Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
|
A whistle-blower website has published what it says are more than 90,000 United States military and diplomatic reports about Afghanistan filed between 2004 and January of this year.
The first-hand accounts are the military’s own raw data on the war, including numbers killed, casualties, threat reports and the like, according to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.org, which published the material Sunday.
Here’s the link. When I prepared this post, last night, their servers were pretty much swamped.
“It is the total history of the Afghan war from 2004 to 2010, with some important exceptions — U.S. Special Forces, CIA activity and most of the activity of other non-U.S. groups,” Assange said…
The significance lies in “all of these people being killed in the small events that we haven’t heard about that numerically eclipse the big casualty events. It’s the boy killed by a shell that missed a target,” he told CNN.
“What we haven’t seen previously is all those individual deaths,” he said. “We’ve seen just the number and like Stalin said, ‘One man’s death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic.’ So, we’ve seen the statistic.”
The website held back about 15,000 documents from Afghanistan to protect individuals who informed on the Taliban, he said.
The easier it becomes to collect data, the easier it is to lose control of it.
91, Bobbo,
For someone who thinks he’s pretty smart, you can be dumber than a box of rocks. LOL.
I CLEARLY stated in post #83: “The problem is you don’t understand what makes Black Ops unique. Is being covert a requirement? Yup sure is!
But you don’t understand that this requirement isn’t what makes Black Ops unique / “black”. Otherwise a novice like you would conversely call every covert op a “black” op.”
We’re not really talking past each other. You’re letting your ego get the best of you and you cannot accept the military answer.
I’ve CLEARLY explained to you why Black Ops is unique from Covert Ops (from the military point of view). Sorry to burst your bubble, but the “black” is NOT in reference to “covert” as you wish to maintain. Otherwise, your logic would insist every covert op is a black op which is utterly stupid (using your logic).
But I understand you want to argue in the context of the world according to Bobbo. 🙂
Your problem is you don’t know the difference between a requirement and uniqueness.
My basis is military experience on the matter. Your basis is polemics.
“Covert” is a requirement for Black Ops. They get their shadowy name due to their uniqueness.
The only way I can see you being remotely correct is if you are talking about non-military “black” ops.
Ever heard of Bobbo Force Five? What?!?!?! You haven’t? If such a black op unit existed, who’s going to report it? If no one decides to report it, does that mean the military did a news black out?
Don’t be so stupid. I know you’re capable of more, you just happened to be caught talking out of your ass and you’re trying to maintain some semblance of “intellectualism” (even though you have a different version than how the military sees it).
Way to go Master of the Obvious! It’s a shame you needed a dictionary to understand what “Ops” stood for. You really are ignorant of the topic aren’t you? Now that you’ve demonstrated you’re capable of using a dictionary to get a generic description, what is the U.S. Military’s / Government’s take on it? Answer is what I’ve already been telling you.
From a Liberal Fav (
http://tinyurl.com/63bm6t ): “Black ops missions often fit into the deniable category, a situation in which there is no claim of responsibility for the action, and/or a false flag operation is used to give the appearance that another actor was responsible, or – most often – black operations involve extensive arrangements so as to be able to hide the fact that the black operation ever occurred. Black military operations, or paramilitary operations, can be used by various secret services to achieve or attempt to achieve an unusually sensitive goal. The methods used in black operations are also used in unconventional warfare. Depending on the precise situation in a given case, and the level of authoritarianism of the national government or other responsible party, some tasks will be conducted as black operations, while there are usually other activities that can be admitted openly. Black operations may include such things as assassination, sabotage, extortion, spying on allied countries or one’s own citizens, kidnapping, supporting resistance movements, torture, use of fraud to obtain funds, use of child soldiers, human experimentation, trafficking in contraband items, false flag bombing, etc.”
But wait! It gets better. There’s a civilian use for the term black ops.
“In business, any high-risk assignment proposed and funded by the employee using his own time on company equipment with the manager’s consent and understanding that the company owns the results, is also referred to as a black operation, because no entries exist for said project in the company’s task planning or scheduling.”
Wow!!!! No entries exist for said project…. sorta like when I said it doesn’t officially exist.
And you mentioned this because you wanted to validate my stating in what ways it was possible for Black Ops to be reported? LOL.
In Post #89 I clearly stated:
Is English a second language for you? 🙂
I have no problem with you using polemics to defend your case (so long as you’re not speaking about U.S. Government / Military black ops). It’s quite possible other governments or foreign military have a different use for the phrase. Otherwise, you’re just arguing out of ignorance.
The bottom line is “covertness” does not make Black Ops unique. THEREFORE the “black” has no logical link to “covert”. Not officially existing is the reason why you have shadow organizations / programs / operations. It’s why they’re called black. If you can understand that, then you’ll realize that Black Ops differ from Covert Ops in that they do not OFFICIALLY exist.
Still needling me with the Polemics huh? Well, let me go look that one up too. ******
polemics: 1 a : an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another b : the art or practice of disputation or controversy ((bobbonote: with an emphasis on Religious Dispute in many other cites))
and what I prefer:
rhetoric: 1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : discourse
More overlap there than I recall. My recollection being more of the religious bent. Funny I avoid posting the definitions that emphasized the religious because it was too easy. I can’t express exactly why, but I prefer rhetoric as it goes to trying to win an argument by arguing about the words used and not used. Polemics (to me) has a more general application having to do with “standardized ritual” that focuses on broader accepted language that is not argued about. It could be just me.
I was making a close association between black and “keeping it a secret” which equated to covert. I don’t see why a subcategory of this arising out of military ops or of being not officially recognized is so controlling for you. Clearly, since black ops take place in military and civilian contexts, its not “unique” as you overemphasize.
I am getting more of a feel for our dance though. Your use of words is self referential. Putting too much emphasis on one of several characteristics thereby diminishing those characteristics that don’t fit your fancy.
We both agree being covert is a necessary element of a black ops. You argue it is not sufficient. You say: “Otherwise, your logic would insist every covert op is a black op which is utterly stupid (using your logic).” Ha,ha==yes pretty close. By definition an operation admitted to is no longer covert? So, another distinction without a difference: the deniability of a secret clandestine operation?
Interesting because I do love words. But a bit dithering.
94, Bobbo,
All in the context of military black ops. Therefore I corrected your misunderstanding. You tried to school an ex-military guy who worked closely in that field. Your mistake not mine.
You took it as though I was providing an opinion because you seem to feel you had a command of the topic (on polemics alone). You then went on a mission to rationalize why “black” in the phrase “black ops” MUST mean “covert”.
If you were truly interested in learning how the military distinguishes these things, you’d simply accept what I explained to you. Learn from it. And move on. But you want to argue from ignorance. If you do this on something you don’t know anything about, you’ll definitely do this on everything else as well.
Let’s be clear. This has been a use of words for you. Not me. My use of words here is a clarification of how the military sees it.
Another misunderstanding you SEEM to have is you think covert op and black op are interchangeable within the U.S. military (which they are not). They are based off of different infrastructures and conditions which drives how they operate.
What amuses me at this point is your desire to contest how the military sees it by using polemics and generic Google searches. You choose to see it differently. What’s your basis other than defending your ego after making some ignorant comments?
It is not my argument. I’m telling you as a matter of fact with respect to the military. You seem to have a hard time understanding that in the military, every covert op is NOT a black op. However, every black op is covert. Covertness is a core requirement that covert ops and black ops share.
The part you REFUSE to acknowledge is what makes a black op unique to covert ops. That’s your prerogative, but you’re certainly not trying to walk a mile in the shoes of how the military sees it. Are you trying to understand how the military looks at these things or are you simply arguing for argument’s sake because you started this polemic based off of ignorance?
The unique factor of Black Ops will provide your answer to what the “black” is referring to. (HINT: It’s not due to it being “covert”).
At this point you choose to be stuck in first gear. You seem to think / believe that the military looks at covert ops and black ops as interchangeable (which they do not).
A covert op after having been executed, frequently goes through a declassification process and often times is freely admitted to without any pressure from the media or politicians.
Black Ops will probably never go through such a thing, because our government doesn’t want us knowing all the stuff they can and subsequently do.
It seems much of your effort of simply not accepting how the military distinguishes between a covert op and a black op and your comment of us talking past each other is nothing more than a smoke screen to save your pride?
If you believe that all covert ops in the military are black ops, then you’re simply wrong. Are all Black ops covert in nature? Of course they are. You’ve talked yourself into believing that the core requirement (for whatever reason) is the root reason for the term “black”.
If you prevented a covert operation from successfully executing, you Mr. Bobbo would likely be arrested, detained, and put in jail while you scream about your civil liberties being violated because perhaps you’re not given a speedy trial at the very least. Heck you might even get water boarded. Just because they’re covert, doesn’t mean they don’t officially exist or that they’re not held accountable. Covert operations can be followed on a paper trail usually available to some in congress.
If you do the same to black ops, they won’t bat an eyelash killing you because they won’t be held held accountable for your death because they were never officially there when you died. Your meddling in their affairs is not worth their objective being compromised let alone their group / identity. It revolves around that the work of Black Ops is considered much more important than Covert Ops. They are allowed to use deadly force as they deem fit. Imagine the power trip some guys may get exercising their ability to be above the law.
So you’re pointing out if you take out what is common between a covert op and a black op that both of them are no longer covert. The problem you face is proving a Black Op existing when you will unlikely find any paper trail….. because they don’t officially exist.
Some in Congress however do have access to official paperwork concerning covert ops.
But you know what? Congressmen leak stuff too. Therefore, there is a need for operations / organizations that don’t officially exist and have budgets from hidden sources. If a black op was discovered / revealed, you’d have congressmen screaming bloody murder because they were completely left in the dark over the whole matter. They’ll want to know who exactly is running that organization, how they’re getting their funding, and what exactly they’ve been doing.
This only underscores you’re arguing out of ignorance. The military sees the two as completely different. You beg to differ based off of words alone. That’s your prerogative.
What I explained to you shouldn’t have met with such resistance. Ego is the only logical explanation I have for something that has been nothing more than a matter of fact for U.S. military / para-military black ops.
Guyver–your energy is unbounded?
1. “Your mistake not mine.” /// Well, anyone with “specialized knowledge” is prone to make the mistake of thinking his is the only reference. But language changes over time. Even you quoted that Black Ops takes place in a civilian context. And frat houses can run a black ops by drilling holes into the wall of the girls bathroom. Simple minds enjoy absolutes, especially when combined with personal revelation?
2. Why would I or anyone else “care” what particular meaning the military puts on something? Way too inflexible.
3. “you SEEM to have is you think covert op and black op are interchangeable within the U.S. military (which they are not).” /// No, that’s your jag. My original point was very simple, and one that I think you finally accepted straight on: to be Black Ops, the ops must be covert. I think most of any confusion after that simple/incontestable/definitional point is YOURS by way of your Military Intelligence.
4. “The problem you face is proving a Black Op existing when you will unlikely find any paper trail….. because they don’t officially exist.” //// Ha, ha. Yea, thats right===bust a black op wide open and as long as no “official” admits to knowing anything, then nothing is proven? Nice basis for conspiracy thinking. So, 911 could have been an inside black ops because there is no proof? Ha, Ha!! Effectively, no one can play your game because you are keeping all the decoder rings. Thats not fair.
For what its worth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_operation
According to those two entries black ops is not as narrowly defined as you would wish and covert does cover the field?
Or not. I’ve never told anyone* that Santa Clause doesn’t exist (*under the age of 10).
Guyver–glad you can get free now and then to relax? (smile). Its not fair==you are working/writing much more than I am. Not that our contributions aren’t equal in meaning, but I feel I am shortchanging you by not writing as much.
What can we do? We are at impasse. You want to “frame” the discussion to your issues and I won’t go there. I tell you specifically what I meant to say, and you want to hammer me with what you think is important.
I will say it one more time: “My original point was very simple, and one that I think you finally accepted straight on: to be Black Ops, the ops must be covert.” What ELSE it may be or its roots in the military and all those issues are not my concern==I don’t care. I actually was making a throw away point that could have just as easily been ignored. Yet here we are at post #98. I have/am enjoying certain aspects of it, spinning our wheels though we are.
