PSYOPS against Venezuela ?

[DC]

Do you have any reason to doubt that the USA use propaganda in an attempt to destabilize Chavez's Venezuela?
If the PSYOPS are actually better at their job than for instance dudalb with his tedious knee-jerk reactions remains to be seen.
Congratulations, DC. You provide the forum with a piece of information, and the right-wingers aren't able to come up with more than insults.

yes im actually suprised, i didnt find the article very convincing, but the reaction here .....

 

[DC]

I served in the 7th Psyop Group, the Reserve counterpart to the active-duty 4th POG. Although "reserve" is misleading: there was enough going on in the world to keep both units mostly active throughout the 90s. For example, my unit had all our Psyop Specialists on a regular rotation through Bosnia and Haiti during my period of service.

Anyway, there are some important regulations governing the use of U.S. Army Psyop forces. The top two are "always tell the truth" and "never target your own or allied forces".

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. government lied and targeted its own and friendly people. It's just that the government wouldn't use the 4th or 7th POGs to do it, not without whistleblowing, court martials, and other major, serious problems.

The presence of Psyop units in Colombia indicate a fairly mundane, straightforward war-fighting strategy that makes use of propaganda tactics against enemy forces, in support of more conventional military tactics.

It may also, to a lesser degree, indicate Psyop elements acting in conjunction with Army Engineers and Civil Affairs units to carry out a "nation-building" mission. Psyop units are great for this kind of aid work, since they usually have a high number of linguists and cultural and communications experts (since that's basically what a Psyop Specialist is, really: a cultural communications expert).

thanks , very interesting.

Do you guys also have specialists that can upload full data images to laptops , memorysticks and external harddrives?
Would this also belong to the kind of operations done by your group?

 

[DC]

The Chavez worshippers are getting desperate.

Dudalb, in case you, for once, do contribute to a topic, could you PM me pls? i wouldnt want to miss that post of yours. thanks in advence

 

[WildCat]

I don't think that's true, actually. I assume you're referring to the intercepted email in a laptop belonging to FARC?

Yes, the one authenticated by Interpol. You don't think it's true? What do you know that Interpol doesn't?

 

[DC]

Yes, the one authenticated by Interpol. You don't think it's true? What do you know that Interpol doesn't?

its noot evidence, first the interpol did not look at the evidence, and chaeck if it is evidence, they just checked the data and what did they found out?
that the Colombians accessed all the devices before handed over to Interpol.

so before court that "evidence" if it really is evidence, is wearthless.

 

[WildCat]

and the evidence for this is?

The captured laptop, decrypted by Interpol.

(attention, your laptop data is not good enough for a court)

Who said anything about a court? It was captured in a military operation.

Btw, does Eva Gollinger have anything acceptable to a court as evidence?

 

[DC]

Finding 2b: Access to the data contained in the eight FARC computer exhibits
between 1 March 2008, when they were seized by Colombian authorities, and 3 March
2008 at 11:45 a.m., when they were turned over to the Grupo Investigativo de Delitos
Informáticos of the Colombian Judicial Police, did not conform to internationally
recognized principles for handling electronic evidence by law enforcement.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/pdfPR200817/ipPublicReportNoCoverEN.pdf

 

[DC]

The captured laptop, decrypted by Interpol.


Who said anything about a court? It was captured in a military operation.

Btw, does Eva Gollinger have anything acceptable to a court as evidence?

take a look at her documents she got by FOIA's

 

[WildCat]

its noot evidence, first the interpol did not look at the evidence, and chaeck if it is evidence, they just checked the data and what did they found out?
that the Colombians accessed all the devices before handed over to Interpol.

No, they found out that it had not been tampered with:

"Interpol concludes there was no tampering with any data," Interpol chief Richard Noble said through an interpreter in a Bogota. "We are absolutely certain that the computer discs our experts examined came from a FARC terrorist camp."

http://agonist.org/20080515/interpol_says_colombia_farc_laptop_files_authentic

so before court that "evidence" if it really is evidence, is wearthless.

Again, what court?

Has anything Eva Gollinger ever claimed been accepted by a court? If not, why the double standard?

 

[WildCat]

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/pdfPR200817/ipPublicReportNoCoverEN.pdf

Maybe that's because it was captured in a military raid? It wasn't Colombian police raiding a FARC camp in Ecuador.

