Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
|
A whistle-blower website has published what it says are more than 90,000 United States military and diplomatic reports about Afghanistan filed between 2004 and January of this year.
The first-hand accounts are the military’s own raw data on the war, including numbers killed, casualties, threat reports and the like, according to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.org, which published the material Sunday.
Here’s the link. When I prepared this post, last night, their servers were pretty much swamped.
“It is the total history of the Afghan war from 2004 to 2010, with some important exceptions — U.S. Special Forces, CIA activity and most of the activity of other non-U.S. groups,” Assange said…
The significance lies in “all of these people being killed in the small events that we haven’t heard about that numerically eclipse the big casualty events. It’s the boy killed by a shell that missed a target,” he told CNN.
“What we haven’t seen previously is all those individual deaths,” he said. “We’ve seen just the number and like Stalin said, ‘One man’s death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic.’ So, we’ve seen the statistic.”
The website held back about 15,000 documents from Afghanistan to protect individuals who informed on the Taliban, he said.
The easier it becomes to collect data, the easier it is to lose control of it.
#61–McGuyver==now your equate “truth squads” ((don’t know what they are, evidently I’m behind the news?)) with waging war?
Don’t you think that is a bit polemic?
hee, hee.
Personally..i think this was leaked just to supply “stunning new headlines about very old news” (read:distractions) for the near future whenever a “hey, look over hear” moment is needed to pull us away from real news bubbling to the surface..
I mean OMG..mel gibson has surfaced! so they cant use his recordings anymore.
—
The only thing relative i can add is perhaps..if someone decides to add up all of *our* deaths..they will find that when around 4000+ were claimed KIA, -the actually number was past 7000.
—
War has been is scripted since..forever.
Do not spend much time digging in this pile, there are much “bigger” things to pay attention to, out past the horizon.
The occults have a once in a lifetime alignment forming over the next 5-6 days that have them throthing in anticipation.
expect a call for “extra blood” to follow. -soon™.
-s
Soundwash–if you watch the interviews the founder of Wikileaks has given, his obvious and common sense intent is simply to make “secret” information known so that “bastards” don’t get away with lying to the people.
I doubt there is any “timing” at all except for when it becomes available. But even if there is any timing issue at all====SO WHAT? Doesn’t affect or mean a thing.
The truth is supposed to set us free. Timing is the commentary of idiots. You see it substituting for analysis all the time. Stock Market fluctuations are nothing but.
Stop the stupidity.
60, Bobbo,
You can either explicitly describe what you mean or I don’t see a point in putting words in your mouth. It’s pointless to try to interpret what you mean by your nuanced-approach only to have you coming back screaming I’m putting words into your mouth.
No, it is not necessarily wrong because some missions are covert / secret.
I wasn’t admitting more than I was agreeing with your obvious clause of a U.S. sponsored mercenary force and hidden costs. You should really try to give yourself more credit than you do. 🙂
So what is the other alternative to you whining about war or avoiding it?
Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. http://tinyurl.com/m8qge
Some of those “idiots” are cultural groups. Be that as it may, it’s a tad bit ethno-centric for you to call them losers. 🙂
Conventionally speaking, we have a small military. Technologically, we are the best. With Liberal budget cuts our technological edge is getting eroded. I’d be worried about the Chinese and Russians closing in on our technological gap over them. Otherwise, any future war will be a game of attrition.
When you take the option of military retaliation off the table, you’re essentially saying that you will use diplomacy. I’m not saying diplomacy shouldn’t be used first and foremost. What I am saying is if you remove the military option, you really don’t have anything else but diplomacy to rely on (to a flaw). JFK understood this. Liberals don’t.
With you, I doubt anything is “rhetorical”. You prefer political theater catch phrases like “empire”. You want the nuances of your comments to be understood. I saw it fit to clarify your dogmatic viewpoint.
