The monster of atomic war is upon us, again...

[next to nothing]

Did we mention yet that Monsanto just bought the company formerly known as Blackwater?

Any sources regarding this? Or are we talking about the Nation article from 2010?

[next to nothing]

Oh and by the way here is some happy reading, maybe a bit off topic but atleast there are some Heartland-confirmed sources here. One document (Climate Strategy) is claimed by heartland as being forged.

Interesting read indeed.

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-ins ... d-strategy

PS: If the document they claim being forged turns out to be proven real, i find this part of it very amusing:

"
Development of our "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms" project.
Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are
considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are
pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12
schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the
U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will
focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and
uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We
tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by
the Anonymous Donor"

[garyb]

[garyb]

Did we mention yet that Monsanto just bought the company formerly known as Blackwater?

Any sources regarding this? Or are we talking about the Nation article from 2010?

don't think it's possible for the world's premier private army/soldier-for-hire company to be bought by Monsanto? perhaps you thought that Blackwater is a government agency? companies are bought and sold all the time and this is a pretty useful one. in a limited battlefield, and short of using nukes, no army is likely to stand up to those guys. heck, the USA government hires Blackwater and a couple of other mercenary groups for the serious heavy lifting in every hot zone. it sounds like a good pickup for Monsanto. kudos.

[dawman]

Actually they have been contracted by Homeland Security on occasion.
Funny how the supposed Liberals who are arch enemies with the supposed Conservatives always agree on topics that benefit them, or their sponsors.
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Kerry and Pelosi had to sign off on turning a Campaign Donor running from the law into an Ambassador to the Netherlands. Same with the pressuring of Banks to lend money, while Deutsch Bank depleted American home equity during this Ameriquest Collusion.
The elites all seem to agree on these issues.
I guess those scripts they struggle reading for the Cameras are written by their real bosses ober at the Fed.
Now these " warring " factions agree on the NDAA laws, and this means Xe or the military can lock up any American citizen....
Obama and all of the elites in DC should start wearing the old King George clothing since they have assumed their old roles....

[next to nothing]

Did we mention yet that Monsanto just bought the company formerly known as Blackwater?

Any sources regarding this? Or are we talking about the Nation article from 2010?

don't think it's possible for the world's premier private army/soldier-for-hire company to be bought by Monsanto? perhaps you thought that Blackwater is a government agency? companies are bought and sold all the time and this is a pretty useful one. in a limited battlefield, and short of using nukes, no army is likely to stand up to those guys. heck, the USA government hires Blackwater and a couple of other mercenary groups for the serious heavy lifting in every hot zone. it sounds like a good pickup for Monsanto. kudos.

No i am not saying they couldn't buy them. I am asking if the statement that they were "just bought" by them refered to the article from 2010, or if there are any new sources.

Surely Xe was sold in early 2011, but i have seen nothing other than speculation as to who has bought them. And as Valis referred to a recent event i was just asking if there was anything new.

The article from 2010, as far as i know, actually referred to Xe being hired by them, if you don't actually believe Mosanto bought Blackwater for little over $200,000.

[next to nothing]

http://redgreenandblue.org/2010/10/16/t ... lackwater/

[garyb]

ahh, ok!

so they just hired Blackwater! that's better!

well, it doesn't make that much difference does it? it's still bad news. almost everything that either of those guys do these days is bad news.

so who DID actually buy Blackwater? Elizabeth II? since it's all speculation, again it can't be good.

[valis]

http://redgreenandblue.org/2010/10/16/t ... lackwater/

No this was separate to the 2010 "rumor" which was first reported as a purchase, then retracted as simply a 'hiring' in 2010. The difference though is that when that 'rumor' occured in 2010, it was only reported by 'fringe blogs' that you can still find on google.

On Feb 14th of this month AP/Reuters was carrying the story "Monsanto purchases company formerly known as Blackwater, Xe" and I saw it on google news, heard it on msnbc & fox news and it was easy to google (I checked that same night). Then when I posted yesterday the google results (news & regular results) were completely devoid of the AP/Reuters stories and I see no fox videos, so by the following day (15th) the retractions seem to have gotten everything pulled. I was at work yesterday and busy, but checking now I only see similar results for 2010 mixed in with 2012 results which would indeed make you think this was another 'rumor' or mistake...except digging yesterday did reveal less mainstream venues (blogs etc) left up the story from the 14th and posted corrections to say 'an undisclosed investor purchased Xe'... so there's even less info 2 days later than there was yesterday.