I went back to your post #11 and my#13. I’m still right, Heinlein and you are wrong, and it goes pretty much as I posted. The WAR on drugs is what I said was ineffective and then I pulled back saying it was a misapplication of the term WAR. But Heinlein actually said “violence” solves many problems. So, we do use violence against drugs==and it doesn’t work. Violence/War is good at often temporarily ending military conflict. There, I said it again. What am I thinking. Well, on quiet reflection that I define WAR as total commitment to a win/lose outcome. And that does settle military conflicts for the moment==think the Middle East history of Military Conflicts. I suppose the arabs were at WAR as I define it, but the Israeli’s were only defending themselves?
Words. Comfort with ambiguity. Ability to reconsider. and then we flower with ideas.
A latter point, military black ops pretty much require being in a symbiotic relationship with an agency (due to the Bobbos of the world demanding the truth).
A military covert op is not a symbiotic relationship.
You should also note that there are examples for covert ops on your covert ops link. However there is no single example of actual black ops. Gee, I wonder why. 🙂
Don’t assume something is a black op just because a journalist describes it that way much like how they’re incorrect in what they refer to as assault rifles.
Yea. I was actually part of several Black Ops. It was fun listening to our Presnedent comfort world leaders that the USA wasn’t doing what I had just spent 9 days doing. Ha, ha. It was so Black, I didn’t even know what I was doing. I’d tell you more about it, but since I haven’t seen anything official about it, I guess the Block Op release button hasn’t been pressed.
98, Bobbo,
I’ll live. But don’t get used to this. Consider it a very rare occurrence. 🙂
My “issue” revolved around correcting what seemed to me a clear misunderstanding of military black ops vs. military covert ops. There are nuances. The way you have talked you seem to want to maintain that there is no difference between a military black or a covert op.
That is not how you previously said it. The way it previously read to me is you felt the use of “black” defined that the ops was covert. It was an underscoring of the word and what you concluded to be its meaning in military black ops.
And as I have already stated, so long as you’re not referencing the U.S. military with your definition of “black ops” I don’t care either.
And I was actually making a correction to a misunderstanding that I didn’t think would have met with such resistance (if you were discussing military black ops).
Ditto.
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but I will humbly disagree. You’re now trying to rationalize things. The phrase War against drugs is political theater.
Usually the differences revolves around size or the nuance of legal declaration. You have heard the expression losing the battle, but winning the war? And the Vietnam Conflict?
100, Bobbo,
🙂 In reality, you’d be debriefed at the end of each op and you’d be told to take what you know to the grave. Otherwise you would go to jail.
Believe it or not, an interesting example is Area-51 and how former employees tried to sue the Federal Government due to radiation / chemical illnesses they got (and ultimately died from). They couldn’t go see a doctor because they’d violate the secrecy of Area 51. They were literally left to die suffering because they couldn’t say who or where they worked. The government said the place doesn’t exist and even pointed out the place doesn’t exist on any map. The prosecutor (now a law professor somewhere I believe) offered to drive the judge to Area 51. As a result, Bill Clinton signed an executive order that stated Area 51 exists, but due to national security no one could go there. I don’t know if the former employees got anything out of the suit.
Do you have any honest sense we weren’t connecting?
You know, thinking about my 2-3 situations, I think it might well have been a Black Ops–just not “formally” my part of it. It was covert. It was denied by the Presnedent. I had written orders that were “standard” to do what I and 1000 other guys did all the time but I knew enough about what I was doing to know that what I was doing wasn’t “standard.” Or, actually what I was doing was totally standard but it involved something that was not accurately documented. Didn’t make any difference to me. As I said, and even said at the time: “I don’t care.” And thats why I now have to work for a living.
Good times.
I’ve enjoyed listening to Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins on Book TV. He talks about being sent in to manipulate governments into having to take World Bank Loan commitments/terms and if the refuse, then a Black Ops will come in and take out the leaders. But then he says that his book was reviewed and ok’d by the powers that be. Something doesn’t match up. Hard to believe we could be so competent at controlling other economies when we can’t control our own?
Julian assange is awesome.
If I had a small piece of his talent 🙂
I am for sure going to see the Wikileaks movie when it premieres