by hanshan » Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:35 pm
<br><br><br><br>Haven't been back to Viewzone <br>in some time; at last check it <br>reminded one as the National Enquirer<br> of fringe science . Things may have changed since.<br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Is it the weather or government terror?</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>By Jerry Mazza<br>Online Journal Contributing Writer<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>October 22, 2005</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->—Government manipulation of weather for terror and destruction is one pattern your local weatherman is surely not pointing out. So let me help with the forecast, past, present and long-range.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.onlinejournal.org/Commentary/102205Mazza/102205mazza.html" target="top">www.onlinejournal.org/Commentary/102205Mazza/102205mazza.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Star Wars, Star Trek and Killing Politely</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>by Dr. Nick Begich <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"One can envision the development of electromagnetic energy sources, the output of which can be pulsed, shaped, and focused, that can couple with the human body in a fashion that will allow one to prevent voluntary muscular movements, control emotions (and thus actions), produce sleep, transmit suggestions, interfere with both short-term and long-term memory, produce an experience set, and delete an experience set."2<br><br>"It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction. When a high power microwave pulse in the gigahertz range strikes the human body, a very small temperature perturbation occurs. This is associated with a sudden expansion of the slightly heated tissue. This expansion is fast enough to produce an acoustic wave. If a pulse stream is used, it should be possible to create an internal acoustic field in the 5-15 kilohertz range, which is audible. Thus, it may be possible to "talk" to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."3<br><br>In interviews with members of the Defense Department the development of this policy was confirmed.5 In those February, 1995, discussions, it was discovered that these policies were internal to agencies and were not subject to any public review process.<br><br>In its draft form, the policy gives highest priority to development of those technologies most likely to get dual use, i.e. law enforcement and military applications. According to this document, non-lethal weapons are to be used on the government's domestic "adversaries". The definition of "adversary" has been significantly enlarged in the policy:<br><br>"The term 'adversary' is used above in its broadest sense, including those who are not declared enemies but who are engaged in activities we wish to stop. This policy does not preclude legally authorized domestic use of the nonlethal weapons by United States military forces in support of law enforcement."6<br><br>This allows use of the military in actions against the citizens of the country that they are supposed to protect. This policy statement begs the question; who are the enemies that are engaged in activities they wish to stop, what are those activities, and who will make the decisions to stop these activities? <br><br>An important aspect of non-lethal weapon systems is that the name non-lethal is intentionally misleading. The Policy adds, "It is important that the public understand that just as lethal weapons do not achieve perfect lethality, neither will 'non-lethal' weapons always be capable of precluding fatalities and undesired collateral damage".7 In other words, you might still destroy property and kill people with the use of these new weapons. <br><br>In other words, we can use on our own citizens what we cannot use in warfare with real enemies who are threats to national security. This explains why the development of some types of non-lethals has moved out of the Department of Defense into the Department of Justice. For the Department of Defense to continue to work on some of these weapons, as instruments of war, is now illegal under international law. The Red Cross report went on to discuss the shift from weapons of war to police tools which they called - "riot control agents". <br><br>What does this mean for Americans? This places Americans, and citizens of other countries, in a lesser protected class than individuals seeking to destroy our countries - our real adversaries. This language really represents a way for countries to continue to develop these weapons. This is a loop-hole in the agreement. So while the treaty looks good on the surface, it is hollow rhetoric underneath.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.earthpulse.com/src/subcategory.asp?catid=1&subcatid=5" target="top">www.earthpulse.com/src/subcategory.asp?catid=1&subcatid=5</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/matt/images/burian225.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>eh, rain...rise w/ dreams</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>.... <p></p><i></i>
