ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Quote from: Ugly MF on 25-01-2016, 10:17:26
To katolici kukaju greh, probaj Pravoslavlje, to ti je radost!

koliko vidim, ni u pravoslavlju zemaljski uzici nisu dozvoljeni shirokoj masi, tek nekolicini odabranih. islam rules!

Pa, gresis. U pravoslavlju mozes da uzivas u zemaljskom zivotu kolko oces, posle ti je misterija i Bozja volja, ko ti moze ista garantirat?
Ima i recepat za uzivanje, samo ljudi nece se pridrzavaju, misle oni ce bit pametniji sa svojim receptom...i onda prc...

D, sve što si rekla je totalno irelevantno, kao i uvijek. Dovedi milion vanzemaljaca, to je samo po sebi diverzija. Mogu da budu napredniji od Zemljana, to je i dalje diverzija. Sve ostalo su tvoja naklapanja, kao i obično. Pričaš o stvarima koje su tri nivoa niže po relevantnosti.

Quote from: zosko on 25-01-2016, 10:32:45
koliko vidim, ni u pravoslavlju zemaljski uzici nisu dozvoljeni shirokoj masi, tek nekolicini odabranih

EPOHALNO!!!

Quote from: Pizzobattopa stvarno, govoriti o nekim neprosvijetljenim antifeminističkim migrantima i kolika im robija treba da bi ih kultivisali, to kao da je neko uključio pola mozga i bukvalno patetiše o nebitnom

Hajde da zanemarimo da si masovna silovanja i napade na zene nazvao nebitnim, naravno da je bitno, uvezli su ih s idejom da ih se kontrolise jednim ajfonom i toplim obrokom, a sad odjednom ta jeftina radna snaga udara na temelje civilizacije, siluje nemacke zene, vrsi masovno nasilje. Koliko je to nebitno u drustvu koje je samouvereno ocekivalo da budu tihi, cute, rade i pre svega, postuju zakone zemlje u koju su dosli??? Oni su izvrsili atak na zemlju koja ih je primila, ja tu ne vidim nista nebitno: dal siluju, bacaju bombe, pljackaju, ubijaju, skrenuli su negativnu paznju javnosti na sebe. Zasluzuju robiju, jer su pocinili krivicna dela.
To nisu "neprosvetljeni antifeministicki migranti", to su kriminalci.
Mislim da si ti, izvukavsi ove incidente iz konteksta i minimizirajuci njihove akcije presao na patetisanje o nebitnom.

Ja ne znam u čijim sve glavama je silovanje gore od rata. U mojoj glavi je obrnuto.

To je izgleda neka zamena teza, bojim se da ne razumem sta zelis reci. Ko meri te dve stvari? Ovde govorimo o konkretnim zlodelima sa konkretnim posledicama, o cemu ti govoris? Definisi/objasni "rat" molim te.

Batice, sve sto si rekao je irelevantno, glupo i naklapanje.

Jao, vidi, i ja mogu da diskutujem kao batica! A mislim i da batica voli malo grubog seksa sa muskarcima.

Nije baš rat ako niko ne umire od metka. Da li su Okupaj Volstrit i šesetosma bili ratovi ili samo kulturni pomak?

a voliš li da ti uperim mitraljez u facu i tražim da izgovoriš oče naš i prekrstiš se? pa da onda vidim da li znaš da čitaš ćirilicu? Ili da ti spalim kuću i otjeram te par stotina kilometara odavdje? Možda bi onda tražila grub seks, molila za njega. Glupačo.

Dybuk, ja lijepo sve rekoh, iz perspektive cjeline, kada se sistematičnije povežu EU sankcije, Rusi u Siriji, migranti, niska cijena nafte, Arapsko proljeće, uloga Saudijaca, Ukrajina itd... ovo je uvod u rat, to ne znači da će ga biti, ali lijepo bi bilo da vidite s Vučićem oko naoružavanja, Hrvatska je već počela...

ako se migrantima zatvore granice Hrvati i Srbi će ući u sukob, Bošnjaci pride, odnosno, oni već i jesu u sukobu niskog intenziteta, i samo može da se podigne nivo konflikta

znači, ova feministička naklapanja vode ka tome da se granice zatvore

Quote from: mac on 25-01-2016, 13:22:00
Nije baš rat ako niko ne umire od metka. Da li su Okupaj Volstrit i šesetosma bili ratovi ili samo kulturni pomak?

Occupy, u kojem je svega 200 ljudi spavalo u nekom njujorškom parku, ili šesetosma u kojoj je učestvovalo 2% američkih studenata?

mojne se zaebavamo, neće migranti pucati ni na koga, sem neke šake terorista, pričam o tome da će se odmrznuti zamrznuti konflikti. Srbi i Hrvati se pokačili oko neke jadne grupe migranata jesenas, šta misliš da će da urade kad EU zatvori granice pa ti se stvori 300 soma izbjeglica u Srbiji, a ne mogu dalje?

da, baš ćemo da ih ugostimo... krenuće preko BiH, pa i kad tu budu zaustavljeni, šta onda?