Whistle blowing to uncover some nasty truth like pointing out Johnson Administration lied to Congress and the public about Vietnam and our true national interests (Pentagon Papers) and whistle blowing because you found a big ass whistle like Julian Vuvuzela Assange and his WikiLeaks are very different. The latter seem just is just reprehensible.
The number of Afghan families that are now in jeopardy from this because there names show up in a troop report will only bring more death.
I applaud WikiLeaks for whistle blowing but with that whistle comes responsible editing choose the appropriate/relevant material from this large cache and redact some names if for no other reason than the safety of the small children of the Afghani and Pakistani individuals listed in the reports.
62, Bobbo,
You made a reference about how some in politics wrap patriotism around a lie and closed it with Bush playing cowboys and Indians. The Democrats made it very clear it was patriotic to dissent with Bush.
Now fast forward to the present, and you have a Democrat in office who does not like dissenting opinions enough to create what he calls truth squads. Example of an Obama “truth” squad: http://tinyurl.com/29mh5u7
More examples if necessary: http://tinyurl.com/233nbv9
Hopefully more of these won’t surface in the remainder of his presidency when there are dissenting opinions.
McGuyver==I seriously don’t know what to do with you. Your responses rather than becoming more focused as a result of our exchange are actually becoming more erratic. I guess that is some kind of traumatic break with reality when a new idea knocks on your door?
Well lets pick some of the corn out of your offal:
1. There is a difference between nuance and being flat wrong. Its the difference between me and you. I don’t equate the two.
But to give it the ol’ college try, lets go back and apply some different words to make my nuance clear? – – – – – – – – – I said: XXXXX NO! Its explained quite adequately at post #29. Read it again and try to spot what you don’t understand about the larger context I provided.
2. Simple definitions elude you. If a black ops is not covert then it is not a black ops. Think of “black:” NO LIGHT! Like a “black-out” where nothing can be seen/bombed/or reported on because IT IS BLACK!!!!! Brain fart or just too nuanced?
3. Your link to “APPEASEMENT” is more of your low comprehension already demonstrated. APPEASEMENT is a kind of diplomacy and generally it is not good. Hard to discuss anything with you when you can’t tell shit from shinola, polemics from rhetoric, black ops from overt, diplomacy from appeasement. Are you home schooled?
I’ll stop at three. One of us needs to focus.
#67–Guyver==thanks for those links. I remembered that news. Dismissed it as rhetoric at the time, and still do. What is a truth squad except countering whatever the other guy is saying==hopefully with something closer to the truth especially when the “issue” is whether or not Obama is a Muslim? To have import, a “squad” would have to have arrest or investigative power or something more than a term for idiots to latch onto.
Nice to catch Ann Coulter being herself there on the sidebar video’s also available. She is more often misquoted than actually confronted on her ideas. She acts as her own truth squad when given the opportunity.
Back in post #13, you stated “Yes, WAR is totally effective at solving military conflicts.”
I then asked you to clarify by what you mean by “military conflicts” since you’re talking about war solving “military conflicts”. No need to get your panties in a bunch over your statement being clear as mud and my asking you to clarify. 🙂
No you didn’t explain what a “military conflict” was.
Post 29:
You’re trying to say you’re preoccupied with mental masturbation rather than give a straight answer to a direct question over your definition of “military conflict”.
You’re stuck in first gear. I was agreeing with your original obvious remark.
Black ops are called “black” because they don’t publicly exist you knit wit. It’s not because they are covert. There are other covert operations that are not considered black ops.
When executed properly, the public will never know about the existence of the Black Ops ever occurring (even long after there is closure). You formally can’t have a public policy for something that doesn’t exist.
Does this necessitate a formal news blackout? Nope. A news blackout (from a military perspective) is a public policy for things the public is aware of but are denied information when requested.
It’s hilarious to see you think this is a “simple definitions” thing when you don’t really know what you’re talking about but try to go “college” on me. 🙂
BTW, Black Ops are usually not exclusively military. They’re usually dual (meaning CIA-Military, FBI-Military, NSA-Military) etc.
