Military Uses Networks to Spread Misinformation

[ASsman]

(In related news, American News outlets stanby while they are breast-fed Misinformation)

The U.S. military is reportedly distributing misinformation to the media as part of a campaign of psychological operations. The Los Angeles Times uncovered how the military sent spokespersons to major news networks to deliberately lie about military operations in Iraq in an effort to deceive the Iraqi resistance. We speak with retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. The U.S. military is reportedly distributing misinformation to the media as part of a campaign of psychological operations. This according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. The paper has uncovered incidents where the military has sent spokespersons to major news networks to deliberately lie about military operations in Iraq in an effort to deceive the Iraqi resistance.

In one case, on Oct. 14, a Marine spokesperson appeared on CNN from Fallujah and said "Troops crossed the line of departure." CNN was soon reporting the battle for Fallujah had begun. In fact it wouldn't begin for another three weeks.

A senior Pentagon official told CNN that Gilbert's remarks were "technically true but misleading." It was an attempt to get CNN "to report something not true," the official said. The military claimed it wanted to see how Iraqi fighters responded to the so-called news report.

Several top officials told the LA Times that they see a danger of blurring what are supposed to be well-defined lines between the stated mission of military public affairs and psychological and information operations. One senior defense official told the paper "The movement of information has gone from the public affairs world to the psychological operations world. What's at stake is the credibility of people in uniform."

* Col. Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force Colonel. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, AirWar College and Naval War College.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../12/02/1513248
(waiting on transcript)

[Qdrop]

sounds like a sound expirement to me.

they want to see if the Iraq resistance is using up-to-the-moment american cable news reports to plan their defenses.

if so, the military needs to be weary of this and react accordingly.

[100% ILL]

It is an excellent strategy,certainly not a new one.

[Whois]

First rule of journalism - All governments lie.

[ASsman]

Pff, who told you that? The Government? ... haha!

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

It is an excellent strategy,certainly not a new one.

A strategy which misinforms the vast majority of the US public. Thus it is an "excellent strategy" akin to nuking Iraq flat, US soldiers and all.

Also a strategy used by "Pravda" [truth] the Commie propoganda news letter. US again stealing ideas.

[Echewta]

I see nothing wrong with that. Up to the journalist to prove it true.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by Echewta

I see nothing wrong with that. Up to the journalist to prove it true.

They can't. The US bombs anyone who isn't being spoonfed their info by the US military, and often those who are too.

[100% ILL]

Originally Posted by Ace42

A strategy which misinforms the vast majority of the US public. Thus it is an "excellent strategy" akin to nuking Iraq flat, US soldiers and all.

Also a strategy used by "Pravda" [truth] the Commie propoganda news letter. US again stealing ideas.

It is unimportant where the idea came from, only that it is used effectively. It's not misinformation if you admit it later with an explanation, such as to determine how the insurgents are getting information so we can exploit it and achieve victory.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

It is unimportant where the idea came from, only if it is used effectively.

Apply that to genocide.

It's not misinformation if you admit it later

Like a month after an election? Or ten years after an illegal war? Or a lifetime after you are responsible for murdering 100,000 people for oil?

[100% ILL]

Originally Posted by Ace42

Apply that to genocide.

Like a month after an election? Or ten years after an illegal war? Or a lifetime after you are responsible for murdering 100,000 people for oil?

We weren't talking of genocide. Strategy is important in any military operation and victory is the ultimate goal. It was a simple diversion.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

We weren't talking of genocide. Strategy is important in any military operation and victory is the ultimate goal. It was a simple diversion.

A diversion based on American soil which effected many more american citizens than insurgents. By that argument, burning piles of innocent US civilians would be a "valid tactic" due to its divisionary capabilities.

"Hyuck, we mortared our own base flat to lull them into a false sense of security"

Pshaw.

[100% ILL]

Originally Posted by Ace42

A diversion based on American soil which effected many more american citizens than insurgents. By that argument, burning piles of innocent US civilians would be a "valid tactic" due to its divisionary capabilities.

"Hyuck, we mortared our own base flat to lull them into a false sense of security"

Pshaw.

I admit you made me chuckle on this one. The "effect" on american citizens was minimal at best. No one was hurt. Mortaring your own base is a little extreme. The military cannot effectively launch a surprise attack if it's splattered all over the news. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to achieve the desired result.........not genocide by the way.

[ASsman]

It's not misinformation if you admit it later with an explanation

So it's not a lie if I tell the truth afterward.... That makes as much sense as "Jews for Jesus".


mis·in·form Audio pronunciation of "misinformation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (msn-fôrm)
tr.v. mis·in·formed, mis·in·form·ing, mis·in·forms

To provide with incorrect information.


Says nothing of this definition becoming null and void once the correct information is provided.