Misliš, ustaše, četnici i mudžahedini neće zapucati? Pucali su i za manje

Quoteznači, ova feministička naklapanja vode ka tome da se granice zatvore

Bato, ah pa dobro ako je tako, ajde onda da kazemo tim sokiranim, povredjenim i u svojoj zemlji od stranaca koje hrane napadnutim zenama: precutite, otrpite ovo i sva buduca silovanja, bolje i to nego da izazovete rat!!!! Naviknite se na ideju da cete biti silovane kad se nekim pijanim muslimanima (kojima vera ne dozvoljava da piju!!!!!) nadigne.

Jel ti shvatas da nema feminizma niti bilo kog drustvenog -->  a ne politickog pokreta, koji ce izmeniti geostrateske prilike i uticati na vlade i lidere da kazu nesto kao, hmm da, da imaju pravo ovih 20 feministkinja, ajde da ih poslusamo, anuliramo socijalno ekonomsku politiku koju smo dosad sprovodili i gledamo kako se rat razbuktava, jer su ZENE krive za to. Pass me the beer and cuban cigar....

Hahahaha, kakva brutalna baticina zamena teza. Je li, bre, batice, koliko imas godina? Mislim, samo trogodisnjak tako postavlja situaciju. Znaci, ili mitraljez u facu ili grub seks, to mi je izbor u ratu? Gledaju me u kaficu ovde kako se naglas smejem.

Dakle, pricamo tome kako da sprecimo poplavu usled obimnih kisa i dodje batica i objasni nam da je sve uzalud jer zbog plime i oseke i meseca nad kojim nemamo kontrolu. I da biramo: ili mesec u facu ili plivanje!

Ne znam ko je ovde jos toliko autistican kao batica da upadne na topik gde se prica o masovnim silovanjima i kaze: sve vam je to naklapanje, nego kad se zapuca, molicete za seks. A pri tom je silovanje u ratu ratni zlocin, dakle vec pricamo o potencijalnom pocetku rata koji batica ne vidi u Nemackoj, jer to je samo grub seks. I neke tamo zenturace. Pao si na odbrani disertacije, batice, ako ne vidis da je rat vec poceo sa nasiljem nad zenama, i da je upravo reakcija Evrope na desavanja u Nemackoj bitna za odredjivanje sleda (ratnih) dogadjaja.

Dybuk, to uopšte nije ono što sam rekao. Znaš kad baciš kamen u vodu, kako se krugovi šire od mjesta pada? Dakle, nije nekih hiljadu pijanih muslimana nekom alhemijskom reakcijom viskija, testosterona i Kurana proizvelo napade na žene, no je na tih hiljadu očigledno njih desetak infiltrirano, i povelo masu. Oni su kamenje, i njih teba iskopati, pa i suditi za terorizam, ako treba. Ali, umjesto da se prekine sa civilizacijskim i feminističkim pričama, i usmjeri na čisto bezbjednosne, ovdje se razapinje kompletna islamska civilizacija, sa ciljem zatvaranja granica. Pa i sama Merkelova je rekla ako ih zatvori izbiće sukob na Balkanu, ne govori to tamo neki Bata. Pa nije ni ovdje Peražikafranjo zapucao sam od sebe, no su postojali kameni manipulatorski centri, finansirani, naoružani. Migranti i jesu pod ogromnim pritiskom, izbezumljeni su, umorni, možda i drogirani, o čemu mi pričamo, mi sjedimo kod svoje kuće, toplo je... Niti pričam da ovdje neko treba da prašta ili dozvoljava silovanje, govorim o intepretaciji tog silovanja, kako se komentariše i zašto se tako komentariše. Treba izvaditi glavu iz feminističkog pijeska.




@Glupača, koja je ovdje drobil o svojim nesrećnim ljubavima, kao da je to najgore što je moglo da joj se desi u životu, tražila empatiju i razumijevanje, ali Bati je dosadilo da joj pruža bilo kakvo sažaljenje, jer je glupa, laže, manipuliše, to jest pokušava da manipuliše, pa kad vidi da ne uspijevaju te amaterske debatne koještarije, onda hajde da se smijemo nečijem gledanju u puščanu cijev, i slične sociopatske tedencije


Uzgred, topik se zove ARAPSKE REVOLUCIJE, ne silovane Njemice, i počelo e u Tunisu, prešlo na Egipat, stotine su izgubile život u borbi sa vojskom, a to je bilo prije pet godina... do sada je naraslo do Islamske države, koju je SAMA NJEMAČKA PROIZVELA onda kada je sebi dala za pravo da UČESTVUJE U UBIJANJU MILION IRAČANA 2003. pa nadalje. Sad su silovane Njemice problem, iako time jedva da je naplaćena KAMATA RATNE ODŠTETE.


Meni takva glupača da priča o autizmu, pozdravi sve u kafiću, reci im da ti je Bata poručio da apoteke imaju ono što ti treba.

Ok, stoji, pa sta predlazes? Opet se svodi na to da se malo iskulira s reakcijama, jel. A svet je daleko stigao fejsbuktviter je entitet koji formira javno mnjenje na svoj nacin, pa sad treba objasniti milenijalsima da misle o siroj slici a da zaborave na ono sto ih tisti u njihovom drustvu, u njihovoj zemlji, njihovom komsiluku, ulici.
Nemoj da krivis zapadne zene i mlade sto im je ovo silovanje vaznije od potencijalnih sukoba na Balkanu! Ja ne mogu da ih krivim. No, politicari su ti koji bi trebalo da budu dalekovidiji, a ne obicni ljudi koji se bune i komentarisu ono sto ih tisti i plasi sad, ovde, u komsiluku. Ne krivi ti sacicu feministkinja za bacanje varnica nego one koji zaista posredno ili neposredno izazivaju sranja.