Diplomacy to a flaw. I don’t know of any appeasement that is considered good. Thanks for proving my point. Case in point, what EXACTLY do you think we do when dealing with North Korea? Something other than appeasement? Give me a break.
LOL. You should try using a mirror instead of a telescope.
69, Bobbo, In post 56 you stated:
I responded back that when W was in office, the Democrats (more specifically Liberals) made it a point to say dissenting was patriotic.
I then point out Obama’s reaction to those who had dissenting opinions of him and his policies. But unlike Bush, Obama went so far as to create a “truth squad” to legally challenge / threaten dissenters who get too much of the public’s ears.
And like a political partisan, you say:
You’re being hypocritical by trying to have it both ways.
Obama has already raised taxes on the poor and middle class (one of the things he denied and was also a reason for his Truth Squads).
We desperately need more leeks of hidden data. Too bad we didn’t have more of this stuff during the buildup to the illegal invasion of Iraq. But I bet there’s still lots of incriminating stuff out there on the Shrub/Cheney Cabal. Someone should let that go showing truly criminal behavior. I’d love to see them convicted in abstentia in ever country outside the U.S. then “accidentally” dump them outside the U.S. so they could be picked up by the legal authorities.
What? Someone say that such things are illegal? HA! Not when extraordinary extradition is legal.
er… that’s rendition not extradition
72, Gmknobl,
Congress approved it. Hard to say it was “illegal”. Democrats also demanded that Bush went to the UN for approval (something never done to Clinton when he was in office doing police actions around the world).
It won’t happen. Too many Democrats will also be “incriminated” if the same litmus test is applied fairly.
Even Dennis Kucinich (a liberal Democrat) outed Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democrat Presidential debates when Hillary said she would have changed her vote on the Iraq War had she known then what she knew during her presidential campaign.
Dennis pointed out Hillary (as did many other Democrats) had the same intel then as she did now during the debates.
Guyver==I try to reread our exchange with the idea that we are coming from such diverse backgrounds/attitudes that coming to a common vocabulary is our real seperating issue, but I just can’t get there. Or perhaps our difference is that you will maintain a position if it is at all correct whereas I will change my position if it is found to be mostly wrong? This applies directly to your use of “black ops” being somehow modified in meaning by being a combined operation. THAT even if true has nothing to do with our tempest in a tea pot. Black Ops MEANS covert.
“back then Democrats said dissenting was patriotic” //// So what? Idiotic ((again, our differing epistemological camps?)) to lump all Democrats together. You also leave out the slient fact that anyone, not just Democrates, who disagreed with Cheney and his meat puppet BushtheRetard regarding war policy was called unpatriotic. I’d think as you practice it so often the “I know I’m not, but you are” response would be admired?
Well, since you have asked it about 3 times and I keep not even recognizing it as relevant: How do I define Military Conflict? What in the world makes you ask? What have I said that makes you think my usage is anything but standard/the same as yours?
In common parlance, military conflict is war, or a police action, or whenever two militaries/armed forces of two nations swap lead with one another, or in asymetrical warefare, I suppose its valid to extend the definition to when a military force of one country occupies and exerts control over the civilian population of another country? Or however you would like to dither at the edges?
So, WAR is good at resolving military conflicts. I see the ambiguity if you want to get stupid about what words mean. WARS fought to a conclusion are a resolution of military conflicts as opposed to an armistice or stalemate or on going low level conflict? Most wars end with a conclusion/resolution.
Did Obama create a truth squad or only suggests that it ought to be done? Or was it Robert Gibbs? ((same thing I would say)). I don’t see any hypocrisy or partisan ship. The whole point of this thread is “too let the truth out”. Whether its done by a leak or a truth squad or the rank obvious stupidity of the perpetrator, I don’t see what the contesting issue is. After Obama’s suggestion, its my impression nothing came of it. What happened? Are you being harassed by a truth squad? Just red herring BS on your part.
