C2W = Command and Control Warfare, Psyops

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

...Pentagon psyops principles in the 1990s, they apply to US domestic CIA-media also...

"Countering adversary propaganda is a coordinated effort requiring centralized planning and synchronized execution at all levels."

http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources ... yopc2w.htm

PSYOP C2W Information Operations in Bosnia
by MAJ Arthur Tulak, Military Analyst, CALL

Information is one of four instruments of power (IOPs -- Diplomatic, Informational, Military,and Economic) that nations wield to influence events and actors during peace and conflict. The informational IOP in support of peace operations is the clear and honest expression of intent and motive, which can generate public support and goodwill at home and abroad.1 To wield the informational IOP at the tactical through strategic levels of conflict and across the range of military operations, the Army has developed the concept and doctrine of Information Operations in Field Manual 100-6. Information operations are not new in that military forces have been conducting the component parts of IO for centuries. What is new, however, is the integrated approach to synchronizing all the various activities that comprise IO that had previously been "stove-piped" and independent of one another.2

The three interrelated components of information operations are operations, relevant information and intelligence (RII), and information systems (INFOSYS). This article focuses on the operations component of IO, specifically on the PSYOP subset of that component. The operations component of IO is broken down into the categories of command and control warfare (C2W), civil affairs (CA), and public affairs (PA). C2W is further divided into C2-Attack (offensive) and C2-Protect (defensive). C2W is "the integrated use of operations security (OPSEC), military deception, psychological operations (PSYOP), electronic warfare (EW), and physical destruction, mutually supported by intelligence to deny information to, influence, degrade, or destroy adversary C2 capabilities, while protecting friendly C2 capabilities against such actions. Command and control warfare applies across the operational continuum and all levels of conflict."3 In Bosnia-Herzogivina (BiH), psychological operations (PSYOP) and public affairs (PA) have been the primary vehicles by which the informational IOP has been wielded in theater.
.....
"PSYOP are an essential tool in both C2-Protect and C2-Attack operations."14 PSYOP was an active element in C2-Attack operations in MND-N. PSYOP in the prosecution of the IO campaign were primarily via printed materials (handbills, pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, posters, etc.) and over the airwaves to the radio-listening and television-viewing public.
.....
PSYOP in C2-Protect. C2-Protect actions include "countering an adversary’s propaganda to prevent it from affecting friendly operations, options, public opinion, and the morale of friendly troops."23 In MND-N, the counter-propaganda effort is a coordinated one involving both PA and PSYOP. The Division Public Affairs Officer concentrated on the command-information program directed for internal consumption by the soldiers, while the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) concentrated on the external audience in cooperation with PSYOP, CA, and the other IO actors in the IOWG. Through the CPIC and media working groups aimed at the press, TFE PA conducted operations which aimed at "discrediting adversary propaganda or misinformation against the operations of US/coalition forces [which were] . . . critical to maintaining favorable public opinion."24 The primary method used was the weekly press conference.

A "main objective in C2-Protect is to counter the adversary’s hostile propaganda against the joint force. Discrediting the source of mass media attacks against the operations of the US/multinational forces is critical to maintaining a favorable world opinion of the operations. Countering adversary propaganda is a coordinated effort requiring centralized planning and synchronized execution at all levels. The corollary benefit of effectively countering adversary propaganda is in persuading the adversary’s populace that US/multinational operations are legitimate and in driving a wedge between the adversary leadership and its populace in order to undermine the adversary leadership’s confidence and effectiveness."25

Conclusion. Information operations allow the peace operations commander to attack the adversary’s centers of gravity of legitimacy and popular opinion and set the conditions that will lead to peace. PSYOP contribute to C2-Protect and C2-Attack operations in every information medium, resulting in information dominance, control of the situation, and victory in the battle of ideas on the peace operations "battlefield."
.....

[barracuda]

Awesome. Err, I mean - good catch.

[compared2what?]

