1. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    A planned military training operation is gaining the attention of the consipracy crowd at the moment. The claim is that the US military is conducting a Psyop upon the American public with a large scale military drill called Operation Jade Helm 15.

    For the last few days, more well known sites such as Infowars, Before Its News have been stirring the rumours that this exercise is nothing more than a 'disinfo psyop' in order to bring around the public perception of military occupation being normal. The buzz from this has started to grow large enough for mainstream media to take notice of the claims of Infowars:

    http://www.news.com.au/world/conspi...aw-military-coup/story-fndir2ev-1227274062108

    The central theme, and main claim amongst these sites, is that the end goal is martial law where dissidents are rounded up and imprisoned. A large part of this has come from a slideshow where a map of the USA has been divided up and parts, namely Texas, marked as "hostile" territory. Infowars claims:

    The US military have actually released a media notice in several publications to counter what has been speculated in order to avoid it getting further out of hand. JADE HELM 15 is to begin July 15 and is a major exercise to test military capabilities:

    The main cause of all this misguided excitement is the below slideshow released by Special Ops Command which, ironically, was to disclose the purpose and extent of the exercise to local officials within the affected states/areas and seek their approval.


    Update: Quite a good debunking here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ise-freaking-out-the-internet-is-no-big-deal/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  2. AltoidSBS

    AltoidSBS New Member

    As you indicated, the labeling of Texas as "hostile" seems to strike a particular chord with many conspiracy theorists who suspect the federal government plans to round up political enemies.

    According to this link, found via Snopes: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?664243
    One has to wonder how the government developed its map if that's really the plan. Liberal-leaning New Mexico is likely to be hostile, while famously conservative and pro-gun Arizona would back the government? And in what scenario would San Diego join Texas in its resistance? In fact, is it realistic to really think whole states would line up together in such a scenario?

    Unsurprisingly, it looks like excited cherry picking based on a scary map.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    The map doesn't necessarily indicate the entire state is hostile, without full context it could indicate it's controlled by a hostile force - perhaps the state government itself or an outside force that's seized control of the state government. Califnoria, on the other hand, has only the strip at the bottom (Looks like San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside counties?) being red, suggesting either the county governments or again an outside control, with the state government remaining friendly. Neither one shows the location of actual hostile or friendly forces in any of the states involved.


    http://www.stripes.com/news/us/army...rmist-claims-about-upcoming-exercise-1.335949

    UASOC spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria says here that the hostile territories were chosen for terrain reasons, those areas had terrain challenges similar to those where special operations forces have been operating overseas.

     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. metaception

    metaception New Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Mackdog

    Mackdog Active Member

    Your right about the scary map part..my geography professor always taught me that maps can lie..and they do! You can definitely manipulate peoples opinion about something based on certain cartographic elements (and projections) .
     
  6. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    Well no, it's not realistic to think this way. I guess that's the point. In reality the military probably just wanted to have an enemy map in a simulated enemy country. Lots of war games do this. It's just because AJ and co. now have a "genuine military map" labelling Texas as hostile. So they're making a meal of it.
    Infowars has another "emergency broadcast" (Gish gallop) re this here http://www.infowars.com/entire-federal-martial-law-plan-exposed/

    And more of the same:
    http://www.infowars.com/beyond-denial-preparations-for-martial-law-in-america/

    Like you say, this is just cherry picking. However this stands out more than their usual stuff because of the hype they have put behind it, and it's blatantly clear from some of the comments in the stories that it's being accepted on face value by the excitable types.

    Hopefully this doesn't result in some paranoid anti govt person(s) getting edgy and "defending" themselves by opening fire.
     
  7. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Military exercises in the US always break the states up into hostile and friendly territories. Shortly after Team America: World Police came out we had a submarine exercise on the east coast and Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts were designated as the hostile nation of Derka-derka-stan.

    Another year our assigned areas were named Hogwarts, Hagrid, Potter, Hermione, etc.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2015
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    The whole CT crowd needs to take a chill pill.. go back and take a look at Operation Red Flag for the last 25 years or so.. the

    ^ This

    If you want to see how its broken down between OpFor and RedFor, take a look at (the now defunked) Operation Red Flag. I participated in several of those during my tenure as a Marine (which were a LOT of fun given that it was a field op), and thats very much how the maps were laid out.. Ive done both sides of the scenario, and part of my job was to try to confuse the aircraft flying over head as to where our antenna farms (ant farms for short) were vs where WE were. It had nothing to do with the civilian population AT ALL.. WE were our own enemies and would come up with ways to defeat the other side or fool them so that their mission would fail while ours would succeed. None of the targets or any of the discussions had anything to do with any form of civilian what-so-ever, unless we were practicing how to deal with foreign nationals.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    Yes, it's the same here as in most parts of the world - use a small part of the nation as a designated "enemy territory" and role players to conduct training. Military needs to train, and it's not always quite as simple as "borrowing" territory from another nation, although it does happen with joint exercises between allies.

