Author
|
Topic: virus: Pentagon predictions (Read 1166 times) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.33
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
 |
Re:virus: Pentagon predictions
« Reply #3 on: 2004-02-28 07:07:39 » |
 |
Quote from: Jonathan Davis on 2004-02-27 09:17:02
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...
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.01
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Pentagon predictions
« Reply #4 on: 2004-03-01 06:09:28 » |
|
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>
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.53
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
|
|
Re: virus: Pentagon predictions
« Reply #5 on: 2004-03-01 10:31:05 » |
|
Yah, the popular anti-bush sentiment is reasonable, given the facts. But it has led to spurious justifications and speculation that undermines the true reasons for dissent against this administration.
Our media-fed society feeds back and eggagerates ideas.
Legitimate movements are often either crushed or magnified beyond reason.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.73
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
RE: virus: Pentagon predictions
« Reply #6 on: 2004-03-01 17:03:56 » |
|
Thanks for bringing clarification to this article, Jonathan. That's one of
the things I rely on the CoV for. It looks like the Observer was either
neglectful or deceitful in attributing its source. Now that you have
settled that, however, we ought to consider Schwartz's predictions and the
political/scientific atmosphere in which they were made before the Observer
ever got ahold of this issue.
As I have followed global warming issues, it seems nobody really knows with
certainty how global warming will play out, so I think Schwartz's
predictions may be as good as anybody's. The late Carl Sagan in addressing
global warming went to some lengths to point out that climate systems
operate on both negative and positive feedback loops. The danger in
dealing with that is that we don't know when or how we might fall into one
of those positive feedback loops except in retrospect. As I have
understood climatologists, the history of the Earth's climate is full of
long periods of gradual changes punctuated by some short periods of drastic
changes. It's difficult to know how these positive feedback loops will end
except in retrospect. Regardless of exactly how drastic climate changes
would play out, I think we can easily understand and agree that drastic
changes of any kind on a global level would prove catastrophic for numerous
human endeavors which rely on the climate remaining relatively stable.
Considering the intended audience of the report (military planners who have
to keep in mind worst case scenarios) I think that Schwartz's alarmist
predictions are appropriate. The real concern comes, however, not in the
necessarily speculative nature of his predictions, but in the fact that
this administration still lives in denial of established science in many
areas ranging from global warming to evolution. While we may not know the
eventual consequences of global warming, the fact that it happening is
generally beyond scientific dispute if not Bush's capacity for irrational
denial of reality. It saddens me that some people who share this
reasonable concern, do not necessarily share the journalistic
diligence/integrity to effectively bring this to your attention. All
things considered, I find the Bush administration's head-in-the-sand
approach much more intellectually dishonest and dangerous than the
Observer's journalistic problems. Neither is excusable, but I can live
with one better than the other. So while I imagine that many Bush
apologists may be congratulating themselves for attacking the Observer for
its journalistic shortcomings, their continued denial of the real
underlying issue remains inexcusable.
love,
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 03/01/2004 3:09:28 AM
> Subject: RE: virus: Pentagon predictions
>
> 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>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