You know, if you're wondering whether that has anything to do with me but you're just too shy to ask me directly, Hugh, you're in luck! Because §ê¢rꆧ asked me about in on the "Bill Gates to fund $50 million circumcision campaign some time last June. Please find the relevant excerpt from my reply below. Please also note that I didn't personally choose that sobriquet. I registered as "compared2what?," for the reasons stated in my reply to §ê¢rꆧ. The nickname just kind of happened. In much the same way that you ended up sometimes being called by the Department of Defense acronym for "health, morale and welfare," as in:

Currently Air Force health, morale and welfare (HMW) calls for deployed personnel are manually serviced by operators. AHAMS will provide an automated capability to identify and authenticate authorized morale callers as well as an automated control of the time and frequency of morale calls.

Although you probably weren't thinking about what the military connotations of your username might be were people to start shortening it to your initials when you opted for "Hugh Manatee Wins."

Anyway, here's the full and awful truth.

/end topic, an aside:

c2w, since I got your attention for a second, I've been meaning to ask you about the synchronicity of your initials, c2w, also being a common military acronym

c2w = command control warfare

Is that just a coincidence or a pun just for fun? Irony.

I didn't even know until just now that it was shorthand for anything beyond my full screen-name, which I chose because I happened to be having a short but hot relationship with the funky war-protest sounds of Les McCann's O.D. 1969 live performance of "Compared To What" at the time.

Incidentally, next time, I'd really appreciate it if you just said it to my face, honey. So thanks in advance for the courtesy.

Bestest,

c2w

[brainpanhandler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BPH

[lightningBugout]

A leveraged buyout (or LBO, or highly-leveraged transaction (HLT), or "bootstrap" transaction) occurs when a financial sponsor acquires a controlling interest in a company's equity and where a significant percentage of the purchase price is financed through leverage (borrowing). The assets of the acquired company are used as collateral for the borrowed capital, sometimes with assets of the acquiring company. The bonds or other paper issued for leveraged buyouts are commonly considered not to be investment grade because of the significant risks involved.[1]

Hazardous Materials Warning

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Don't be myopic. RI isn't a school playground.


"Countering adversary propaganda is a coordinated effort requiring centralized planning and synchronized execution at all levels. The corollary benefit of effectively countering adversary propaganda is in persuading the adversary’s populace that US/multinational operations are legitimate and in driving a wedge between the adversary leadership and its populace in order to undermine the adversary leadership’s confidence and effectiveness."

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Should've posted this earlier to prevent even further derailing...

This op really is about military doctrines of psyops, not about RI username compared2what.

It would be silly to cast aspersions on compared2what just because of the contraction "c2w" also being a military acronym, of which there are zillions.
As silly as compared2what accusing me of sockpuppeting just because I didn't spellcheck "cui bono."

Posting content is the only thing worth characterizing about all of us.
So please stay on the very-important-to-know-exists op, y'all. Thanks.

[barracuda]

Posting content is the only thing worth characterizing about all of us.

No. Quality analysis of content, thought process and the ability to meaningfully contexturalise information is far more important than mere content, articles or data. Assimilating that data intelligently, and positing useable conclusions about relationships between data sets creates new knowledge, understanding and empowerment.

[compared2what?]

Should've posted this earlier to prevent even further derailing...

This op really is about military doctrines of psyops, not about RI username compared2what.

It would be silly to cast aspersions on compared2what just because of the contraction "c2w" also being a military acronym, of which there are zillions.
As silly as compared2what accusing me of sockpuppeting just because I didn't spellcheck "cui bono."

Or as silly as saying that I accused you of sockpuppeting just because you didn't spellcheck "cui bono."

Because that never happened, Hugh. I'm having trouble with the search function, so please accept my apologies for not backing that up with hard evidence. But I guess I'll just have to come back with the irrefutable link later.

[Et in Arcadia ego]

I'm having trouble with the search function, so please accept my apologies for not backing that up with hard evidence. But I guess I'll just have to come back with the irrefutable link later.

Try now, I just built a brand spanking new search database.

[compared2what?]

dupe deleted.

[compared2what?]

I'm having trouble with the search function, so please accept my apologies for not backing that up with hard evidence. But I guess I'll just have to come back with the irrefutable link later.

Try now, I just built a brand spanking new search database.

Thanks, et!

It's humiliating, because I totally lost interest in the endeavor, but what can you do? The thread on which I don't accuse Hugh of sockpuppeting because he forgot to spellcheck "cui bono" is here.