    Derka-stan is pretty funny..
     
  10. mazoola

    mazoola Member

    I was present for one such exercise, Operation Danville, in utero. During it, a hostile force 'took over' my home town, imprisoning civic leaders (including my uncle, who was chief of police at the time) and imposing a curfew, only to be routed and the town freed by paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne, aided by local resistance fighters.

    I was stunned upon first hearing about this in the late 1970s -- doubly so, because no one I asked about it remembered much of it. In the mid '90s, a reporter for the local paper also ran into a wall of indifference while trying to research it. After many hours of searching, I managed to tease out a few references to it, most from paywalled newspaper archives.

    Then, in 2010, Carl Malamud's Public.Resource.Org released a digitized version of the US Army's "Operation Danville" episode of "The Big Picture," the US Army-produced television series. While the show itself is essentially a textbook case on how NOT to make a documentary, the exercise itself is pretty fascinating in its depiction of how military planners thought a Communist insurgency might behave, from the beauties with bullhorns who lambasted Danville housewives from the backseats of cruising convertibles, urging them to break the chains of domestic slavery, to the dual-language issuance of proclamations in English and Esperanto.

    Unfortunately, the archive.org copy of 'Operation Danville' is corrupt. (I seem to recall it originally as not having been so -- which is a little disconcerting, given the Internet Archive's de facto standing as historian of the web -- but I could be mistaken.) However, it's still available in a rather crappy, three-part YouTube rendition as well as in full, 1.3 Gbyte glory on bulk.resource.org.

    Blog post mentioning Operation Danville, with embedded YouTube videos
    http://lostinthe21stcentury.com/2010/03/28/operation-danville/

    Link to 1.3 Gbyte MPEG2 encoding
    https://bulk.resource.org/ntis.gov/gov.archives.arc.2569718.mpeg
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    This project appears to be a flagrant violation of Posse Comitatus.

    Is it unreasonable to think that this project will indeed acclimate the public to seeing military personnel on American streets, and also condition troops to feel comfortable operating domestically, in violation of their oaths?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Since when have facts stood in the way of Conspiracy Theories tho?
     
  13. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    It's an exercise. No evidence that Title 10 forces will be used in a police role.
     
  14. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Sorry, I don't understand what this means.

    The Facts here are that troops are being trained to covertly occupy American states designated as hostile. A flagrant violation of Posse Comitatus.

    In light of this excercise this thread should probably have its' "debunked" designation removed:

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-fake-city-us-army-trains-for-martial-law-in-us.3110/

    Ironically, they are not even targeting states that are hostile to America. Texas and Utah? That means they are targeting freedom lovers and Mormon preppers...which does seem sinister.

    Why not target California? It is the State most likely to kill the country through regulation and taxation. hehehe.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Unless the troops are being used for law enforcement it doesn't apply.

    Yes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Why?
     
  17. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    It's literally unreasonable. There is no reason to believe this is anything but what the military says it is. It us unable to be reasoned.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    They are not 'targeting' citizens.

    The choice of states, the reasons for choosing those states, and the purpose of the exercise was all explained in the Scribd link in the first post.

     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Are you saying it is unreasonable to disbelieve anything the military says?
     
  20. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    This site is not about belief or disbelief. It is about evidence and removal of bunk. Please post according to the posting guidelines.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    No, I'm saying if the US military wanted to train forces to invade the US, they wouldn't be using JSOC to do it. They'd be using units with enough bodies to actually retain control over territory. Your comment about posse comitatus falls to the same argument. Are you seriously suggesting the US military will invade their own country and Seal Team Six will act as police officers?
     
  22. PCB

    PCB Member

    No.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act
    Yes

    It isn't.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office
     
  23. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Ummm.....I directly replied to the OP @Landru. I didn't paste Infowars' claim into it. And I didn't see you chastise Occam's Scissors either. Sauce for Goose and Gander and all that....but then the mods here have never been good at that. This type of thread tailoring makes Metabunk lose credibility.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    It's not about being off topic. You are violating the posting guidelines by stating your disbelief that the military is telling the truth and providing no evidence.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    It simply seams reasonable to me that this domestic training is training the military to operate domestically. Which is a clear violation of their mandate. If the army is operating in the streets, then they have defacto declared martial law, thus superseding the legitimate policing powers of the state, in a contravention of Posse Comitatus and the constitution.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    No. I am trying to clarify Occam's belief, i.e. whether he believes that it is unreasonable to disbelieve anything the military says. I am sure that Infowars holds this belief for this or that reason...and likewise Occam can hold a different belief. But he categorically said that believing X was unreasonable. So it must stand to reason that he thinks believing Y is indeed reasonable.

    In this specific case, "If disbelieving the military is unreasonable, then believing the military is reasonable" is the underlying logic that can be inferred from his statements. I would like clarification on this point.

    If this logic above is not correct, then Occam was incorrect in stating that it is categorically unreasonable to disbelieve the military.

