The Propaganda War Against Us: The First Shot Is Fired

reply to post by Hefficide


keep it up heff. almost there, my friend.

reply to post by PleiadanString

Second, although Al Qaeda-inspired Islamist militants represented the most significant terrorist threat to the United Kingdom at the time of writing, Islamist militants are not the only – or even the predominant – group of political extremists engaged in radicalisation and recruitment on the internet. Visitor numbers are notoriously difficult to verify, but some of the most popular Islamist militant web forums (for example, Al Ekhlaas, Al Hesbah, or Al Boraq) are easily rivalled in popularity by white supremacist websites such as Stormfront. Single-issue groups such as environmentalist extremists and radical animal rights activists also have a strong web presence.

All the conclusions and recommendations are meant to be applied to extremist groups across the board. Indeed, any governmental initiative – however well-conceived – that is seen to be directed solely at the Islamist end of the spectrum will risk being counter-productive.

That was from the 32 page report I posted in my other post. What Heff is saying is that.... who is the one who is next, what online forum will they deem to be politically radical, or politically extreme.... basically, they will soon be targeting the forums for anyone seen to be political dissidents...

we aren't going to be first on the list, but I am sure we wont be last if all this keeps up the way it has been.

Yes, some of what he is saying is known, but at what point do we say enough is enough, this isn't about extremism anymore.... this is about freedom of speech, freedom to disagree, freedom to have our own thoughts.....?

Many here are the same people who say people have the freedom of speech to say whatever they like, but what happens when what you are saying becomes the next target?

Now, regardless if you think this is in someway a rehashing of what is being spoken of as of late, however, it is a topic that needs rehashed until more people realize what is really at stake is their freedoms....

Why do you seem to have a serious problem discussing the topic or finding a different topic that holds your interest more? You appear to have a personal grievance and it is getting sickening when this is an important topic you are simply trying to derail out of an apparent dislike for the author of the OP

reply to post by Hefficide

Some on ATS might not be aware that the NDAA changed a very vital paradigm in the recent past. It legalized the use of propaganda, by the government, domestically. This is no small issue. It means that ethics and accountability are totally gone now - any and all lies told to us can be categorized as propaganda - for the good of national security.

READING BETWEEN THE LINES (making stuff up)

So inaccurate, it is almost propaganda.

This is the important part of the amendement,

b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948

What this was about is American propaganda programs meant for abroad. In this day and age chances are that the American public may have acces to such propaganda material over the internet for instance. The fact that Americans may be able to see the propaganda that was not directed at them is not does not prohibit specific international propaganda.

It also still says this after the amendment,

No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

So no, they didn't legalize domestic propaganda.

I don't even see how it matters, propaganda will be used anyway, domestic or foreign.

Just do your homework.

Nothing about this thread is accurate.

Here's more info,

metabunk.org...

Controversy has swirled around the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act since it passed mark-up as an amendment to the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act on May 18. The bill is now before the Senate. The Smith-Mundt Act, which established public diplomacy and international broadcasting as activities of the U.S. government, has been in force since 1948. One of its provisions prohibits U.S. citizens from accessing the public diplomacy products of the U.S. government, whether in print or on the airwaves. The purpose of this provision was to prevent domestic government propagandizing. Yet, in an age when global news and information flows are available 24/7 in print, on the airwaves, and online, this prohibition has become an anachronism. Critics on the left and right alike have charged that modernizing the Smith-Mundt Act will lift the floodgates for U.S. government propaganda aimed at U.S. citizens. Not so. Rather, the amended act will force greater government transparency and accountability and it will allow Americans insights into what Washington is communicating to audiences around the world. Join us as our panel examines these and other aspects of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

That was from the 32 page report I posted in my other post. What Heff is saying is that.... who is the one who is next, what online forum will they deem to be politically radical, or politically extreme.... basically, they will soon be targeting the forums for anyone seen to be political dissidents...

I don't see how one can conclude that based on a news article about extremists using an internet forum. The article didn't specify any internet forums, and it didn't suggest that websites were attacked only that they monitored sites because suspected terrorists used them.

So?

We know that the whole internet is already being monitored so how are they going after us more than they already are?

It's just like I said earlier, it pays to post a random, innacurate thread that touches a current and populair subject, it doesn't matter what you say exactly or if it is accurate, the membership will lap it up because it resonates with what they already heard and it is close enough.

