Obama is in your forums disinfoing your discussions :: COINTELPRO

[sigmtnman]

Was: Snowden and GCHQ's dirty-tricking psyops groups:

 

The .gov wants to infiltrate our online discussions.  This should have nothing but a good outcome...

 

I can't help but wonder with the attack on the 2nd amendment and with how political the discussions in a forum such as this tend to be; how long before we are targeted by these programs? 

 

Or  better yet; are we actively being targeted as we type?

 

So, it would appear that the The last paragraph says it all... 

 

 

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

 

http://boingboing.net/2014/02/25/nsa-and-gchqs-dirty-tricking.html

Edited March 3, 2014 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

To follow up here are a few excerpts from The 25 Rules of Disinformation, easily found around the innertubes:

 

 

Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

 

 

Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

 

Edited March 2, 2014 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

 

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

[sigmtnman]

 

Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning – simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

 

 

Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Edited March 2, 2014 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

 

Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

 

 

 

Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

Edited March 2, 2014 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

A couple more tactics.

 

Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

 

 

Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

[Chucktshoes]

So Dave, Robert, which one of y'all is a government agent?    :screwy:

Edited March 3, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[Links2k]

[quotChucktshoes" post="1119220" timestamp="1393813044"]So Dave, Robert, which one of y'all is a government agent? :screwy:[/quote]

:)

[Oh Shoot]

It is I. Ya don't think I spend this much time on here for free do ya?

 

- OS

[hipower]

It is I. Ya don't think I spend this much time on here for free do ya?

 

- OS

 

Heck, I always suspected that. You just know too damn much about.... everything. LOL

[MacGyver]

The man does not need to spread misinformation on here. We've got that covered in spades. ;)

[RED333]

The man does not need to spread misinformation on here. We've got that covered in spades. ;)

:rofl:

[Dustbuster]

Don't overestimate the capability of any government. A scorned woman can get more done in 1 hour than 4 years...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.