Hahaha, batici je dosadilo da me sazaljeva. Hej, batice, kakve veze ima tvoj umisljaj o mojim postovima sa temom? Shvatas da je to vrhunska emotivna manipulacija? Jao, ja sam te sazaljevao i razumeo, a ti me gazis? Nisam iznenadjena, doduse. Nemali broj muskaraca mi je to rekao, i ja mozda i jesam dovoljno neobicna pojava da je potrebna hrabrost pruziti mi podrsku, ali cuj - iskrena podrska ne trpi kasnije prebacivanje i patetisanje, inace si sve radio iz koristi. Toliko o manipulacijama.

Mi smo ovde vec odavno rekli da prestupnicima treba suditi za (seksualni) terorizam. Niko nije trazio zatvaranje granica, vec edukaciju i poostravanje zakona. Znas li ti o cemu pricas i kog stava se drzis uopste? Ponavljas ono sto smo rekli, a nesto od toga na silu dovodis u vezu sa svojim stavovima, pa si, tako, dosao do teze da ce feministkinje izazvati treci svetski rat?! What the fuck, batice?

Ne brini, kupicu u apoteci ono sto mi treba za tebe.

Dybuk, batica nikada ne predlaze nista, vec uvek i svuda trazi ljubav. Da ga pomilujemo po kosici i kazemo mu koliko je pametan, zahvalimo mu sto nas je podrzao. Moze, al mora i on da da nesto zauzvrat. Pristojnu komunikaciju, na primer.

I jos nesto, Dybuk, ne znam sto se stalno ogradjujes od feminizma i to je tvoja stvar. No, svaki put kad se zene od njega ograde, pristaju na stereotipe i predrasude o feminizmu. Tako si i ti sada, potpuno nesvesno, pristala na baticinu suludu tezu da ce  feministkinje izazvati rat?

What about tvoje licno razmisljanje na temu? Ne zivis na mesecu. Nisu "one" nego smo "mi". Svi. I zene i muskarci.

Nisam, slozila sam se sa sirom politickom slikom ali sam vec dvaput (tri puta?) napisala da je to sa feministkinjama suluda teorija, in not so many words, ipak mislim da sam i ovako bila jasna.

Otkud ti to da se ogradjujem? Ne znam dovoljno o samom pokretu da bih diskutovala i ulazila u sitna crevca, medjutim i ovako me mnogi ovde smatraju ljutom feministkinjom. Ne mislim da treba dodatno da objasnjavam svoje stavove, motivaciju itd.

daj bre, Dybuk, jel ti to ozbiljno vjeruješ u glupačinu nesuvislost da ja tvrdim da će feministkinje izazvati rat? One su ovdje samo pijuni.


Elem, zanimljivo je to oko priče ko koga treba da krivi, ja i ne krivim "obične" žene i muškarce, to nisam ni radio, samo sam na jednom topiku ukazao da postoji osoba čiji obrazovni background treba da nas navede da očekujemo da actually zna nešto o bezbjednosnim pitanjima, a ona iznova i iznova pokazuje da nema pojma. Pa, možda je kupila diplomu...


EDIT:
a to oko rješavanja, pa policijska strana može samo kozmetički da drži stvari pod kontrolom, edukacija je totalno glup predlog iz već navedenih razloga + traje decenijama, a kriza mora da se riješi u narednih godinu ili dvije dana, ili će eskalirati, to jest eksaliraće već postojeća eskalacija


stoga ne postoji ništa sem globalnih rješenja, koja djeluju malo vjerovatno, da Amerima dosadi Islamska država prije predsjedničkih izbora, umjesto da to koriste nakon kampanje i još se zaebavaju pola prvog mandata kao i obično.... dakle, pamet bi pokazali kad bi već Obama nešto tu pokušao, ali on se više interesuje za obaranje ruskih aviona... Njemci ne smiju ni da pisnu, oslanjaju se na Tursku, plaćaju je suvim zlatom da zaustavi migrante, i misle da je to dovoljno, glupost na kvadrat i polovično rješenje...


dakle, velike sile očigledno ne žele da riješe problem iz ovog ili onog razloga, tako postavljeno više ćemo najebati mi nego te Njemice. A pošto oni neće da riješe probleme na globalnom nivou, ostaje ti samo nacionalno-regionalni nivo, pa se snađi, i ne pitaj za Keln.

Nemoj da je zoves glupacom, samo zato sto se ne slazes s njom ili ne razumes njenu perspektivu. I ja sam onda glupaca (vec me je neko tako i nazvao par puta), svaka zabrinuta i rezignirana zena koja kritikuje nasilje nad zenama je onda glupaca. Ruzno je i ne prilici inteligentnom coveku. Daj da komentarisemo stavove a ne etiketiramo sagovornika ruznim i uvredljivim kvalifikacijama.

@Dybuk

Ma zena ne mora da bude pripadnica pokreta da bi bila feministkinja. Feminizam je toliko rasturen pokret, da je biti feministkinja sada isto sto i ne pripadati nijednoj crkvi i ne biti vernik bilo koje religije, ali ipak imati svoj jedinstveni i na svetu jedini moralno-eticko-egistencijalni sistem. Ja nisam feministkinja, ali jesam.