I'd forgotten (as apparently had Hugh) that I did more or less accuse him of sockpuppeting on another thread, on which I was being trolled by a since-banned poster usernamed "rusty shackleford," to which he links in the post below, and which I'm quoting here to remind him that back then, he seemed to understand what I was and wasn't saying.

Just for the record for those who don't follow the link within the quote: I was guilty of quoting a sonnet that highlighted the word "hue" in the post in question in a way that suggested I believed rusty s. and Hugh to be either in cahoots or one and the same person. So Hugh wasn't at all wrong to call me out for it or to tell me I was full of shit on that point. And I'm not saying otherwise. That's why I apologized.

However, since it seems like I'm suddenly being portrayed as some kind of out-of-control take-no-prisoner bully and thug, I do want to point out that it wasn't like I was harassing or ostentatiously humiliating or trying to hurt him.

I was really just trying discreetly to say "Cut it out, please," truth be told. However, mistaken is mistaken. And I did and do take Hugh at his word that I was mistaken. So now as then, I regret the error. But it wasn't a major felony, plus I admitted to it humbly and as promptly as I could possibly manage as soon as it was brought to my attention.

I'm sorry that I can't do better than that, but I can't. So I guess I'm glad that I can at least do that well. Because to err is blah, blah, blah. So fwiw, I reiterate all of the below by way of renewing my apologies.

That's messed up, c2w. Lately you'v put a helluva lot of energy into discrediting me. Got a bee in your bonnet?

You just falsely accused me of sock-puppeting this thread**

I'm happy to hear from you that I was mistaken. And I can understand very well why you object to the suggestion that you'd ever wittingly do anything other than make a best-effort good-faith attempt to understand and debate the issues on which we differ on their various real merits.

So if the accusation was false, I both withdraw it and also sincerely apologize for having so badly misunderstood a post of rusty's that I attributed it to you. I'm hyper-sensitive to a few specific classes of what a forensic linguist might call verbal events, just as a matter of neurological wiring. And although I really do make a regular best-faith effort to check the rating I assign to verbal communications in order to adjust for any hyper-sensitivity-induced false inflation, I really do sometimes make errors that lead to it anyway. Which I sometimes so totally regret, I can't begin to tell you. Because, as in this case, that's just no excuse for errors above a certain magnitude. But fwiw, it is an explanation. Which I offer humbly, along with a promise to try my best not to repeat the error again and the hope that you'll forgive me for having made it.

Hey, when you repeatedly wrote that 'examining psyops just isn't a useful thing or good place to be as an activist,' I didn't start posting that you were really professorpan sock-puppeting just because that's the ridiculous nonsense he posted, too. Yeah, right. Ignorance is bliss. Sure.
Knowledge is just makes us fearful and depressed. CRAP.

Hugh. The reason that I can very well understand why you object to baseless suggestions that you've done stuff that you haven't done, as well as why I just sincerely apologized for mistakenly having made one is that: Guess what? I myself object to such suggestions when other people make them about me.

Which is exactly what you're doing above. And I object to it. Please either link to what you believe to be my repeated assertions that examining psyops just isn't a useful thing or a good place to be as an activist, or apologize for having falsely accused me of repeatedly making them. Fair's fair. And as long as you're at it, if you can't find any example of professorpan asserting that it's useless to examine psyops, you might also want to consider apologizing to him for the countless times you've accused him of doing so without citing one iota of evidence that he has. If you feel like it.

Why is professorpan's buddy, Zap, posting repeatedly that I've sock-puppeted the board?

I don't know. But I assume it's because he believes himself to have a good reason to say so. Why are you calling Zap "professorpan's buddy"? Because it there's any basis in fact or reason sufficient to conclude that he is -- or for that matter even to suspect that he is -- I'm totally unaware of it. And fair being fair, I'd say that you are actually required to provide something along those lines when you're making accusations of that magnitude. Or, alternatively, to apologize for making them baselessly. I leave it to you and your fair consideration of the issues on their merits to identify your obligations and take whatever actions you have to in order to responsibly meet them.