 

[DC]

No, they found out that it had not been tampered with:

http://agonist.org/20080515/interpol_says_colombia_farc_laptop_files_authentic



Again, what court?

Has anything Eva Gollinger ever claimed been accepted by a court? If not, why the double standard?

they found no evidence of tampering with the data. but experts in Germany confirmed that it still os possible complete images was played on the devices.

and also
did you see what the colombians call evidence? or do you just take their word?

 

[WildCat]

take a look at her documents she got by FOIA's

Please quote a single thing from those documents that support her claims. Can you do that? If not, why not?

 

[DC]

Maybe that's because it was captured in a military raid? It wasn't Colombian police raiding a FARC camp in Ecuador.

so? it still is not conform with international regocgnised prinziples....

 

[DC]

Please quote a single thing from those documents that support her claims. Can you do that? If not, why not?

why dont you just read the documents?
she clearly proved that the whitehouse lied to the world.

 

[WildCat]

they found no evidence of tampering with the data. but experts in Germany confirmed that it still os possible complete images was played on the devices.

So what? lots of things are "possible". But what is likely is Chavez got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

and also
did you see what the colombians call evidence? or do you just take their word?

Let's see, FARC is operating from safe havens in Venezuela, Chavez has never taken action against FARC in Venezuela. I'm not just taking Colombia's word for it, I look at the totality of the evidence. Remember whan you were a 9/11 truther? You are making the same mistakes again.

Reporting from Tocuco, Venezuela -- Members of Colombia's largest rebel group live openly on or near several Indian reservations in western Venezuela with at least the tacit approval of President Hugo Chavez, indigenous leaders here charge.

...During his 10 years in office, socialist Chavez, a fierce critic of the United States, has often expressed admiration and affinity for the FARC. In 2007, Chavez said his country shared a border not with Colombia, but with territory controlled by the FARC.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-venezuela-farc21-2009jan21,0,2521564.story

 

[WildCat]

why dont you just read the documents?
she clearly proved that the whitehouse lied to the world.

I notice there is not a single quote from the documents in your reply. Why not? I'm not going to wade through all that to support your claims. If there's something in there supporting the claims, quote it.

 

[WildCat]

so? it still is not conform with international regocgnised prinziples....

A military raid in a foreign country does not conform with legal principles of evidence gathering, by definition.

Have any of Eva Gollinger's claims been proven in court? You keep avoiding this question for some reason.

 

[DC]

So what? lots of things are "possible". But what is likely is Chavez got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.


Let's see, FARC is operating from safe havens in Ecuador and Venezuela, Chavez has never taken action against FARC in Venezuela. I'm not just taking Colombia's word for it, I look at the totality of the evidence. Remember whan you were a 9/11 truther? You are making the same mistakes again.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-venezuela-farc21-2009jan21,0,2521564.story

you have evidence for your "save heavens" ?
Chavez demanded from FARC to stop its armed struggle and free all hostages.

this time you are making the misstakes.
you never ever saw that alleged evidence, it is dodgy to begin with, and you never saw what the colombians call evidence of connections, when they have evidence, why didnt they show it to the world? he?

you take the word of the colombian government and the CIA.

and you belive them because you want it to be true.

and please post the rest of the evidence you take into consideration.

 

[funk de fino]

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/pdfPR200817/ipPublicReportNoCoverEN.pdf

Ooh, the cherry picker is back.

Thats lame even for you.

 

[WildCat]

you have evidence for your "save heavens" ?

See the LA Times article I posted above.

Chavez demanded from FARC to stop its armed struggle and free all hostages.

So then why does he let them stay in Venezuela unmolested?

this time you are making the misstakes.
you never ever saw that alleged evidence, it is dodgy to begin with, and you never saw what the colombians call evidence of connections, when they have evidence, why didnt they show it to the world? he?

In this universe, they did show it to the world. I have no idea what goes on in the alternate universe you live in.

you take the word of the colombian government and the CIA.

and you belive them because you want it to be true.

and please post the rest of the evidence you take into consideration.

Speaking of taking someone's word, do you have a quote from any of those documents that support Gollinger's claims yet? Why is this so difficult for you?