Wildfires As A Weapon: US Military Exposed
(www.geoengineeringwatch.org)
Comments (8)
sorted by:
And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.
Subscription required. Nothing is exposed, except the obvious: forest fires can be dangerous, resource-depleting, and as easy to start as a dropped match. I learned all I needed to know about this from Smokey the Bear.
here you go again, but this time you sound either really stupid, or intentionally trying to get people not to read the article. I hope it's the former.
there's no subscription required for geoengineeringwatch.org.
you clearly did not read or watch the report. you just can't absorb any information that might conflict with your program, that it?
Smokey the Bear would be aghast at what is described in the declassified US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service report from 1970. here's the PDF:
FOREST FIRE AS A MILITARY WEAPON
It is profoundly old news. Are you not familiar with the firebombing campaign against German cities (most notably Hamburg and Dresden) and against Japanese cities (most notably Tokyo) in World War II? Are you not familiar with the Japanese program to send incendiary bombs adrift eastward by balloons, to ignite fires in the forests of America's Pacific Coast? Those of us who live in states subject to forest fires are more than aware of their threat to life and property. I would be amazed if there had been no studies of the subject---but there are no surprise answers. All it takes is a match...and maybe some gasoline. Even after my comment, you do not offer even a sentence of news.
What program? Forest fires are bad to terrible. Do you disagree? They are also simple to create. Do you disagree? You act like you've discovered something new. I'm sure it was known even to the Romans, who invented salting the Earth as a way to clinch a victory over an enemy.
discovered something new. that's funny. it's a practice among anons to compile documents that verify information we've gathered and corroborated in other ways. why? 40,000 ft view. long term strategies observed as plans are carried out. you new at this?
you assume, based on the title, that you know what is in the report. you guessed wrong. this is the same tactic you've used before. rather than read or listen to the summary, you ask me explain it to you. why? if you're not interested, ignore it. but to refute it you'll have to know what's in it. why do you prefer making so many straw man arguments instead? it would take less time to learn.
I've written more technical reports than I can count (over 400), so I know something about reports. Any report can be summarized in a sentence or two, by anyone who understands the report. It might be a crude summary, but it is possible. (A sentence or two does not have to be an explanation: "This report considers the existence of luminous flying squirrels and outlines a method of using them as camp illumination." No explanation needed.)
More importantly, I don't think there is anything in that report that I didn't summarize myself. You certainly are not saying so---you sound more like someone who hasn't read the report either, relying on mystical authority to cow me into wasting my time on it, instead of giving me a key insight that would make the difference. Forest fires are bad. All you need is a match. (To use a phrase I otherwise dislike, Prove me wrong.)
You do this every credible post about geoengineering. You must be in the industry.
If you mean I know what I am talking about from a professional standpoint, you would be correct.