Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
JackRiddler wrote:.
An incredibly simple sequence occurs to me.
.....
But in the meantime, it looks like success.
11) To help mystify and cover up the above, and to intimidate future enemies, dispatch Woodward to make the claim that the victory was the result of a magic new killing system that entirely wiped out the enemy, a "game changer."
So we're already just executing people over there, whenever we feel like it.
FourthBase wrote:Hmmm...just occurred to me that this new "revelation" might show a desperation on their part. It's pretty weird of them to be leaking something like that, real or unreal, being used or not being used, exaggerated or not.
Technocracy is the most refined black humor the human race has produced so far. Not looking forward to whatever tops it next.
Cryptogon wrote:Secret Assassination Program is Key in Iraq, Woodward Says
September 10th, 2008
Oh sure, Bob.
During the Vietnam War, the Phoenix Program ran from 1967 through the Tet Offensive and until the Americans fled Vietnam. I seriously doubt that an assassination program is working in Iraq.
More likely, the cash bribes that the U.S. has been paying to insurgents to stay home, or kill their religious enemies has more to do with the “success” in Iraq—whatever the word means—that these imbeciles are making so much noise about.
I didn’t know what Woodward meant by a Manhattan Project-like effort. What does that mean? That a massive allocation of resources was poured into the development of… some new assassination/counter insurgency hardware? This is described below as, “Secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders.”
I went looking for an answer and landed on Prison Planet, where they’re wondering the same thing. Their death ray answer may be related, in terms of PSYOP, but I doubt that’s it.
Via: CNN:
The dramatic drop in violence in Iraq is due in large part to a secret program the U.S. military has used to kill terrorists, according to a new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward.
The program — which Woodward compares to the World War II era Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb — must remain secret for now or it would “get people killed,” Woodward said Monday on CNN’s Larry King Live.
“It is a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have,” Woodward said.
In “The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008,” Woodward disclosed the existence of secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley, in a written statement reacting to Woodward’s book, acknowledged the new strategy. Yet he disputed Woodward’s conclusion that the “surge” of 30,000 U.S. troops into Iraq was not the primary reason for the decline in violent attacks.
“It was the surge that provided more resources and a security context to support newly developed techniques and operations,” Hadley wrote.
It may be one of the new "crowd control" mechanisms.
Suppose you found a way to spike the city’s water supply or to release a hallucinogen in aerosol form. For twelve to twentyfour hours all the people in the vicinity would be hopelessly giddy, vertiginous...victory would be a foregone conclusion.”
“I do not contend that driving people crazy—even for a few hours—is a pleasant prospect, but warfare is never pleasant. And to those who feel that any kind of chemical weapon is more horrible than conventional weapons, I put this question:
Would you rather be temporarily deranged, blinded, or paralyzed by a chemical agent, or burned alive by a conventional fire bomb?”
FourthBase wrote:It may be one of the new "crowd control" mechanisms.
If there's actually a thing and if it's actually as powerful as claimed and if it's actually being used over there and if it's actually reducing violence...then such a mechanism would make sense. Not that there's anything right with it, but comparatively speaking, if there's a choice for the warmongerers between gunning down a furious crowd in cold blood versus, say, releasing a cloud of have-a-gay-old-time chemicals that chill the crowd out...who's going to choose the bloody massacre?
“It is a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have,” Woodward said.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest