Adam Carolla says:

It looks like Manning was going to be kicked out of the Army?

http://gawker.com/5568351/is-wikileaker-bradley-manning-pre+transition-transgendered

Guyver says:

82, Bobbo,

Is this a military blog? Are we in the military? Did the subject come up in a military context?===the answer is “NO” to these questions. You are actually making the classical logic fallacy of the undistributed middle. I agree Black Ops are not black because they are convert, but if they are not convert, they are not Black Ops. Work on it.

“Black ops” was brought up in post #58 by me. Yes, I have been in two branches of the military. And yes, I initiated Black Ops in the conventional understanding that Black Ops is military / para-military.

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.

Do you know what a black project is? Something in development (i.e. aircraft) that does not officially exist.

Sorry, you’re letting your ego get in the way of common sense because you’re too preoccupied with how you want to play with your words so you can save face from taking an ignorant posture.

What country did Clinton invade and occupy with ground troops all to the long term economic harm to the USA?

I love how you try to throw in as many caveats as possible to distance what Clinton did. Kosovo comes to mind. But I’m sure you know so much you’ll tell me what I did / didn’t do over there as well.

Clinton went in without soliciting UN approval / consensus and NO ONE said he was a cowboy. Double standard.

But you admit you actually understood my point yet you want to make an issue out of it.

I admit that I suspected you of making an “oxymornic” statement. Which is why I asked you to clarify because what you said sounded stupid, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In fact, your question was also fatally vague which is why it took repetition to get it noticed.

The question was direct and you said you had already answered it in post #29 (which you did not). Let’s not try to reinvent history.

What is my definition of “military conflict” when what you could have more cogently asked was: “Say, bobbo: in context isn’t WAR and military conflict the same thing?

Wow! So instead of conceding the FUBAR that you created, you now want to blame me for your own stupidity because I didn’t expand my 7-word question in post #21 to your 12-word example above? LOL.

Typical Liberal. You can’t take responsibility for your own actions because it’s someone else’s fault.

“Police action is not war.”

/// Stupid.

From a very popular Liberal authority: “Police action in military/security studies and international relations is a euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.”

http://tinyurl.com/25ppn2w

Please let me know if you need an explanation over how wars are formally declared in the USA or if you need an understanding of what a “military action” is.

“Asymmetric warfare is a fighting style.”

/// More dithering at the edges. I started with a core definition and then moved to the periphery to be inclusive. Silly to quibble such a point.

I’m just pointing out the obvious which you seem to be unaware of.

bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist says:

McGuyver–are you having as much fun as we both wish we were? A little too much Soundwash for both of us?

right now, I don’t even actually remember what the Black Ops issue was all about. So let me review: – - – - – - at #58 you said “You also don’t have a news blackout if those forces are doing black ops.” /// Isn’t that wrong? How do you have a black ops if the activity is reported on in the news.

I need you to go real slow on this.

Guyver says:

85, Bobbo,

Isn’t that wrong? How do you have a black ops if the activity is reported on in the news.

Due to their very nature of not officially existing, Black Ops / Black Projects can or are “above the law” due to national security reasons. And if you can operate at being “above the law”, just think at what you can be capable of.

A news blackout would be policy the military proactively takes to not allow the media to meddle in their affairs of known / hypothesized operations. Things that are completely unknown because they don’t officially exist won’t register in the public consciousness. No one is reporting it because no one knows it’s around. Does that make it a news blackout? No.

Was the Black Ops / Project singled out by name, location, etc? Does the government acknowledge its existence? It’s quite possible that a reporter mislabels an activity as being “black” because it sounds cooler. Or there is truly a leak.

Guyver says:

88, Bobbo,

Can you have a Black Ops and have it reported on in the press?

Excluding the possibility of an internal leak or complete incompetence, then the answer is no. Why? Because no one will report on something that doesn’t exist. They won’t know what to pursue.

So what is it? Can’t answer a direct question?
Can’t admit to a misstatement?

Funny, I thought you asked how you “could have black ops if it is reported”.

The answer was an actual leak or a reporter mislabeling something as “black” ops. Meaning that it really wasn’t “black” ops. See the last two sentences of post #87. Sorry, but you’re being pretty dense today.

It would explain a lot of “our” confusion, if by our, I actually meant Your.

Well it would explain your missing the obvious as well as arguing out of ignorance. What you’re trying to argue about isn’t debatable (although you seem to think it is).

YOU don’t have the BuckeyBalls to admit what is definitional. Makes anything more subtle impossible.

The problem lies in that you think you can rationalize any perspective you have and thus conclude you were right all along.

And when it is crystal clear you’re ignorant of the topic and wish to obfuscate things, you simply try to persist only because of what seems to be your ego and not wanting to lose face (even though you already have).

The underlying problem is you are clueless about what makes an operation / organization “black”. There are plenty of covert operations that are not “black”. Therefore, and intelligent person would then ask, so what makes a “black” op unique?

Sorry, but I told you. For whatever reason, you think I’m trying to push an opinion…. but that’s only because you’re ignorant of the topic. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

bobbo, millions on phones, nothing being says:

Guyver–to summarize, you now say you cannot have a Black Ops and have it reported on. IE==it must be COVERT. xxxxxx I have gone back over our discussion on this point and we really have been talking “past” one another. Each of us correct given what we include/exclude as the basis for our review? I emphasized that Black Ops are covert. You emphasized that they are not admitted to and therefore covert? Ha, ha. Doesn’t seem worth the candle even before the thread is finished. Now why is something so simple, so difficult?

I just googled the term for the first time. This is typical: “Black ops” is shorthand for “black operations,” covert or clandestine activities that cannot be linked to the organization that undertakes them. Other definitions include the typical operator is the CIA or military. One includes the idea that “SUCCESSFUL Black Ops are not reported.”

I think we BOTH need to reach for agreement, otherwise we will fritter our time away. Not that we won’t otherwise.

Guyver says:

91, Bobbo,

you now say you cannot have a Black Ops and have it reported on. IE==it must be COVERT. xxxxxx I have gone back over our discussion on this point and we really have been talking “past” one another.

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.

Each of us correct given what we include/exclude as the basis for our review?

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).

This is typical: “Black ops” is shorthand for “black operations,” covert or clandestine activities that cannot be linked to the organization that undertakes them.

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.

One includes the idea that “SUCCESSFUL Black Ops are not reported.”

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:

Can you have a Black Ops and have it reported on in the press?

Excluding the possibility of an internal leak or complete incompetence, then the answer is no.

Is English a second language for you?

I think we BOTH need to reach for agreement, otherwise we will fritter our time away. Not that we won’t otherwise.

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.

Guyver says:

94, Bobbo,

I was making a close association between black and “keeping it a secret” which equated to covert.

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.

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.

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?

We both agree being covert is a necessary element of a black ops. You argue it is not sufficient.

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”).

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?

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.

By definition an operation admitted to is no longer covert? So, another distinction without a difference: the deniability of a secret clandestine operation?

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.

Interesting because I do love words. But a bit dithering.

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 says:

96, Bobbo,

Well, anyone with “specialized knowledge” is prone to make the mistake of thinking his is the only reference.

This isn’t specialized knowledge. It’s common knowledge in military circles. I wouldn’t assume with your online education that Google / Wikipedia are sufficient in knowing military corporate culture or infrastructure very well.

I was pointing out the obvious when you made an ignorant comment. It’s really not hard to understand. You’re just too intellectually dishonest to accept that.

Even you quoted that Black Ops takes place in a civilian context.

Man are you dumb sometimes.

And that quote clearly showed the reason WHY the civilian operation was called “black” was because it was off the books (analogous to officially not occurring / existing). It REINFORCED what I had already told you.

Why would I or anyone else “care” what particular meaning the military puts on something?

In post #29, point #2 you obviously did since it revolved around wars. That’s what started the black ops dialogue. That’s the same post where you clearly answered the question of what you meant by “military conflict”. … NOT!

If you’re not talking about military black ops, then what are you referring to? You obviously felt you needed to resort to polemics to cloud what your intent has been.

Your whole entire rant has been that “black” MEANS the operation is “covert”. You made it very clear that black MEANS covert (while being oblivious to the fact the military treats covert ops differently from black ops).

Case in point, did you hear we have air marshalls flying on airlines? That’s a covert op. That’s NOT a black op. We know they exist. We know where they operate. We know their motives for the most part. You won’t know any of that with black ops.

Journalists frequently misuse words with a military meaning all the time. Aside from black ops, another commonly misused phrase is “assault rifle” (when discussing gun bans). For example, journalists either knowingly (or not) describe civilian versions of an M-16 as an assault rifle (which is incorrect). They don’t have the same features (namely selectable fire) as the military versions. They believe because it looks like an assault rifle, that it must be one. Which is utterly false. And someone like you would latch onto the word “assualt” and rationalize the civilian version is in fact an assault rifle based off what you looked up in an online dictionary for the meaning of assault (much like how you’re doing with black ops).

No, that’s your jag.

No it’s not. LOL. I’m merely passing onto you how it’s handled in the military. If your ego cannot accept that, then that’s your prerogative.

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.

BS. You made it clear the reason for the use of “black” was to MEAN “covert” (as though military covert ops are not covert). You didn’t even realize the military treats covert & black ops differently because you’re trying to argue through Googling. LOL.

I think most of any confusion after that simple/incontestable/definitional point is YOURS by way of your Military Intelligence.

I corrected your misunderstanding and you want to argue that you’re right about what “black” means to you instead of accepting military “corporate culture” on how a black op is unique (and why it has the label black).

For whatever reason, you want to be a know-it-all. I can’t help you there.

It’s real simple, what does the “black” mean in “black ops” for the U.S. military?

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!!

I didn’t say anything about 911, but assuming your scenario is true (that it was an inside job) then that would be a perfect example of black ops (conspiracy aside).

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?

The black ops wiki is the same thing I sent you before. And that’s where they clearly showed why a civilian project was called “black”.

“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.”

In the same Black Op link, there is another link for Black Project. If you go there, it will tell you:

“In the United States and United Kingdom, a black project is a classified military/defense project, UNACKNOWLEDGED PUBLICLY BY THE GOVERNMENT, MILITARY PERSONNEL, AND DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. Familiar examples of U.S. military aircraft developed as black projects are the F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter and B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which were highly classified and denied to exist until ready to be announced to the public.”

So the quote show at least in this case the phrase (Black Project) is common to only two countries and that black projects are not acknowledged publicly. The only caveat here though is eventually they will be known if the product developed ever gets used in great numbers where it’s unavoidable to be seen by the public.

Black ops differ because they don’t reveal themselves. They don’t have to. I can assure you Wikipedia doesn’t define how the military operates nor does it do a thorough job of U.S. military vocabulary. The best way to refute what I am saying is simply talk to anyone from the same / similar circles as myself. It’s really not that hard.

But if you want to play Simon Says with Google / Wiki to prove that your use is how the military should treat it, then you’re mistaken. The military has its way of doing things and they don’t need Wikipedia / Google to explain to them how they should use their own vocabulary in differentiating between black ops vs. covert ops. Covert ops eventually “surface”. Black ops are like permanent moles.

Lookie here, I can play the same game:
“Covert ops, are just covert, until they are over with. Black ops, are never discussed.”

http://tinyurl.com/2dc77tc

“A black operation is generally accepted worldwide by militaries and intelligence agencies to represent specific TYPES OF COVERT OPERATIONS TYPICALLY INVOLVING ACTIVITIES THAT ARE EITHER SECRET OR OF QUESTIONABLE LEGITIMACY AND OFTEN VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DEMAND DENIABILITY.”

http://tinyurl.com/yj4zrcq

Saying a military black op is covert is an exercise in the obvious. Explaining why they are called “black” (which has been a key point with you) obviously hasn’t been.

Another difference between military covert ops and military black ops:

A covert operation in the military is funded by the DOD and has earmarked funding (i.e. placing a sniper near OBL’s camp). A military black op is not funded by the military. It’s funded by an outside agency (i.e. the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) revolving around bigger concerns. One group has the brawn and muscle and the other has the agenda and money (off the record). Military black ops are legally deniable. Military covert ops are not. This is why there is a duality with Military Black Ops.

Guyver says:

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.