@patetobata

Ako ocekujes da ti kazem gde mozes da kupis disertaciju, moram da te razocaram. Ali evo ti malo ljubavi. Posaljem ti i mnogo kad se upristojis.

Quote from: D. on 25-01-2016, 14:41:09
ali ipak imati svoj jedinstveni i na svetu jedini moralno-eticko-egistencijalni sistem

...nije nista novo, svakodnas ga ima zasebe i to je promenjljiva varijabla, nazalost...

Dybuk, jesam li ja ovdje PRVI koristio riječ glup u ovoj ili onoj formi? Samo ću reći, neko je tu riječ koristio dva puta prije no što sam uzvratio. E sad, to što ja to mogu mnogo bolje da radim je posebna priča, prvi nisam počeo.

a ostalo stoji, jednostavno, slušati ovakva drombuljanja od nekoga ko bi trebalo da je završio fakultet za bezbjednost je stravično


ionako će kroz dva dana pričati da nikad nije patetisala na ovom topiku

Hoće da debatuje kao Francuzi, a ima kožu tanku kao list papira.

Batice, nauči razliku između situacije kada ti neko kaže da ti je stav glup i situacije kada ti kažu da si ti glup. A onda prestani da reaguješ kao uvređena mlada ili razmaženo derište i kada ti kažu da si glup. Trebaće ti samokontrola u budućim debatama. Predviđam da će ti se faca često pojavljivati u dnevniku 2.

nauči razliku između topika koji je bezbjednosno-politički i tvojih ličnih iskustava, koje uglavljuješ u totalno drugi kontekst, što niko inteligentan ne bi radio

tako da meni spočitavati ad hominem nakon što si se lično ukrcala na brod, dokazujući pritom da ovo uopšte ne sagledavaš objektivno no totalno neracionalno, stvarno je smiješno

ne procjenjuješ koliki je ovo bezbjednosni rizik no ''bijah ja s bivšim momkom, bu-hu''

ovo da je debata koristila bi argumente, nažalost, ti si nivo anaforuma ili krstarice, ili tako nešto... ne, u stvari, ti si taman za Parove, što se ne prijaviš?

Hahaha, zabavljaš me, batice.

Pa samo sam htela da ti ilustrujem zašto su se ženturače javile. Nisam znala da ću toliko da te uznemirim. Ali da, strašno je upravo toliko koliko ti se čini strašnim.

Sve je postalo neozbiljno kada si počeo da tvrdiš da su feministkinje na pragu da izazovu rat. I kako ne procenjujem bezbednosni rizik, kada sam ti rekla da su masovni napadi na žene u Nemačkoj moguće i prva faza specijalnog rata? I kada sam prva ovde predložila da se napadači tretiraju kao teroristi? Svašta.

Najebaće Turci! 

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2016&mm=02&dd=23&nav_category=78&nav_id=1099905

VB: Uznemirujući dokazi o saradnji Kurda i Rusa

"London -- Velika Britanija je saopštila da je primetila uznemirujuće dokaze da sirijski Kurdi sarađuju sa vladom predsednika Bašara al Asada i ruskim vazdušnim snagama..."

Ameri se setili one reči na G:

Kerry weighs 'genocide' label for Islamic State

Quote

Secretary of State John Kerry signaled today that he plans to decide soon whether to formally accuse the Islamic State of genocide amid what sources describe as an intense debate within the Obama administration about how such a declaration should be worded and what it might mean for U.S. strategy against the terrorist group.
"None of us have ever seen anything like it in our lifetimes," Kerry said during a House subcommittee hearing Wednesday about beheadings and atrocities committed by the Islamic State.
But in response to questioning by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Nebraska Republican who has been spearheading a resolution in Congress demanding the administration invoke an international treaty against genocide, Kerry was careful not to tip his hand on what has turned into a thorny internal legal debate with political and potentially military consequences.
Saying the department was reviewing "very carefully the legal standards and precedents" for a declaration of genocide against the Islamic State, Kerry added that he had received "initial recommendations" on the issue but had then asked for "further evaluations."
In his first public comments on the issue, Kerry said he "will make a decision on this" as soon as he receives those evaluations. He didn't elaborate on when that might occur.
The administration's plans to invoke the powerfully evocative genocide label — an extremely rare move — was first reported by Yahoo News last November. But at the time, the State Department was focused on restricting the designation to the Islamic State's mass killings, beheadings and enslavement of the Yazidis — a relatively small minority group of about 500,000 in northern Iraq that the terrorist group has vowed to wipe out on the grounds they are "devil worshipers."
The disclosure set off a strong backlash among members of Congress and Christian groups who argued that Islamic State atrocities against Iraqi and Syrian Christians and other smaller minority groups also deserved the genocide label. Some conservatives even chastised the administration for displaying a "politically correct bias that views Christians ... never as victims but always as Inquisition-style oppressors."
The issue has since made its way into the presidential campaign; Sen. Marco Rubio has signed a Senate version of a House resolution, co-sponsored by Fortenberry and Rep. Anna Eshoo, for a broader genocide designation that incorporates Christians, Turkmen, Kurds and other groups. Hillary Clinton has also endorsed such as move. In response to a question from a voter at a New Hampshire town hall last December about whether she believes Christians as well as Yazidis should be declared victims of genocide, she said, "I will, because we now have enough evidence."
But administration sources and others intimately familiar with the internal debate say the issue has proven more complicated. While ISIS has openly declared its intention of destroying the Yazidis, they argue, the terrorist group's leaders have not made equally explicit statements about Christians even while committing killings, kidnappings, forced removals and the confiscation and destruction of churches aimed at Christian groups. As a result, administration officials and State Department lawyers have weighed labeling those acts "crimes against humanity" — a step that critics have said doesn't go far enough. "We've been trying to tell them, crimes against humanity are not a bronze medal," said one administration official, contending that it should not be viewed as a less serious designation.
Kerry seemed to hint as much in his responses to Fortenberry at Wednesday's hearing, noting that Christians in Syria "and other places" have been forcibly removed from their homes. "There have been increased, forced evacuations," he said. "No, its not — they are killing them in that case — but it's a removal and a cleansing, ethnically and religiously, that is equally disturbing."
At the same time, two sources familiar with the debate said, Pentagon officials have expressed concerns that a genocide designation would morally obligate the U.S. military to take steps — such as protecting endangered populations or using drones to identify enslaved women — that could divert resources from the campaign to defeat the Islamic State. (An administration official told Yahoo News Wednesday that any such concerns have not been raised in "interagency" discussions over the genocide issue. "There is no resource issue," the official said.)In fact, many legal scholars say, there is considerable debate about just what practical impact a genocide designation would have. It would be made under a loosely worded 1948 international treaty that compels signatory nations, including the United States, "to prevent and to punish" the "odious scourge" of genocide defined as acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical (sic), racial or religious group." As documented by Samantha Power, now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in her 2002 book, "A Problem from Hell," President Clinton's Secretary of State Warren Christopher, resisted labeling the mass murder of the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 as genocide for fear, as one State Department memo put it at the time, "it could commit [the U.S. government] to actually do something."
But 10 years later, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the killings of non-Arab people in Darfur to be genocide — the first time the U.S. invoked such a declaration during an ongoing conflict. But he did so only after receiving a secret State Department memo concluding the designation "has no immediate legal — as opposed to moral, political or policy consequences for the United States."
Administration officials have argued they are already taking extraordinary steps to protect threatened minorities in Iraq, pointing to, for example, the 2014 evacuation of Yazidis from Mount Sinjar — and that a genocide designation wouldn't change that. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said as much when he was pressed on the issue during a recent White House briefing during which he said a genocide designation is "an open question that continues to be considered by administration lawyers."
"The decision to apply this term to this situation is an important one," Earnest said during a Feb. 4 briefing. "It has significant consequences, and it matters for a whole variety of reasons, both legal and moral. But it doesn't change our response. And the fact is that this administration has been aggressive, even though that term has not been applied, in trying to protect religious minorities who are victims or potential victims of violence."

rusi bili, rusi ostali... jos jedan udarac za srbiju.

Rusija je započela povlačenje svoje vojne opreme iz Sirije, saopštilo je ministarstvo odbrane u Moskvi.

ed: tipfeler. za siriju, ne srbiju. siriju.

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2016&mm=03&dd=15&nav_category=78&nav_id=1107814


Mediji o povlačenju Rusije: Sjajan taktički potez

...Pritom, "SAD, kao i pre, izgledaju kao izgubljeno dete u šumi bliskoistočnog haosa", piše "Foks njuz". Putin je uspeo da postigne diplomatski uspeh u Siriji "uprkos svemu". Ruski predsednik je doprineo da najveći deo međunarodne zajednice prihvati sirijskog predsednika. Iako Rusija povlači snage iz Sirije, ona će nastaviti da zauzima jake pozicije u regionu, dok će Bašar el Asad još dugo ostati na vlasti, čak i ako mirovni pregovori dožive neuspeh, navodi se u članku "Foks njuza"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBpmPXv1R4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXZv9DDCBYw

kad kopiraš jućub link ovde, ili obriši ono S u https da se embeduje, ili bar opiši o čemu se radi - inače, zašto bi iko kliktao na tvoje glupavo link?

Evo klikno sam ja da pomognem. Prvi link se zove The truth about islam:

Quote

Islam is a violent, intolerant religion which has no place in supposedly 'liberal' western democracies.

SCRIPT WITH SOURCES: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/artic...

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watso...
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

Drugi je još manje dvosmislen, zove se F**K the Pope i pretpostavljam da je homoerotska fantazija:

Quote

The Pope is a political prostitute who is betraying Christianity and selling out the principles of freedom.

http://infowars.com

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watso...
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

Inače, da sam znao kakvi sve likovi po svetu rabe termin "prison planet" nikada ne bih ovoj pesmi dao to ime... Ali posle F**K nema K*****a...

Quote from: Ghoul on 30-03-2016, 19:49:48
kad kopiraš jućub link ovde, ili obriši ono S u https da se embeduje, ili bar opiši o čemu se radi - inače, zašto bi iko kliktao na tvoje glupavo link?

E, nisam znao, brisacu taj S, no problems, thanksyu...
A to sam 'teo i da napisem nesto u nekakve naslove i komentare, al mi dvaput stucnuo internet, i to samo na mom kompu, od tri povezana,
i poenta je bila kako ovaj tip koji vristi da mu Muslimanija ne valja zato sto ne da prava Homoseksualcima, misliiiiim, od dva grdna, mlogo mi drago sto sam Neutralni Srbin, al' majkemi!

