentagon?
What is the difference between a report commissioned by the pentagon for the
pentagon and one that is prepared by the pentagon? Does the weather change
because of this difference? Will we experience joyous climate for the next
few thousand years because of the said difference instead of the predicted
catastrope? Will the ocean currents reverse themselves? Will the poles
interchange?
Really....is there a diff between a report commissioned by the pentagon...as
a result prepared FOR it and a report that has been prepared BY the pentagon
because someone INSIDE the pentagon commissioned for it?
Is this why the report is 'flawed'?
Or is it because Observer alleges that the report that took a year to
prepare has been suppressed for four months while interviews has been
occuring all over the print world a week before the Observer article? Is
that why you think it is flawed?
Did you read the FULL bbc interview and what was subsequently discussed
after that juicy Schwartz quote in the url you posted?
really...really..Iwannaknow...
---- This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2004 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=299 75> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 01 2004 - 04:13:15 MST