That the Sci Ops, IOU (Information Operation Unit) these are the guys who use psychological warfare against the enemies, were instructed to manipulate Senators and other high ranking officials into providing more troops and resources for the wars in Afghanistan.
Wild, wild story.
"Rolling Stone" and "accurate, balanced journalism" have never met. Of course it's a wild, wild story.
Are these the "Men who stare at goats"? Cause I just saw that movie and it sucked. Except for Jeff Bridges. It was pretty much a reprised role of the Dude, his Dudeness.
^I don't think we made it all the way through before we turned it off.
Duke wrote: "Rolling Stone" and "accurate, balanced journalism" have never met. Of course it's a wild, wild story.
Not saying it is or isn't true, just heard it on the radio this morning and thought I'd pass it along.
But would you really be surprised if that was the case?
z31maniac wrote: But would you really be surprised if that was the case?
Not in the slightest. Were it not for the fact that we have lost our ability to be outraged by the atrocities committed by government, we would in fact be outraged.
Rolling Stone... Where's the eye roll emoticon.
The Sci-Ops is real, but it requires a transmitter and a receiver to work so that story's completely false, even the military knows politicians don't have a brain.
Wait... Rolling Stone can't get music criticism right. How are we going to trust them on actual reporting?
carguy123 wrote: The Sci-Ops is real, but it requires a transmitter and a receiver to work so that story's completely false, even the military knows politicians don't have a brain.
They've been smart enough to become millionaires off our hard work, while our wages have stagnated and buying power has been obliterated by inflation.
They seem to have enough of a brain to take care of themselves whilst pushing us into a deep apathetic pit.
Actually, it's "Psy-Ops", as in Psychological Operations. These are the guys that put together propaganda posters, etc. It is more like using Dale Carnegie to "win friends and influence people" and a PR firm than anything "scientific".
However, even if they are similar to a PR firm in camo, it is poor form to use them on your elected representatives. That's what your staff PR officer and Congressional Liaison Officer are for....
Sounds much more exciting unless you know what their job is- to "shape the battlefield using information operations [read: PR and Propaganda]"
The Rolling Stone article has prompted an investigation: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41753749/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
So, the Army has allegedly used psy-op tactics to garner support for the Afgan theater. Has Rolling Stone been co-opted into the fold of those who oppose it?
Inquiring minds want to know...........
carguy123 wrote: The Sci-Ops is real, but it requires a transmitter and a receiver to work so that story's completely false, even the military knows politicians don't have a brain.
I think you're thinking of something else. Psychological operations isn't psychic operations. They're the propaganda guys.
As for Rolling Stone's reporting, bear in mind they recently did a report called "The Runaway General" that ended in General McChrystal resigning.
These are not the psy-ops stories you are looking for. Move along now.
oldsaw wrote: So, the Army has allegedly used psy-op tactics to garner support for the Afgan theater. Has Rolling Stone been co-opted into the fold of those who oppose it?
I haven't read the article, but I believe the accusation is that psychological operations were used on American citizens, namely these Senators, in an effort to secure more funding. I think the heart of the issue is the ethical question of using techniques on our leaders that were developed for use on our enemies.
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
You're right on both issues. I simply floated the question regarding Rolling Stone's motives.
oldsaw wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: You're right on both issues. I simply floated the question regarding Rolling Stone's motives.
Indeed. They seem to have a lot of interest in "uncovering" unflattering stories about our Military. Seems someone there has an agenda.
This thread made me think of a great old movie.
Mrs. Iselin: It has been decided that you will be dressed as a priest, to help you get away in the pandemonium afterwards. Chunjin will give you a two-piece Soviet Army sniper's rifle that fits nicely into a special bag. There's a spotlight booth that won't be in use. It's up under the roof on the Eighth Avenue side of the Garden. You will have absolutely clear, protected shooting. You are to shoot the presidential nominee through the head. And Johnny will rise gallantly to his feet and lift Ben Arthur's body in his arms, stand in front of the microphones and begin to speak. The speech is short. But it's the most rousing speech I've ever read. It's been worked on, here and in Russia, on and off, for over eight years. I shall force someone to take the body away from him and Johnny will really hit those microphones and those cameras with blood all over him, fighting off anyone who tries to help him, defending America even if it means his own death, rallying a nation of television viewers to hysteria, to sweep us up into the White House with powers that will make martial law seem like anarchy! Now, this is very important. I want the nominee to be dead two minutes after he begins his acceptance speech - depending on his reading time under pressure. You are to hit him right at the point that he finishes the phrase, "Nor would I ask of any fellow American in defense of his freedom that which I would not gladly give myself - my life before my liberty." Is that absolutely clear?
fast_eddie_72 wrote:oldsaw wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: You're right on both issues. I simply floated the question regarding Rolling Stone's motives.Indeed. They seem to have a lot of interest in "uncovering" unflattering stories about our Military. Seems someone there has an agenda.
Fair questions, indeed. Of course, if this sort of thing is going on, I want to know about it. It's a Big Deal, and is still a big deal even if Rolling Stone is picking on them.
This may be an upside of journalism's descent into the fight for eyes and ears: I think the most likely "agenda" is readership, and thus ad sales. Which is of course no excuse for sensationalism, but it's hard to see how else Rolling Stone benefits from specializing in the military aside from getting a lot of bang for the buck in terms of stories for amount of research.
I'm curious to find out who else picks this up and to what extent it's corroborated. Ideally from a more neutral source than Rolling Stone (to the extent that there are any neutral news outlets)...
You'll need to log in to post.