Why ISIS is winning the online propaganda war

Quote
The U.S. government has been unable to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on the one battlefield it currently commands: the Internet. For proof, look no further than the U.S. State Department's August 2014 "Welcome to 'Islamic State' Land" YouTube video, a counterterrorism blunder nearly as inexcusable as the flawed intelligence reports that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In an attempt to combat ISIS's slick multimedia campaign extolling the virtues of its so-called caliphate, the U.S. government combined graphic images of ISIS's prisoner beheadings, statue demolitions, and other war crimes with text that taunted the group and its aims. "Travel is inexpensive," the video proclaims in white text on a black background proclaimed, followed by a clip of ISIS fighters driving a convoy, "...because you won't need a return ticket!" The footage switches to dead jihadists' bodies strewn across the ground.


Western media outlets pounced on the video after it spread on Twitter. John Oliver mocked it mercilessly on his HBO show Last Week Tonight. "I found it so horrifying that I personally couldn't watch the whole thing," Christina Schori Liang, a senior fellow at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, said of the video.
The Obama administration in early January announced an overhaul of its programs aimed at countering violent extremism (CVE) online. The State Department's Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC), which produced the controversial video, was rebranded the Global Engagement Center, and its mission changed from producing content to partnering with local organizations on the ground to develop better messages. The government is also meeting with tech companies to brainstorm new approaches.



But the legacy of the video lingers in the minds of people who study and combat violent extremism online. Liang and other experts interviewed for this story described current efforts to create online "counter-narratives" to ISIS propaganda as woefully underfunded, counter-productive, and ignorant of the basic principles—from psychology and spirituality to customization and virality—that ISIS is exploiting to gain the edge in this digital war.
To experts in this field, "Welcome to the 'Islamic State' land" was the counter-messaging equivalent of "We will be greeted as liberators": an ominous sign of how poorly prepared the United States was to enter this battlefield.The ISIS strategy—and why it worksFor the Islamic State, social media is as potent a weapon as any captured American tank or rocket launcher. More so than any other terrorist network, ISIS has mastered every element of social media propagandizing. It crafts psychologically canny messages, tailors them to specific audiences, recruits a vast and dedicated network of distributors, and exploits the natural virality of social networks to amplify its call to jihad.
To put it simply, ISIS gets the Internet and its audience in a way the U.S. government does not.
ISIS's messages target people by preying on two psychological factors. The first is what Alejandro Beutel, a researcher at the University of Maryland's National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, called "cognitive closure," or "a quest for certainty." Young Muslims living in Western countries like the United States often feel pulled between their nationality and their religion—especially at times of heightened Islamophobia generated by the anxiety that follows terrorist attacks. "Many of these young individuals," Beutel said, "are dealing with dual identities and trying to figure out how they can blend them together."
Young Muslims who feel torn between what can seem like two different worlds, who long for structure and meaning in their lives, are ISIS's best targets. They seek a coherent picture of the world—and ISIS is ready to offer one. Imagine being 19 years old, living in a major American city, and not understanding how a terrorist attack in Paris can change the way your fellow subway passengers look at you. If that prejudice or bigotry mystified you, you might gravitate toward someone offering an explanation that felt like it fit with your experiences. You might start watching YouTube videos about the supposedly irreconcilable differences between the West and the Islamic world. ISIS shapes its content to appeal to this person and others who lack a framework for understanding world events and are willing to embrace a radical one.


The other psychological factor that ISIS exploits is the natural desire for purpose. ISIS is a bonafide regional power, and to people who already feel out of place in Western society and crave a sense of direction, joining ISIS offers that purpose, that significance. They can become part of something bigger than themselves. They can fight for a cause. ISIS's messages don't just offer a framework for understanding the world; they also offer the chance to help shape it. These messages "make people feel like they matter in the world," Beutel said, by promising "a sense of honor and self-esteem, and the ability to actively live out those desires."
There are also more pragmatic promises, tailored to people who are not only spiritually aimless but economically frustrated and emotionally unfulfilled. Liang described this part of the appeal as, "Come and you will have a real life. You will have a salary. You will have a job. You will have a wife. You will have a house."
"This is appealing to people who have, really, no future," she said.
Then there's the simple restlessness of young people—a factor policymakers dismiss at their peril. "They're tapping this kind of moment in youth where you feel like there's nothing going and you need a new adventure, you need a new thing," Liang said.
For youth in nearby Muslim countries wracked by civil war, ISIS gives their chaotic lives stability and a higher calling in a society that puts religious meaning above all else. "For these young people, they send this idea of this sanctity of the caliphate," Liang added. "This gives it, to religious youth, a real call to come to the caliphate. It gives them real purpose." Religion is a key part of that purpose. ISIS argues that "this is an indisputable battle between the Shia and the Sunni," Liang said, "and in order to protect your own Sunnis, you have to come and help fight this war. They really have a black-and-white ... way they paint it. You really have no choice. You have to come."
It's not just about religion. Restless young people are also often full of anger, the result of years of slights real or imagined, and ISIS is ready to tell them that whatever anger they feel is really part of its broader struggle. Peter Romaniuk, an associate professor of political science at the City University of New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said that ISIS's modus operandi was to "give people every opportunity to frame their grievances in a way that accords with ISIS's message."
The U.S. government is aware of this phenomenon. In remarks at Chatham House in London, on Jan. 18, Richard Stengel, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, observed that ISIS was "exploiting a vast market of grievance, of unhappiness, of unemployment, of lack of meaning."
"They're not creating a market; they're exploiting a market," Stengel said. "And what you know from advertising is ... it's much easier to exploit a market than to create one."