Also, OF COURSE CORRECT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED... How else would you know it was misinformation... God.

The military cannot effectively launch a surprise attack if it's splattered all over the news.

Or commit war crimes. Effectively.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

I admit you made me chuckle on this one. The "effect" on american citizens was minimal at best. No one was hurt. Mortaring your own base is a little extreme. The military cannot effectively launch a surprise attack if it's splattered all over the news. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to achieve the desired result.........not genocide by the way.

"No-one was hurt" - Well, thousands of innocent people in Fallujah were hurt, but aside from this the US public, any of them who were watching CNN, were hurt.

Being lied to by your news sources is a great offence. It is like the government saying "Oh, we didn't think it was in your best interests to tell you who actually won the election."

Secrecy, and lying to the public are two very different things. How can you trust a word the US army (and by extension, and news article released by the US army, especially those aired on CNN) says again?

"We went into Falljuah today"
"We didn't use illegal weapons."

Why think they would lie about one but not the other? Particularly considering the much higher gravity related to the latter.

All this does is prove that the US army are perjurors, and that you cannot trust a damned thing they say. Not exactly a surprise to most of us, but I am sure there are many posters here who still believe that if the US army released a news article, it is God's own truth.

[100% ILL]

[quote=ASsman]So it's not a lie if I tell the truth afterward.... That makes as much sense as "Jews for Jesus".


Diversion- an attack or feint that draws the attention and force ofa an enemy from the point of principal operation. To Deviate



to tell CNN we're attacking tomorrow and then you don't do it. How could they?

[ASsman]

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: We are joined on the phone by Colonel Sam Gardiner. He's a retired Air Force colonel. He's taught strategy and military operations at National Air War College and Naval War College. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

SAM GARDINER: Good morning, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response to this latest report?

SAM GARDINER: Well it's actually more of the same. Interesting to me that people would pick up on this right now because it was so pervasive before and during Gulf 2. This is just a small incident compared to what we have seen before. The real distinction, however, is in the past, most of these falsehoods, psychological operations, strategic communications, themes came from civilians. This is one of the first times when a military officer has actually and visibly crossed the line. And that's a big deal because the military is the only profession I know where lying is a criminal offense. In the uniform code of military justice, it is a court martial offense for an officer to tell a lie. And frankly, this lieutenant who talked to CNN is subjected himself to potential court martial.

AMY GOODMAN: Last night, watching FOX, the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich basically said whatever it takes to protect our troops.

SAM GARDINER: But Amy, we are supposed to be protecting democracy. The troops have taken an oath to protect democracy. And if we destroy democracy to protect the troops, something's gone terribly wrong. I think--I couldn't disagree more with Newt Gingrich. The other part of that, Amy, is as a former officer, this just is sort of goes to my essence. And that's the notion that an officer's word is his bond. Whether he is speaking to the troops, to other officers, or in public. When we cross the line, when you begin to not be able to trust the word of an officer, we have begun to destroy the military from within.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain this idea of psy-ops, psychological operations, how it's used abroad and what's happening now at home?

SAM GARDINER: Well, Amy, this has a very long tradition in the U.S. Military and in militaries in the world which is the notion that you use bad information or distorted information to target the enemy. Up until probably about 15 years ago, that notion was meant that it would be done on the battlefield. It became a growing idea within the military of a thing called information warfare which was sort of the concept that you would bring it outside the battlefield. And what's happened, and this is what's so serious, is that it has now been taken into the public airways and we can't tell whether or not we are getting the truth from the military or psychological operations. And I have to say frankly, I think, and again I would very strongly disagree with Newt Gingrich, because you don't have to--let's say that this is a valid notion, we wanted the bad guys in Fallujah to think we were coming early. That doesn't have to permeate and distort the worldwide media for that message to get across. That's the kind of thing that you deliver locally. They aren't communicating with the world. If you want to do it by attacks, if you want to do it, by leaflets, that's fine. But don't put it on CNN for all of us to hear.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think should happen right now about this information? I mean, the military at least in this report, being quite clear about what they are doing. That psychological operations is their new approach here at home and abroad. Or not their new approach, as you have pointed out in your own report on the analysis of stories that came out of Iraq from the military that were simply psy-ops, not true, going right to Jessica Lynch.

SAM GARDINER: I think the U.S. military ought not to be allowed to tell other than the truth to the media. The military has no business being in the strategic communications deception business. Let me just give you an example of what ought not to happen. There is, from the special operations command in Florida, an ad on the web right now for P.R. Firms to come and bid a proposal, do government work, so that they can do media operations that have a psychological dimension that, and I will quote the document, to be broadcast worldwide. Amy, the military ought not to do that. You know, this is the kind of thing that politicians do and in fact that was the way the administration controlled the message in the war was to send politicians down to do it. But when the guys in uniform begin to tell untruths, we have problems.

AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Sam Gardiner, I want to thank you for being with us. Colonel Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force colonel. Thank you very much.

[ASsman]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

to tell CNN we're attacking tomorrow and then you don't do it. How could they?

....... So it's ok as long as it's justified. Wait don't they lie becuase they have something to gain from it... So it their eyes it's always justified. So it's fine, nice job.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

Diversion- an attack or feint that draws the attention and force ofa an enemy from the point of principal operation. To Deviate

to tell CNN we're attacking tomorrow and then you don't do it. How could they?

Except that by saying "We are going to attack Fallujah tomorrow" will draw the attention to fallujah. Which they then attacked, 3 weeks after tell the enemy that.

Great feint! I would've been totally dummied. What with being told a military operation was on the way, and then a little later than expected it came. Wow, boy. Shure caught me off guard. I mean here we are, knowing that the enemy are coming to our only stronghold, and then they are a bit late. Doh, and we sent all of our guys to the beach!

If only I had been in the US psy-ops corps, I would've KNOWN that If an enemy doesn't turn up on the exact day their news (that no insurgents were watching) says so, you DON'T THROW A PARTY!

Feh. Not exactly tricksy, is it?

[infidel]

It's going a bit further than denying the insurgence intelligence, they're also altering the news to save face.
How many of you knew that as of today Baghdad is an isolated city, that the insurgents control all the roads in and out except for the dangerous airport road?
US media says nothing but the Arab media is awash with it today.

[Jasonik]

I think it was pretty nice of our military to give civilians 3 weeks to flee before we actually attacked.

[ASsman]

Off-topic.

[ASsman]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

I admit you made me chuckle on this one. The "effect" on american citizens was minimal at best. No one was hurt. Mortaring your own base is a little extreme. The military cannot effectively launch a surprise attack if it's splattered all over the news. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to achieve the desired result.........not genocide by the way.

Emebedded reporters are under a tight leash, it's not that hard to keep things a secret from them. All other reporters are banned from certain areas unless embedded .. etc.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by Jasonik

I think it was pretty nice of our military to give civilians 3 weeks to flee before we actually attacked.

Or 3 weeks to go back in, if 100% Ill's case is to be believed and the deception actually worked. And that the insurgents were watching.

[Qdrop]

Holy fucking chist.....

what a strawman.....

ace and ass are so fuckin off base......
i don't think i have ever seen such a blatant attempt to twist an event into something it's not.....
what polititians.....


did anyone notice how ace jumped to "nuking" and "genocide" in like 2 posts?

the fuck is that?

the american military is checking to see how dependant the enemy is on american newsreports for military stategy.....and suddenly (according to ace) we on par with Hitler.

what a fucking idiot.

the public does not have a right to know everything immediantly, if it's at the expense of military stategy.....
a line must be drawn. .......

[100% ILL]

Originally Posted by Ace42

Or 3 weeks to go back in, if 100% Ill's case is to be believed and the deception actually worked. And that the insurgents were watching.

Okay, okay, I am not unreasonable, the transcript Assman provided was insiteful, and I will admit that annnouncing false information on international news was not the thing to do. They most likely could have achieved the same goal by broadcasting locally. I concede that the military is not justified in their actions.
I do get the impression Ace that at this point in time you have anti- American sentiments and your sympathies lie with whomever is against us. I don't fully understand why you think the insurgents are right or better.

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

I do get the impression Ace that at this point in time you have anti- American sentiments and your sympathies lie with whomever is against us. I don't fully understand why you think the insurgents are right or better.

that's Ace in a nutshell......you should realize that by now.

Ace would take the side Hitler, if he was alive and attacking the U.S.

[100% ILL]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

that's Ace in a nutshell......you should realize that by now.

Ace would take the side Hitler, if he was alive and attacking the U.S.

Ace is often, if not always highly critical of the U.S. I do not take it personally, because he's not an American;but Assman and several others are and they hold the same view. I have a harder time understanding their anti-American sentiments. They enjoy our freedoms and way of life and yet they continually bad-mouth our country.

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by 100% ILL

They enjoy our freedoms and way of life and yet they continually bad-mouth our country.

yes.....that's called hyp-oc-racy.....



a true patriot questions.....i believe that.
a true patriot should look for change within there borders.....i believe that too.
but a true patrtiot should never forget were they come from.....and who feeds them.

you can hate your parents......but they are still you parents...and you better have their back when it comes down to it.
blood is thicker than blasphemy....

they suck on their mother's tit....while they slash at her belly.

[100% ILL]

I know you do not agree with Biblical principles, but your statement reminded me of a verse in Proverbs 11:9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor. Seems to hold some validity in this instance.