    You can't have cake and eat it too....
     
  27. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    You mean you missed the part about chosing terrain likely to be similar to areas the JSOC would operate in? I feel like the Iranians (or North Koreans, or whoever) might complain if we held excersises where the troops would actually be used. If the US has analagous terrain it makes sense to use it. Do you have any evidence that the military will be "In the streets"? There's a whole lot of empty space in all those areas...

    edit: the military will be working in communities in Texas, with a footprint of 60-65 troops. Specific mention of small communities with lots of open space, etc. almost like much of Iraq and Syria. Too few bodies to realistically invade. Perhaps they're just going to practice assassinating the mayor?
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2015
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  28. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    If you have evidence that the military is lying then provide it. Please don't speculate.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  29. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Why not use occupied Iraq for this training?
    Re: using Iran, objection of the country being occupied has never stopped the US before. hehehe.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  30. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Because Iraq is not occupied anymore, remember? Also do you really want to train to operate against ISIS on their doorstep? These things are public knowledge and there's nothing stopping ISIS operatives from driving in and observing. Certainly the Iraqi army won't. :rolleyes:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  31. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    If I provide military documents discussing occupation of CONUS or this or that other thing within CONUS are they defacto reasonable? Using Occam's logic they are. So are we agreed that the military should always be believed?
     
  32. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Of course the military lies, they're human like us. The existence of lies from the military is not in question. The existence of evidence of lies in this case is.

    I'd look at anything you provided. I imagine there might be differences of interpretation to work through. Maybe not.
     
  33. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    There is no evidence that JSOC is not telling the truth.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  34. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    OK @Landru, then we should accept all of what the military says as being truthful then. Deal.
    These links actually refer to some very scary military stuff...which we must accept as reasonable under the terms of reference for this thread.

    The second link Occam posted contains a link out to this document, entitled "CIVIL DISTURBANCE OPERATIONS", which outlines that it applies to both "CONUS and OCONUS" and that the function of the military would be to "help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order" in the event of mass riots or civil unrest. In other words, declaration of martial law.

    The training manual says that the military will be used for "breaking up unauthorized gatherings and by patrolling the disturbance area to prevent the commission of lawless acts” and that “during operations to restore order, military forces may present a show of force, establish roadblocks, break up crowds, employ crowd control agents, patrol, serve as security forces or reserves, and perform other operations as required."

    Within the Operations Planning section, they specifically discuss "provisions to implement...PSYOP".

    The training manual says that "detention facilities should be constructed and arranged to provide for adequate custody, control, and safety of detainees..." and that "Detailed guidance in procedures for confinement of detainees is contained in EPW Operations, FM 3-19.40"

    U.S. Army FM 3-19.40 Internment/Resettlement Operations in turn says that it applies "within U.S. territory" and involves "DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities," including "man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories."

    The document outlines how internees will undergo a "holistic rehabilitation program", in which they will be educated to "better appreciate their situation and how they can peacefully contribute to its success" by learning and employing such skills as "crime and suspicious activity reporting, and community familiarization and awareness."

    The document advises that "behavioral health specialists" will "gather useful information to further the rehabilitation process, and identify rehabilitation failures or setbacks."...and that they will engage in "behavioral modification" of the detainees with the help of psychiatrists.

    Why, if we believe everything the military says, should we not believe that Operation Jade Helm is meant to "acclimate the public to seeing military personnel on American streets, and to also condition troops to feel comfortable operating domestically."?
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2015
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  35. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    The document referenced http://info.publicintelligence.net/USAMPS-CivilDisturbanceOps.pdf is training for both CONUS and OCONUS civil disturbances. It does include a section on restriction in CONUS use of the military:

     
  36. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    sorry, but this is pathetic. It is just like the rabid CT'er who thinks that just because you don't take THEIR view on something then you must be a Sheeple who automatically believes anything the gubmint says etc.

    Just because several people have said there has been NO REASON WHATSOEVER to disbelieve the US military on THIS exercise, there is no reason to try and suggest that we should ALWAYS believe everything they say.

    It is a ridiculous strawman tactic and you know it. You have been posting here long enough to know better.

    The military have stated WHY they picked Texas, they clearly have the support of the communities (or at least the leaders in those communities) in which they will be training.
    If you want to suggest something untoward or sinister then shit or get off the pot. SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE.
     
    • Agree Agree x 14
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  37. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Many of these things are planning for the unforseen. Yellowstone could go up requiring massive resettlements, etc. that the military has contingencies for these events is not evidence of expectation of need.
     
  38. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    None of this adds up to martial law, if the military are only acting in a support role then the civil authorities remain very much in control.
     
  39. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Don't put words in my mouth and don't make up new posting guidelines.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    No, the point is going back and actually reading the source material for Alex Jones articles. They often don't say what he says they do.

    If the US military were planning on invading, would they say so in public documents? It'd kinda defeat the purpose.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3