By exploiting its audience's psyche, ISIS is not unlike a sophisticated political campaign. And like high-stakes electoral efforts aimed at diverse audiences, ISIS knows how to tweak its rhetoric and imagery to suit every demographic group.
"They have a special, unique message for young girls," Liang said. "They have a special, unique message for drug addicts, for ex-cons. They have a special, unique message for ex-combatants in Chechnya. They really tailor their approach to each region and to each specific need."
Farah Pandith, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former official in the Bush and Obama administrations, compared this customization to Internet marketing. "They learn what's working, they take away what isn't," she said, "and they are developing—as any marketer ... or any advertiser would do—a way to appeal to the millennial generation that makes sense for them."
In a sign of just how potent ISIS's message is, researchers estimate that the vast majority of the people disseminating pro-extremist content are not even members of the group but simply fans of its work. This is the key to its successful distribution model.
"Ninety percent of ISIS Twitter messages are put out by their cheerleaders and by their supporters, not actual formal ISIS members," said Buetel. "These are people who volunteer their time, but the thing is, they volunteer copious amounts of their time, and they make it their singular focus. And when you crowdsource it, it creates this sort of voluminous effect."
Shannon Green, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies's Human Rights Initiative, calls these people "fanboys." They are ISIS's perfect messengers because their lack of formal association with the group enhances their credibility. It's the equivalent of the way that a Toyota owner has more credibility than a Toyota dealership manager in recommending one of the company's cars. You're more likely to trust someone who isn't on the payroll.
ISIS does pay some of its recruiters, according to Liang. "And these recruiters, they're even cynical," she said. "They know that half the stuff they're telling people online is hogwash. They're cynically attracting young people, because they know that they're going to get a salary from [ISIS] for doing this. It's a job." By combining the benefits of both approaches, ISIS imitates the tactics of successful presidential campaigns, which depend on both paid advertising and "earned advertising," the free exposure that their messages get from journalists reporting on their ads.
Whether they're cynical Internet contractors or committed fanboys, ISIS propagandists spread their messages by exploiting two inescapable aspects of social media: virality and echo chambers. Their reliance on virality often leads to jarring tweets, as they combine videos of beheadings with trending hashtags. Beutel has seen ISIS messengers tag extremist content with the hashtags for major soccer matches. They also incorporate memes and current events into their posts. "When something happens in real life," Pandith said, "they're grabbing stills and images [from news footage], so that people feel like they're keeping up with them."


Even more pernicious, from the perspective of CVE specialists trying to guide people away from radicalization, is ISIS's use of the echo-chamber effect, wherein the perception of solidarity and community reinforces the strength of the message. One of ISIS's favorite terms for those who dwell in its echo chamber is "baqiyah bros." The word "baqiyah" comes from the ISIS slogan "baqiya wa tatamaddad," which roughly translates to "remaining and expanding" or "enduring and expanding"—a defiant tone for a besieged insurgency that seeks legitimacy and permanence.
"'We are the bros that are enduring,'" Beutel said, translating the term. "We're a bunch of bros that are hanging out together, having this online community, but we're also having this sense of purpose here—that we are enduring, we are a community that is here to stay, and we are a community that is serving this higher purpose as well. ... It plays on these psychological mechanisms, creating this echo chamber that's reinforcing these messages, and creating a sense of community that is also an additional incentive to engaging in these extremist clicks, if you will."


Why counter-narratives aren't working
The War on Terror is self-perpetuating. From drone strikes to support for Israel, Western governments' policies have either hurt or offended the people contemplating joining a jihadist group. These governments cannot prevent people from being radicalized, because it is their actions that spurred the radicalization in the first place.
"The U.S. Government, any government, is not necessarily the best messenger for the message we want to get out there," Stengel, the State Department public-affairs official, said in his Chatham House remarks. "In fact, they use us as a recruiting tool. They use our messaging as a recruiting tool."
In the nearly 15 years since Al Qaeda brought down the Twin Towers, the United States and its allies have spent more money and energy fighting the kinetic war than the ideological war. This approach both takes resources away from anti-extremism propaganda efforts and provides the fodder for the very propaganda ISIS and terrorism organizations use to entice new recruits.
"We haven't been able to integrate the so-called 'soft power' approach hand-in-hand with the 'hard power' approach," said Pandith. "So you see a very precise and very evaluated and very strategic set of goals and missions and plans for hard power. You do not see the same thing in the soft-power arena."
Given the catch-22 of using military force to combat Islamic extremism, experts say, the U.S. should place firmer limits on its kinetic activities if it hopes to staunch the flow of successful propaganda. "The idea of winning the war of ideas is very mixed into the idea of the superiority of the spirit—the idea that the enemy has to prove that it is better, that is morally better than the existing ruler," said Liang. "We're not winning that moral superiority if we're killing innocents through our kinetic power. We have to find a path in the middle."
This is a problem of both money and vision, Pandith said. Obviously, funding is crucial. But the other important piece is that it's unclear, in her words, "who, at the end of the day, understands the whole battlefield in the ideological space?" Right now, the counter-narrative effort—unlike the military campaign in Iraq and Syria—does not feel cohesive.
"Those people that are in favor of terrorism, extremism, dedicate all day, every day to very enthusiastically spreading those messages," said Ross Frenett, the co-founder of Moonshot CVE. "On the other side, you have a mixed bag."
Another problem is that anti-ISIS efforts are not carefully targeted. "We tend to post something on a YouTube channel, for example, or on a Facebook account and expect people to come to us," Green said, "versus being really proactive in trying to use data analytics to identify the target audience and then find really creative ways of putting that information in front of them."
How counter narratives are transmitted is only one of the big distribution problems. The other is who is doing the transmitting. For the most part, right now, it is Western governments—and governments are not agile enough to effectively engage in the digital space. Beutel pointed out that government contractors or employees are often slow to respond to extremist content with counter-messaging because their work must be passed up a bureaucratic chain for approval. "If someone posts, for example, a question on a Facebook group which is trying to counter ISIS, they need to be responded to and engaged with very quickly," he said. "And sometimes the layers of approval the government needs to go through would mean that ... by the time something goes up on the page, it's a week later, and the individual involved has moved on."