In fact the only 2012 results I see today in google (there's even less than yesterday) simply refer back to the misreporting in 2010 to explain the current 'error'. To me it just looks like an effective campaign to snowstorm the google results with 'conspiracy' fluff and remove any relevant content. To go from pages of 2012 stories down to 2 (which look eerily similar to the 'false' reports from 2010) is a pretty good feat.

And much like my recollection of "we're going to pull building seven" on not just BBC but also CNN on the morning of 911, I'm positive I saw a full page of google results 2 days ago. But I guess history can be 'corrected'. Do I *know* that Monsanto is the private investor that purchased a majority share? No, certainly not more than you and even if the stories were still up we'd have to agree that it's still 3rd party information that we'd be placing our trust in to 'know it was true'. But to be able to get AP/Reuters content ripped within a day and a half must take some serious pull regardless of who it is, and my guess is it wasn't Disney (another Xe contractee).

[next to nothing]

Sorry to be a bitch but it was first reported (in english) to be "hired", than translated to spanish as being "hired" in La Jornada, then translated back from spanish to english by Pravda to being "purchased". Thats when the roumors arose.

And frankly its not the first time a news duck is being pulled back.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

[next to nothing]

And by the way, not taking into account the political views or anything, I reccomend you to google Lisa Karpova ( the journalist that did the translation "mistake" or just read her other pieces in Pravda. She has a really colorful way of reporting

[valis]

That's in the link I put in my post above yours (as a reference at the end of the article) and again that's the 2010 report...

In any case it's not central to the discussion here, I just posted it up when I was listening to the radio and heard the news at the top of the hour (which is currently provided by Fox and just reads the news off the top of the AP/Reuters wire). We can start a separate discussion on how companies are spending big bucks to keep control of their google results in another thread though, as that seems to be the case here imo.

[next to nothing]

That's in the link I put in my post above yours (as a reference at the end of the article) and again that's the 2010 report...

Yes it is, its just seemed like you didn't read it. I was basically correcting your timeline which was:

No this was separate to the 2010 "rumor" which was first reported as a purchase, then retracted as simply a 'hiring' in 2010. The difference though is that when that 'rumor' occured in 2010, it was only reported by 'fringe blogs' that you can still find on google.

There is a difference since that insinuates it was "first reported as a purchase" which is obviously not the case, but ofcourse is more coherent with the coverup theory. I find it kind of odd how one can just put out a statement without any source, everyone jumps on it, and when when i try to get some sources for it, first i am sort of ridiculed then ofcourse it is more likely that the NWO is hiding the proper info. By the way, is The Nation a fringe blog?

And yes I know Google can be manipulated.

And let me just add one good quote from the same source:
"How do Internet lies get spread? By well-meaning people who pass things on without checking."

[valis]

Well I use 'fringe blogs' in quotes to separate them from 'mainstream corporate media', the latter with which I would include AP/Reuters reports. The quotes were meant to indicate a moderate amount of sarcasm as (here in the US at least) the corporate media treats *anything online* as a 'fringe blog'. And the timeline of my report was posting hearsay that I'd heard over the 'mainstream corporate' news channel.

I hear what you're saying about people defending unsupported statements, however that may be (I hope) because I try to shy away from posting frivolously most of the time. I will say I heard the news report, checked google news and google's main results, and that they now differ from what I see currently. And when I say differ, I mean *drastically* (google news has *nothing* now, where it had pages on that same exact search 2 days ago, I used my browser history to retrieve the search string link and--at least for me--it now shows 3 largely irrelevant links). Still, it's only hearsay so take it with a grain of salt or how you will...

In any case let's return back to the main topic here, I'm really tired and will not put up a good defense right now so unless you need an easy target

[hubird]

...I find it kind of odd how one can just put out a statement without any source, everyone jumps on it, and when when i try to get some sources for it, first i am sort of ridiculed then ofcourse it is more likely that the NWO is hiding the proper info...

exactly.

that's the 'tendency' I was talking about.
Same way like Stardust is treated.
A block of almost antidemocratic nihilists who port a strong failure of their own socio-political culture to the rest of the world.

I'm not looking for a discussion about the content of both views, like the extended contribution of Siriusbliss seems to suggest.
I'm just questioning the way a few members with a rather 'typical' political view seem to claim the truth by tone and harsh attacking.

By the way, please, don't use that word 'sheep' again, and 'herd'. old dusty analogies intended for simple people who are supposed to be analphabetic and need old agricultural images to understand...expressing exactly the 'we know it all and explain it to the unknowing masses' attitude, which is so insulting for people with other political and historical views...