Is that three? Feels like three.
#64 bobbo..
Here in the 3rd dimension, timing is everything. -in the others, not nearly.
yes yes, the truth and secrets to be revealed was forecasted by many a long while back. -even Pluto at this time dictates that the truth be revealed, esp in the realm of governmental bodies. (go figure)
All that has (and will be) revealed, has been hidden in plain sight for centuries. -we have been trained (quite well, might i add) to ignore our instincts and the obvious, in
favour of complexities and scripted fictions we are told, is “reality.” Only when you learn to “unlearn” what you have been taught, what you think is real, will you then see and feel what has always been in front of you.
These logs are wonderful revelation for those still hypnotized by the Illusionists..however, in the grand scheme of things, they are still a distraction to lead us away from the important “truths” -and thus, very close to nothing at all.
What I await, is the the day when the very foundations of humanity’s history and what is amusingly referred to as “modern science” is exposed to be nothing more than a house of cards built upon a pack of lies, the path to which, is brightly illuminated. Only then, will real progress in the search for “truth” be able to be measured and atoned for.
You know what might matter in this particular outcome? -that the Media is brightly exposed and found to have participated in ensuring that “we the people” were never shown the obvious clues to the formation of all this.
–
You have wonderful eyes bobbo, yet still, -you cannot feel nor “hear.” One day perhaps, you should investigate why this is.
-s
Ha, ha, ha–in a good way. Soundwash. Quite a matrix you are busy spinning. sometimes I think I spot a fly, but it turns out to be a blemish.
I will meet you as far as I can: yes, all of us have illusions and few of us really undertake a systematic journey to shed ourselves of them if any at all.
But of what value is the “truth” when one truth is that we are still at root emotional creatures?
Our individual values brought to us by genetics, nurturing, and our adult self actualized minds are the prism by which we view/bask in reality. Stand here, and its one color. Side step the smallest fraction of an inch and it is another color. Same reality.
In one color, Guyver and I are identical twins, a fraction of an inch over and we are opposites. Same reality.
Ying/Yang or meaningless? Same reality.
Oh, and BTW===stop trying to confuse me.
75, Bobbo,
The root problem here is you’re arguing out of ignorance. I’m telling you what Black Ops is from the military perspective. It’s not how I choose to perceive it. You believe through your use of polemics that you can reason your way into a definition that suits you. That’s your prerogative. I’m not trying to give you a definition of what I think it means, I’m giving you how it means to the military.
Black Ops are not “black” because they’re covert. They’re black because they don’t officially exist, therefore the U.S. Government has what is called plausible deniability. That’s what separates Black Ops from other covert ops. Other covert ops and organizations would be things like Delta Force, Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc. You have heard of these right?
So saying Black Ops MEANS covert is like saying that all Ops done by Delta Force, Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc. would be Black Ops. That’s a ridiculously ignorant comment, but I suppose you feel you have a more intelligent definition than what the military uses. So be it.
But let me spoon things for you with some pop culture. Men in BLACK (the movies or the Jesse Ventura X-Files episode), ID4 (concerning Area-51) revolved around black ops in that operations / organizations did not officially exist.
You and I obviously understand English differently. I did say in post #71: “I responded back that when W was in office, the Democrats (more specifically Liberals) made it a point to say dissenting was patriotic.”
I also ignored the fact that your cowboys and indians reference was aimed at how Liberals demanded that Bush get UN consensus when no such demands were made of Clinton over similar situations. The point is, you were talking about how patriotism is wrapped around lies and tied that in with Bush playing a cowboy. Staying on topic, I pointed out how Liberal Democrats insisted that dissent was patriotic and that there is a double standard when people dissent against Obama. Oh well, go ahead and add more things to obfuscate the original partisan point you were making.