Why is this coinciding with Rusty Shackleford trying to deconstruct movies and get hostile to c2w and Jack Riddler? Opportunistic sowing of doubt?

Well....I had thought that it was an attempt to do that. But you've now informed me that I was mistaken. So I honestly don't know.

Gee, professorpan targeted me for several years and I documented it but Jeff shuffled it off to the Firepit saying he 'didn't approve of members calling each other out on the board'-
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=17733

Let's see if Jeff is consistent about that....crickets...

I'll have to read the thread at the link. But provisionally, I'd say that there's a reasonable possibility that Jeff is not being as inconsistent as you believe. Due to the better than decent possibility that you're making the same kind of perceptual processing error that results in your accusing me of repeatedly writing things that I've never written once. Just to pluck a conveniently situated example of that particular kind of error from the vast, vast fields on which they bloom and multiply like dandelions all over this board. Links to back up that assertion are available on request.

For the moment, though, I'd just like to note that it could be that you're seeing a false equivalency, where no equivalency in fact exists. Owing to a failure to adjust a sensitivity-induced error. Is what I'm saying. And I'll come back and withdraw that suggestion on edit after I've read the thread, should it prove to be unfounded

Let's see if I get mirrored by other usernames and badjacketed off the board. I have a pretty distinctive style and thousands of posts to use as a template for creating a mirror of me with little 'hints.'
But super common spelling errors are not a good tag to damn me with nor is it a good use of our bandwith. sheesh.

I haven't damned you with anything yet. I'm doing a statistical analysis. Each step of it will be fully transparent. And you'll therefore have all the resources to challenge any conclusions I might reach if and when I reach them. As I said, I've barely started. I posted the first step because I hoped that other board members might see fruitful data points that I don't see. But that's far from the only data I'm going to be looking at. Plus, I'm, like, seemingly three weeks behind on the two-sentence analysis I'd planned to post today already. So there's really not very much reason to be getting all alarmist about bandwidth wastage at this stage of the game. Please calm down. Also please try to remember that it's tactically disadvantageous to start offering preemptive defenses for accusations before they've been made, for your own sake. It's very, very unlikely to put you at risk of any adverse consequences here, but it's the kind of thing that leads to wrongful imprisonment in the real world. So, you know: Bad habit.

Did you know there is a disinfo website mirroring my expose of the JFK cover-up using keyword hijacking? Gee, why would someone go to all that trouble?
http://brussellsprout.blogspot.com/2008 ... art-1.html

I don't know. But if it's relevant to what I'm looking at, I'll look at it.

c2w, I recommend you stick to the topics and stop trying to discredit those of us who debate you on the value of L. Fletcher Prouty's writings, psyops manuals, and 9/11.

I'm not trying to discredit you. I've stated on what grounds I believe the value of Prouty's writings to be debatable. You've never addressed them. I've also stated on what grounds I believe the value of citing psyops manuals to be limited. And you've never addressed those either.

I recently briefly indicated on what grounds I believe the introduction and promotion of the controlled demolition narrative to have been a psyop. But since I take it as given that you don't agree with me and I've definitely never accused you of being complicit in either that or any other psyop,*** there's not really much there for you to address. Because beyond that, I've never done anything other than offer on-topic, in-bounds critiques of the subject when it's come up. Which you don't address whether they're offered by me or by anybody else.

However, as always: If you do want either to offer some specific rebuttals to the specific critiques made by me or by anybody wrt those or any other subjects, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from going to the threads where they were made and rebutting them. And if you do want to provide some specific answers to the specific question asked by me or by anybody wrt those or any other subjects, honestly, Hugh: Same goes double, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I can really only speak for myself. But personally I would neither make a critique nor ask a question if I didn't very, very much want the poster to whom I'd addressed my concerns to respond to them. So please. Go for it.
_________________________

** reworded slightly while reformatting quote to link in order not to waste bandwidth.

*** Nor am I accusing you of it now, either expressly or implicitly. I utterly disavow any suggestion to the contrary. So please, please don't repurpose my effort to make it clear that I don't think anything of the kind in order to falsely accuse me of having said that I think it. Please? Because I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't. As you know, I object to false and baseless accusations.

Thanks,

c2w