Home | About | Donate

Why Countering Violent Extremism Measures Can Be a Threat to Press Freedom


Why Countering Violent Extremism Measures Can Be a Threat to Press Freedom

Courtney Radsch

"We're stepping up our efforts to discredit ISIL's propaganda, especially online," President Barack Obama told delegates at the Leaders' Summit on Countering Violent Extremism last month. The social media counter-offensive comes amid U.N. reports of a 70 percent increase in what it terms "foreign terrorist fighters"--citizens of U.N. member states who have left to join Islamic State and other militant groups.


"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
--George Orwell, "1984"


"Facebook's head of public policy for Central and Eastern Europe Gabriella Cseh, says designation is based on whether a group includes violence as a way to achieve its mission."

Does or does not the above definition of terrorism fit the U.S. military along with that of N.A.T.O and all other nations using sophisticated military equipment to bludgeon a variety of native populations into compliance with what the aggressors want?

And who has been charged with either abetting terrorists or working as an "enemy of state" other than those who blew the whistle on covert torture protocols (Drake, Kiriakou), told the truth about U.S. forces and the blatant way that too many mow down citizens (Chelsea Manning), what the U.S. surveillance state was up to (Snowden), or a variety of nefarious trade deals among other gross and dangerous deceptions (Julian Assange).

My point is that just as protocols like the NDAA create loose affiliations between so-called terrorists and passionate environmental activists, peace proponents, and animal rights advocates... the idea of going after the sort of terror that incites violence is far more apt to be used to persecute and penalize those who oppose STATE-sponsored forms of organized violence as in outright war, and the kind of financial war waged by Wall St. and Shock Doctrine Disaster Capitalists, everywhere.

In far too many instances the stated policy objective betrays its true goals and purposes.

During an era of so much dis-information and such deft use of false flags, it's impossible to know if that Charlie Hebdo mini massacre was orchestrated as an inside job. Typically, those whose objectives aim at a total control of citizens use their own false flags to incite a greater interest in "security." Adept at using the illusion of national security to further the lockdown on ALL citizens, these types of policies and protocols are slipped in at opportune times.

This comes from today's article by Pamela Palmater and it totally fits what I sought to point out:

"But none of this could be happening either to Indigenous peoples or the environment unless Harper had, at the same time, not introduced a rigid law and order regime meant to not only silence dissent, but criminalize dissent as an act of terror. Bill C-10 includes mandatory minimum sentences, which run counter to the Gladue decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which instructed courts to find alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous peoples. Harper’s plan to build more jails seemed to contemplate increases in incarceration rates and sent a chill throughout Canada."

THAT is the underlying objective behind these "anti-terrorism" laws: silencing, marginalizing, and criminalizing DISSENT for the 1%'s agenda!


"Why Countering Violent Extremism Measures Can Be a Threat to Press Freedom"

Isn't that the point?


I am always encouraged when I hear members of the military, and veterans, who are willing to voice their opposition to the inhumanity of US military operations. By and far, however, the perspectives I hear from members of the military, and veterans, is dogged support for US military operations. An interesting article with perspectives, from a female drone operator, appeared in the Daily Beast ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/18/she-kills-people-from-7-850-miles-away.html ).

The notion that one is entitled to take the lives of others, upon the go-ahead of some higher official, is reminiscent of 'hit men' for crime syndicates. The callous disregard for the lives and suffering of other, even those who one may consider 'the enemy' , is extremism and sociopathy. The US government/military seems to have mastered the ability to instill such extremism, not only in members of the military, but, to a high degree, in the general public who support such crimes against humanity when they are committed by the US military.


The most violent extremists on the globe is the United States Government ands it's military. No entity on this globe has been as violent when numbering those killed by violence at it's hands.

As such they would be the most likely to stifle dissent


Don't forget The Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Trials. The latter brought into the public limelight the moral depravity of this idea--held up as defense--that the soldier was "just following orders."

I rail against the Mars rules ethos because thousands of mostly men in uniform have once again become conditioned to that very thing: Following Orders... as if it granted them a pass. And just when you think it can't get more morally repugnant, check out the articles and exposes on the USE of Christian Chaplains within the military. They are imported in order to convince naïve young troops that killing others somehow is commensurate with 'god's' will. The God they have in mind is Mars... for whom battle is sacred and blood shed, turned into a holy rite. Surely, it's NOT what Jesus would do!


Point of example regarding that "extremism" . When told some 500000 Iraqi children died due to US led sanctions , along with the US Military totally destroying the infrastructure that provided clean drinking water to the same , a spokesperson for the US Government said " it was worth it".

I can not think of too many extremist groups that would advocate and justify the deaths of 500000 children.

This just one example of the extremists in charge who will not blink an eye were millions and more to die at their hands for their "cause".


I am not a christian, but it seems to me the epitome of hypocrisy how any military, christian, chaplain can advocate condoning the murders of his own and other people, when Jesus said: " love your enemies" and so many other admonitions that he said like: " blessed are the peacemakers ".

And that also goes for most of the churches in America who either condone murder or are apathetic.

Interesting, that in Nazi Germany most churches did the same thing.


In the same way that you almost never hear an advocate of Peace across the mainstream media, nor does Clear Channel's Conservative Christian ownership allow for much in the way of playing once popular anti-war songs... what makes you so sure that the U.S. public falls for the pro-war rhetoric? Because CNN shows military families laying it on? Because at football games, chumps whose whole lives center on the passion of team sports can't see much beyond the field?

My point is that the capture of media and its direct merger with much of the pro-war, military-industrial complex makes such specious generalizations suspect.

How many anti-war advocates are given a voice?


I don't think there is any greater moral depravity than this. And it's well-documented. Those chaplains are equating fealty to Christianity with a willingness to "kill for the cause." That's essentially the logic behind them playing cheerleaders to the troops. This particular tactic (lending a religious imprimatur to planned wars) makes Bush's seeming Freudian slip about a Crusades likely scripted.

In my mind, when those who use Jesus' name call FOR mass murder (which is what war, without genuine justification is)... THAT is the anti-Christ.

Too many letter-of-the law types think the anti-Christ is an INDIVIDUAL rather than the Consciousness, now so widely spread, that would Kill in the name of the Prince/Prophet of Peace.

The Vatican helped finance the exodus of Nazi scientists and shrinks to the U.S after W.W. II as part of Project Paperclip. That The Church stood by when the Concentration Camps enacted horrors... is all to reminiscent (for me) of the Inquisition--where torture was practiced until it became a "high art," and the burning of many thousands of women was carried on equating as evil, women having natural wisdom of the sort that the patriarchal church-state had to bash out of all females... in order to make them as domesticated as dogs. This process took several centuries to complete.

Then someone like Tom Johnson will come along inverting the truth and suggesting that "women allowed this."


Excelent post! Like I have said facetiously before, the reason Jesus doesn't come back again is he knows he would be crucified again by his acolytes as soon as he condemned what the modern church is doing in his name.


"what makes you so sure that the U.S. public falls for the pro-war rhetoric?"

At my working class public university, there are students who are not sold on the pro war rhetoric. I know the same is true for other public and private universities in the state. Sadly, such students tend to be the minority. Given the pro-Washington consensus bias of the mainstream media and the pro-military bias of the university administration, I am not surprised by this.

I could go on at length on this topic. While universities, such as mine, may have been a source of critical thought, this is no longer true. Cutbacks to public funding, has led to a large influx of corporate and military funding (tens of millions of dollars). Research is definitely much more military directed and many faculty members feel compelled to tow the line.