Glad to see you indirectly concede that your response wasn’t clear the first time as you had previously insisted. But tragically you attempt to answer my straight question with a question.
Finally we’re getting somewhere but it’s obvious you are talking out of your ass at this point. SO in your own words, “military conflict” is war (as I suspected you were meaning). In addition, you’ve made some ignorant comments in an attempt to sound like you know what you’re talking about.
Police action is not war.
War is Asymmetric Warfare? You don’t even realize how incredibly ignorant you are sounding. What kind of crap are you trying to pass off here? Asymmetric warfare is a fighting style. LOL.
Substituting “military conflict” with “WAR” as you have just now explained, your quote now reads
LOL.
Whatever. I saw what appeared to be an “oxymoronic” phrase and wanted clarification because I didn’t think you were THAT stupid. But you’ve just now confirmed that you are. LOL.
If you apply the same litmus test to everyone (regardless of party affiliation), then I have no beef with that. But if you want to believe that dissent is okay in one case but not in another, then you’ve go a double standard. As for letting the truth out, you’ve again nailed it that you’re not a skeptic. You just blindly follow anything that is compatible with your dogmatic view of things. I merely suggested skepticism.
The obvious point you miss is how the current administration and the previous one handled dissenting opinions. Depending on who’s in the oval office it seems determines when dissent is “patriotic” or warrants truth squads.
76 / 77, Soundwash & Bobbo, You both need to sit down at a Starbucks and continue on with your metaphysical conversation.
It’s too late in the day to be doing this sort of conversing without a caffeine injection. 🙂
Wow it looks like the traitorous Pfc. Bradley E. Manning smuggles the info through DVD-RWs of Lady Gaga.
http://mediaite.com/online/how-lady-gaga-helped-bradley-manning-leak-military-documents-to-wikileaks/
Lady Gaga? really? I had no idea that the Army had a Studio 54 Division.
It looks like Manning was going to be kicked out of the Army?
http://gawker.com/5568351/is-wikileaker-bradley-manning-pre+transition-transgendered
Guyver==well done. I gave your post a quick read and was amused how closely in form our arguments/attitudes/recognitions are. To different ends, but the process is similar. Course, my earlier quick read of your post turned out on a closer read to be not so great. Lets see about this one? I also want to make sure I agree with a fault of mine you found that I wasn’t fair with.
1. “I’m telling you what Black Ops is from the military perspective.” /// Is this a military blog? Are we in the military? Did the subject come up in a military context?===the answer is “NO” to these questions. You are actually making the classical logic fallacy of the undistributed middle. I agree Black Ops are not black because they are convert, but if they are not convert, they are not Black Ops. Work on it.
2. “no such demands were made of Clinton over similar situations.” /// What country did Clinton invade and occupy with ground troops all to the long term economic harm to the USA?
3 “The point is, you were talking about how patriotism is wrapped around lies and tied that in with Bush playing a cowboy.” /// Patriotism is used by scoundrels of all stripes. I care so little about partisan politics I’ll leave it to your fevered imagination such a distinction without merit was attempted by myself.
4. Yes, my statement that WAR was a way to settle military conflicts needed an editor. We think with words and flower with ideas, and my idea was lacking a few petals. But you admit you actually understood my point yet you want to make an issue out of it. Again–rhetoric, or cheap shot meant to confuse rather than elucidate. In fact, your question was also fatally vague which is why it took repetition to get it noticed. You asked: What is my definition of “military conflict” when what you could have more cogently asked was: “Say, bobbo: in context isn’t WAR and military conflict the same thing? Can you add a few words that you obviously left out so we both know what you are trying to say?” And leaving a few words out in haste is certainly not oxymoronic.
5. “Police action is not war.” /// Stupid.
6. “Asymmetric warfare is a fighting style.” /// More dithering at the edges. I started with a core definition and then moved to the periphery to be inclusive. Silly to quibble such a point.
