Replies

Stephen Coughlin Moment: The “Countering Violent Extremism” Deception
The CVE, “Counter Violent Extremism”, was set up at the DHS with the assistance of the Muslim Brotherhood. Where we have the DHS, FBI or State Dept. engaged with the Muslim Brotherhood in CVE initiatives, these initiatives are

*NOT AMERICAN,
*DON’T COME FROM THE UNITED STATES
*HAVE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FOOTPRINTS ALL OVER IT
“True Speak” by Jim Guirard advocates the language we are supposed to use, as when discussing Islam, which can be anything except when it has anything to do with Islam - as requested by this administration. Stephen Coughlin suggests Jim Guirard did not understand the language he was hired to promote. In January 2008 Secretary Chertoff , head of the DHS - “(pdf) TERMINOLOGY TO DEFINE THE TERRORISTS: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AMERICAN MUSLIMS included the requirement to begin sanitizing the language which describes al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood or the Zarqawi network which is today, ISIS...no longer use words like “jihad”, “caliphate”, “umma”...the very language used by the enemy...to satisfy related groups like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, muslim brotherhood front groups. It’s the elimination of the actual threat vocabulary. If we cannot use accurate terminology, we cannot develop effective means to address the threat.
Going back further, in 2004, the 9/11 Commission, called for by Congress under Article 1, clearly depicted 9/11 involved jihad, Islamic terrorism, etc. MPAC was permitted to testify, challenged the terminology and had it purged.

The official lexicon of the FBI was void of any language of the enemy. More importantly, the definition of violent extremism was a definition which so precisely collapsed into incoherence it was not randomly possible to have it that precisely incoherent.

In 2009, the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] came out with it’s unclassified intelligence review NEVER mentioned anything with the language of Islam - except at one point they said alQaeda, with an asterisk identifying alQaeda as an example of violent extremist organization. The enemy plans to defeat opposition in the “information battle space” (propaganda/subversion) by controlling the language and definition of terrorism.

In 2010, the official report on Fort Hood from the DoD - Protecting the Force, the original source of the term “workplace violence” [Page 4 or 7 of 26] Recommendation 2.6 a,b : Update Policies to Address Workplace Violence . This is the first example of government officials overwrite the facts on the ground with the “workplace violence” narrative to deny/conceal actual facts....right down to the point where the Fort Hood report never even mention Major Hasan.

In 2011, the CIA was told to stand down on some terrorism training, instead giving it to DHS in November 2011, CVE Training Guide for Best Practices which determined alQaeda as our biggest threat but no allowance made to discuss the doctrine of alQaeda, tying hands from fighting them.

2012 brings us to Benghazi. The reporting at the time made it clear that alQaeda attacked. No question about it. those same documents reveal the State Dept. spent the entire next day (9/12/12) coordinating with the Muslim Brotherhood of America (ISNA) and the OIC on the YouTube/Violent Extremism narrative and that’s how they were going to move forward- knowing that this was disinformation from the very beginning.

In 2013 and 2014, West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center came out with “Challenges on the Sideline - Understanding America’s Far Right Wing” turning support for the Constitution into potential ‘far right wing’ terrorism as equal to terrorism committed by alQaeda.

This summer Coughlin was in Vienna Austria at the Organization for SEcurity and Cooperation in Europe and we were told at this official function that they think that calling Islamic State “The Islamic State” should constitute a hate crime. About a month later, Jeh Johnson, head of DHS said he would no longer refer to ISIS as “ISIS” or “Islamic State”. Then we heard McCall, the Republican chairman of homeland security committee say the same thing.

The origins of the CVE do not come from American law. We know it comes from abroad. We know it is actual hostile because if you are doing CVE, you are NOT doing counter-terrorism.

As we witness Republicans institutionalize the CVE entity, we need to take the time to learn what it is, understand it AND TO OPPOSE IT!

3 posted on 1/9/2016, 10:42:47 PM by wtd