Pityfull display.

Why do you seem to have a serious problem discussing the topic or finding a different topic that holds your interest more? You appear to have a personal grievance and it is getting sickening when this is an important topic you are simply trying to derail out of an apparent dislike for the author of the OP

I dislike the vast majority of you to be honest.

reply to post by PleiadanString


From YOUR Source:

So while it explicitly forbids spending money to influence public opinion, it could be seen to open a back door, by producing material for overseas consumption, but with a covert intent to also have that material be seen by a US audience.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Yes and?

It COULD be seen as a back door.

Why don't you put this in bold,

So while it explicitly forbids spending money to influence public opinion,

They didn't legalize domestic propaganda at all like the OP claims.

Why don't you mention the ACLU approving the amendment.

If you read all the info in the source and the history of the amended act you would see it was obsolete and also why it was amended.


Like I explained, there was no way that some of their foreign propaganda would not be viewed by Americans so they either had to stop their international program or amend the law.

Not sticking up for them, just pointing out.

Originally posted by PleiadanString
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

That was from the 32 page report I posted in my other post. What Heff is saying is that.... who is the one who is next, what online forum will they deem to be politically radical, or politically extreme.... basically, they will soon be targeting the forums for anyone seen to be political dissidents...

I don't see how one can conclude that based on a news article

That was not a "news article" That was a 32 page report from the ICSR whose aim and mission is to "bring together knowledge and leadership to counter the growth of radicalisation and political violence on combating political extremism and recruiting that are chat room and web forum based."

about extremists using an internet forum. The article didn't specify any internet forums, and it didn't suggest that websites were attacked only that they monitored sites because suspected terrorists used them.

Actually, they did mention specific web forums, however, your sight should be a little farther reaching. It is those who realize when they are finished with forums like stormfront, the environmental and animal rights activists forums, then who will be next?

The entire report was a plan of attack and how they needed to go about attacking them in western countries with public sentiment being what it is for freedom of speech...

So?

yeah, freedom of speech means little to many people such as yourself, however, the very reason for freedom of speech in the first place was to have the right to disagree with political policy

We know that the whole internet is already being monitored so how are they going after us more than they already are?

They are fearing backlash from public sentiment less, and getting much bolder and open about what they are doing to our freedoms.... that is a serious worry

it doesn't matter what you say exactly or if it is accurate

Pityfull display.

I agree, very pitiful indeed of you.... you apparently dont have the reading comprehension to understand even that which you quote in your posts, yet you try to mislead others concerning what it says

I dislike the vast majority of you to be honest.

yes, honesty does seem to be a problem for you.

reply to post by PleiadanString


No, they cant specifically do it, but they can now go through that back door at will.... before this there WAS NO back door!

This is not a good thing.... unless you like political propaganda and lies directed at you and your children.... how are we supposed to vote or do anything else if we are not an INFORMED citizenry?

I do not see truth as ever being obsolete, I do not believe our right to be informed as to what our government is actually doing is obsolete.

Before this amendment we could at least demand our media not be copy pasters and demand truth in journalism, now..... lol.... whatever. If we do not know people on the ground we are shooting in the dark as to what is going on..... Here within the united states and elsewhere in the world.

And that is crap.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


You obviously don't even know what you are talking about.

I presented you with info you weren't even aware of and now you think you found one argument to prove a point you don't even know about.

Please, it's very transparent.

And it still has nothing to do with the alleged propaganda the OP is talking about. Yahoo is a domestic site and also privately owned.

Please move along.

reply to post by PleiadanString


what makes you think I was unaware of anything? I countered your arguments using your own source as well as logic and all you can come back with was that I am unaware and please move along?

grow up and start paying attention.... it is people like you who have a blatant disregard for what few freedoms we have left who are allowing the government to run rough-shod over the lot of us by writing it all off as nothing whenever our government attacks our freedoms...

little by little our freedoms are being eroded, and you want to say so?

Not everyone is saying so what.... some of us actually care, and it is those who are willing to fight for those rights who have kept the modicum of freedom you enjoy today and your complacency toward them is shameful indeed.

It is the "Heff's" of the world who has fought for YOUR right to speak.... please move along indeed.

reply to post by sonnny1