So, once again: quick reivew, I’m impressed. Spend more time, back to the status quo. I think this means I want to be challenged, to be shown wrong, to learn from the exchange, but its just not happening.
I do however maintain high hopes.
82, Bobbo,
“Black ops” was brought up in post #58 by me. Yes, I have been in two branches of the military. And yes, I initiated Black Ops in the conventional understanding that Black Ops is military / para-military.
The problem is you don’t understand what makes Black Ops unique. Is being covert a requirement? Yup sure is!
But you don’t understand that this requirement isn’t what makes Black Ops unique / “black”. Otherwise a novice like you would conversely call every covert op a “black” op.
Do you know what a black project is? Something in development (i.e. aircraft) that does not officially exist.
Sorry, you’re letting your ego get in the way of common sense because you’re too preoccupied with how you want to play with your words so you can save face from taking an ignorant posture.
I love how you try to throw in as many caveats as possible to distance what Clinton did. Kosovo comes to mind. But I’m sure you know so much you’ll tell me what I did / didn’t do over there as well.
Clinton went in without soliciting UN approval / consensus and NO ONE said he was a cowboy. Double standard.
I admit that I suspected you of making an “oxymornic” statement. Which is why I asked you to clarify because what you said sounded stupid, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.
The question was direct and you said you had already answered it in post #29 (which you did not). Let’s not try to reinvent history. 🙂
Wow! So instead of conceding the FUBAR that you created, you now want to blame me for your own stupidity because I didn’t expand my 7-word question in post #21 to your 12-word example above? LOL.
Typical Liberal. You can’t take responsibility for your own actions because it’s someone else’s fault.
From a very popular Liberal authority: “Police action in military/security studies and international relations is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.”
http://tinyurl.com/25ppn2w
Please let me know if you need an explanation over how wars are formally declared in the USA or if you need an understanding of what a “military action” is. 🙂
I’m just pointing out the obvious which you seem to be unaware of.
82, Bobbo,
And another clarification, Bush was called a cowboy either immediately before we went into Iraq, or shortly thereafter…. therefore your caveats are pointless.
A double standard was applied. Plain and simple. Please be a little more intellectually honest.
McGuyver–are you having as much fun as we both wish we were? A little too much Soundwash for both of us?
right now, I don’t even actually remember what the Black Ops issue was all about. So let me review: – – – – – – at #58 you said “You also don’t have a news blackout if those forces are doing black ops.” /// Isn’t that wrong? How do you have a black ops if the activity is reported on in the news.
I need you to go real slow on this.
#77 bobbo..
ha! -wonderful innuendo.
nice “quantum’ touch in your prismatic analogue.
tyvm 🙂 -most enjoyable.
I would like to respond in full, however i have things to do and i tend to loiter in thought sometimes for much longer than needed..
*if* i can sum most of it up in a sentence..
Once you achieve mastery of your emotions, the veil starts dropping and the (self evident?) “truths” that have always been in front you begin to reveal themselves quite readily.
(its an awesome, fun-filled journey btw)
—
Same reality, different universe, perhaps?
somehow, i feel i could slip some Buckyball humour into all this, but it escapes me at the moment.. 😮
perhaps, for the better,
—
-as for the whole middle east “invasion complex” -its nothing but a cover for the quest of ancient technologies and the attempt to bury or keep hidden, some rather interesting “truths” about humanity’s origin’s, that were uncovered in some tablets found..maybe a year before we went into Iraq, iirc..
-in other (old) news: Reality *is* what *you* make it..
anyway..gotta go,
cheers!
-s
(lol..i think the above paragraphs are out of order..oh well.)
85, Bobbo,
Due to their very nature of not officially existing, Black Ops / Black Projects can or are “above the law” due to national security reasons. And if you can operate at being “above the law”, just think at what you can be capable of.
A news blackout would be policy the military proactively takes to not allow the media to meddle in their affairs of known / hypothesized operations. Things that are completely unknown because they don’t officially exist won’t register in the public consciousness. No one is reporting it because no one knows it’s around. Does that make it a news blackout? No.