[valis]

The term you're looking for is "mob mentality" otherwise known as "consensus builds truth--reality be damned".

In any case I suggest you draw whatever conclusions you want about my statement since google's version of reality now shows it to be "false" and return to the topic at hand. ;p

[garyb]

"How do Internet lies get spread? By well-meaning people who pass things on without checking."

oh, like the reason the earth is warming is human generated CO2, or that polar bears are dying or that the IRS and Federal Reserve are part of the government or that it's in everyone's interest to have a bogus currency and then it immediately tanks so that 700 billion of that currency's units need to be borrowed from an organization that made the currency from nothing and that it's a good idea to make all the participating governments and their people responsible for any portion of that within 7 days and the initial 700billion can be added to without limits at any time. like those kinds of fictions. like that it's cheaper for everyone to pay INSURANCE for healthcare so that everyone pays a small amount and can get tons of coverage and that will make it cheaper for everyone, even though everyone at every stage is making a profit. like those kinds of fictions. like it's only whackos who don't want flouride, one of the most toxic compounds known to man, in their toothpaste since, even though it's sodium flouride not stannous flouride, any flouride is great to put in children's mouths. like the fiction that a world money system requires world regulators and that the UN is only trying to make peace, even though every major conflict since WW2 has been a UN action...yep there's a lot of false reality easily believed in and there are these brilliant people who immediately know that difference. yep, like that fiction.

but we digress.
thank God, there's no major purge of human life through warfare in Iran yet.

[next to nothing]

Thank you for proving my point.

[valis]

Well I can think of other reasons for the reports appearing & disappearing besides just ones that 'prove your point' or that of my original post. I mean besides the obvious psyop/disinfo sort of thing that would appeal to a conspiracy minded fellow, or the 'accidental repeating of paranoid misinformation' that stands to counder that point. Tracking the spread of information then seeking to scrub the evidence would make a fun mini war game for the tech info minded, for instance. I can think of several more less sinister reasons too, but you have to admit given the companies involved it's less of a stretch to consider views that depart from the norm than it would be normally.

After considering previous posts about 'undisclosed' persons and those present using them as supporting evidence, I don't perceive the malady is expression of bilious opinions here, rather it's the fencing off of ontological territories and standing firm page after page. I honestly don't Planetz's OT forum any more or less prone to this than many forums are in the On Topic areas, But to its credit it at least is less present elsewhere here outside of the OT area. Also I think that carrying a grudge from a discussion like this into other areas of these forums shows poor form, and just creates more fences.

I think we've come past the nascent point of this shared online experience some time ago and the cracks in our human experience are showing just as they do in other areas we inhabit for a while. The typical arc of progress from novelty to the repetitive to that which is long past its time...

And for many I think the same applies to this subject, it's not novel and it's not happy. However the idea that we're on track for another potential summer infarction in the human body collective seems to have come up the last few years in a row. And here we are again with the chest thumping and references to "just you wait until it's warm!" To think that this only serves one function or fits one perception (whether it's paranoid or pedantic) or even just two points of view is silly imo.

[next to nothing]

Valis, my point is this: If I, for example was to reply to Gary, on his claim that every major conflict after wwII has been a UN action, "Can you please explain how the Vietnam War or the latest Jugoslavia/Kosovo war was a UN action?" I know the reply would be "yeah i they want you to think they opposed it and officially said so, but it was all just theatre." and then go on to explain how he is forced by the NWO to use a certain toothpaste or he will be shot, how can I reply to that?

If you have a look at the bottom of page 13, i posted one post shining some light on how some of the "anti-climatechange" (in this case Heartland) operates, including sources that are actually confirmed by heartland themselves. Amongst other things it shows the money track behind some particular "Freedom to choose" medicine issues, new compendiums for K-12 classes to give a more "correct" view of science etc. The only reply I have had is a single " ". I asked you for sources and got a clear explaination on how naive i was. And since the whole thing was basically a misinterpretation i cleared that up as well, then getting the usual "oh maybe its not correct but it doesn't matter" speech. And lo and behold, when i pointed out that i prefer facts rather than ifs and buts i get the whole thing over again.

I have no problem seeing huge companies being assholes, Monsanto in particular, and i am not defending any of them. But i like to have my arguments solidly funded rather than the opposite, and i know when to back down when I am wrong, which of course will never happen with certain people. And i am not referring to You in particular, just to point that out.

Peace.