first off, let me echo simons sentiments. melbourne, i do applaud your INTENT on this issue. your choice of material may have been misguided but everyone makes a mistake from time to time and it happens. i dont believe you were intentionally trying to provide misinformation

lol and the article did give me a great laugh on a bad day.

my issue with this thread is it outlines a trend ive seen here on ats for some time. maybe not even a trend so much as an actual SOP.

that being that people will vilify the mainstream media as "government owned disinfo agents" and so forth but jump ALL over ANY little snippet that supports their own preconcieved notions. im not picking on melbourne in this case per se but it does illustrate my point. and its not just the media. i see it in many cases. i had tried my best to provide verifiable information on demolitions in a 9-11 thread once (well many times but this one in particular) and because my OPINION i had presented which i based on my own training and experience differed from a particular member, i was confronted about my credibility. people want 'experts' but when an 'expert' (and trust me, i do qualify in the field of military explosives and their use, chem/bio weapons and to a lesser degree nuclear weapons) disagrees with them, they freak. nevermind that everything i posted was factual and verifiable so that even if i WAS lying about my credentials it didnt matter as the facts wouldnt have changed...i got lambasted for my differing opinion. i asked a very direct question then. "would you be calling my credibility into question if i agreed with you?" to which i got a very suprisingly honest answer when he said "ya know, im not sure..." which i thought was very big of him to admit that much.

i guess the piont im trying to make is this. what is the standard for what we accept as evidence? (remmebering that evidence of anythign does not always equal proof ) and i dont mean just with the media though this thread to me is a great example of what im saying. what is the standard?

personally, i think it should be based in fact and if said facts are contrary to your (and my) opinions then we should reevaluate our opinions.

thats just me.

melbourne, again i mean no disrespect adn didnt intend to single you out. i DO applaud your intent on this and honestly wish more americans were as worried about our liberty as you genuinly appear to be. even though your article was bogus, or at least really appears to be, you were big enough to admit it could be bogus and didnt feel the need to defend a misinformed point. that takes balls, and i do admire that. im goint to hit you with a WAT for your character. cheers

You have voted Melbourne_Militia for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Damocles]

the recent DC ( + other cities) War Protests were pre-planned and were allowed/authorized by the gov't, such gatherings operate thru a parade permit.

so, maybe that's why arrests & attacks didn't happen in this case,
and now results in the general poo-poohing of the source article.

i could readily believe the essence of the story, and expect that scenario in the future....its only a catalist event that's needed to trigger this presently undisclosed response to protestors tactic.

remember, nobody seen the head busting & mass jailings in the wake of the Chicago democrat convention

remember, nobody suspected such a use of force, that happened at the Kent State tragedy

i suspect that undercover agents are busy taking photos for the facial-recognition software, during these 'allowed' protests,
to make dossiers on the radical, unamerican, activists/terrorists which TPTB have targeted for a future 'Dragnet' operation
~imho~


i for one, try to keep all sources 'on-the-table' without automatically tossing out the info as BS or sensationalism...the artice may not be on my A or B list, but it's still filed in some corner of my mental library,
thanks, for the OP

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
I think she's sending a message to Bulgarians to beware and watch for buildups:

Sorcha is not Russian, nor is she female. The author is actually an American conspiracy theorist wannabe named David Booth who has a zero percent acuracy rate. Everything he has ever claimed using that pen name has turned out false/wrong.

I can't believe this thread is still running. It's already been proven to be a bad hoax and the author is a nut. Whatever ....

There is no such person as Sorcha Faal in my opinion.

Sorcha Faal = Such A Fool

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Russian disinformation agents forgot that we have a real free press.
This is a HOAX. A poor hoax at that.

“There is no such thing in America as an independent press, unless it is in the country towns. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write his honest opinion, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid one hundred and fifty dollars a week for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with–others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things–and any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. The business of the New York journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his race and his country for his daily bread. You know this and I know it, and what folly is this to be toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. They pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” - John Swinton, editor, New York Tribune, 1880