Was the Black Ops / Project singled out by name, location, etc? Does the government acknowledge its existence? It’s quite possible that a reporter mislabels an activity as being “black” because it sounds cooler. Or there is truly a leak.
Soundwash==buckeyballs? Just another carbon form basking in the prism of reality.
Guyver: I said slow, not irrelevantly. I see you dancing around the issue just as you did above and failing to answer a very simple question. Can you have a Black Ops and have it reported on in the press? Of course we can dither as you do and discuss what is NOT RELEVANT as in the news media incorrectly reporting some aspect of a Black Ops and failing to realize what they are reporting on. Thats the outlier.
So what is it? Can’t answer a direct question?
Can’t admit to a misstatement?
It would explain a lot of “our” confusion, if by our, I actually meant Your. Ha, ha.
YOU don’t have the BuckeyBalls to admit what is definitional. Makes anything more subtle impossible. I totally believe you were in Military Intelligence.
88, Bobbo,
Excluding the possibility of an internal leak or complete incompetence, then the answer is no. Why? Because no one will report on something that doesn’t exist. They won’t know what to pursue.
Funny, I thought you asked how you “could have black ops if it is reported”.
The answer was an actual leak or a reporter mislabeling something as “black” ops. Meaning that it really wasn’t “black” ops. See the last two sentences of post #87. Sorry, but you’re being pretty dense today.
Well it would explain your missing the obvious as well as arguing out of ignorance. What you’re trying to argue about isn’t debatable (although you seem to think it is).
The problem lies in that you think you can rationalize any perspective you have and thus conclude you were right all along.
And when it is crystal clear you’re ignorant of the topic and wish to obfuscate things, you simply try to persist only because of what seems to be your ego and not wanting to lose face (even though you already have).
The underlying problem is you are clueless about what makes an operation / organization “black”. There are plenty of covert operations that are not “black”. Therefore, and intelligent person would then ask, so what makes a “black” op unique?
Sorry, but I told you. For whatever reason, you think I’m trying to push an opinion…. but that’s only because you’re ignorant of the topic. As they say, ignorance is bliss. 🙂
bobbo said: Soundwash==buckeyballs? Just another carbon form basking in the prism of reality.
yes yes.. but you see.. what amused my rather odd sense of humour in all of this, was this: If you take a 1nm Carbon60 molecule (a buckyball) and shoot it through a 100nm, diffraction grating it will turn inside-out and become a wave. (anton zeilinger demo’d this in ’99)
so in one sense, it’s the same thing but opposite in nature, -yet still in the same “reality”
-you see, even if not intentional, “the duality of realities” you alluded to with your prismatic example(s) of
you and guyver, was a rather astute observation/example..
of course, ..i find great humour in such things. especially when synchronicity is in play..
(a Prism can be thought as a diffraction grate)
-anyway..now you have more of an idea as to why some *ahem* may think i’m just a clueless rambling nutball. Living life at the fabric level has that effect, i guess..
-s
Guyver–to summarize, you now say you cannot have a Black Ops and have it reported on. IE==it must be COVERT. xxxxxx I have gone back over our discussion on this point and we really have been talking “past” one another. Each of us correct given what we include/exclude as the basis for our review? I emphasized that Black Ops are covert. You emphasized that they are not admitted to and therefore covert? Ha, ha. Doesn’t seem worth the candle even before the thread is finished. Now why is something so simple, so difficult?
I just googled the term for the first time. This is typical: “Black ops” is shorthand for “black operations,” covert or clandestine activities that cannot be linked to the organization that undertakes them. Other definitions include the typical operator is the CIA or military. One includes the idea that “SUCCESSFUL Black Ops are not reported.”
I think we BOTH need to reach for agreement, otherwise we will fritter our time away. Not that we won’t otherwise.