The State Department has tried engaging with extremists and their potential converts through its "Think Again, Turn Away" campaign, which produced that inflammatory "Welcome to the Islamic State" video. On its Facebook and Twitter pages, the government crows about ISIS's "battlefield setbacks" and points out would-be suicide bombers who change their minds. It is intended to expose the folly of ISIS's tactics and ideology, making both a moral and pragmatic argument against the insurgency. But it has been roundly criticized as ineffective and inflammatory. Beutel called it "a dismal failure" and an example of the fact that governments "have no resonance with these kinds of things."
"What we know is that Muslim youth need to hear the counter-messages from their peers, and people that they trust, and people that are cool, and people that are role models and are what we call credible voices," said Pandith. "Even a government of a Muslim-majority country isn't a credible voice to young millennials. They just aren't." But it can be difficult to find voices who would be credible to potential jihadists, because the people managing these programs often have no ability to relate to those potential jihadists. "Having somebody craft the messages who really understands where someone is coming from is so important," said Green. "What you or I may think will resonate with someone just doesn't if you really can't understand the mentality."
Counter-narratives have also been poorly designed by people who don't understand the mentality of ISIS and its adherents. The "Welcome to the Islamic State" video best exemplifies this problem. "They tried to meet violence with violence," Liang said of the video. "They're trying to basically ... make it so violent that they get the people that want to watch the violent stuff. ... But they're sort of stooping down to [ISIS's] level, which I find really sort of tragic."
A former senior Obama administration official, who requested anonymity to describe internal government deliberations, described the video was "on many levels, a mismatch," saying that it would only reach "a very small segment of ISIS supporters" who were "interested in and attracted by the brutality." The official bemoaned the fact that "some of the snarky messaging that was meant to be satire and was meant to mock ISIS" did not "land in the way that people anticipated."
"ISIS is not selling itself based on its brutality," the official said. "It's selling itself based on the fact that it can provide a sense of purpose and belonging and meaning to people who otherwise feel like they're unmoored and neglected by society. So if that's the thing that's attracting a certain segment of the people, then you need to engage in messaging that's going to be providing people with other meaningful opportunities, and a sense of purpose and identity and belonging."


U.S. counter-narrative production has also tended to follow a one-size-fits-all approach, in contrast to the Islamic State's sophisticated, demographically targeted propaganda operation. Pandith said that this has hindered efforts to reach people whose grievances and concerns fall outside of the narrow pitch that counter-narrative messengers are pursuing. "If you're fighting an ideology, you have to use a very careful approach to understand the local climate in which you're partnering with local organizations on the ground," she said. "You have to understand that the nuance matters."
When these anti-ISIS messages aren't satirizing the jihadist group, they are crudely and counter-productively scolding its followers and potential followers. "There's very often a temptation," Frenett said, "to have finger-waving counter-narratives rather than ones which are genuinely engaging." Community groups are guilty of this too, he said. Some of them "think the best way of going about creating a counter-narrative is to stick a camera in a grey-bearded imam's face and have him talk to the camera for 20 minutes or half an hour." In theory, a local voice would be more convincing, but this imam's lecture probably wouldn't do much good, because, as Frenett noted, "If the young men and women that are joining ISIS were listening to their imams in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem."
Bad counter-narratives—whether overly snarky, like the CSCC video, or simply tone-deaf in other ways—can stigmatize the very people they're intended to reassure and persuade. In September 2015, Romaniuk published a paper analyzing 27 CVE program evaluations. Among his various observations was that poorly thought-out CVE programs often left counterproductive impressions on the recipients of the messages. He cited a 2011 evaluation of the United Kingdom's "Prevent" program, which noted that past efforts had "given the impression that Muslim communities as a whole are more 'vulnerable' to radicalisation than other faith or ethnic groups."
Evaluators of another British program noted that staff members avoided the term "preventing violent extremism" because they believed that "young people, families, and communities would all feel that 'PVE' implied that they personally either supported such extremism, or were at risk from it, so providing a highly negative starting point."
"Those evaluations," Romaniuk said, "did show that the recipients of CVE programming sometimes felt stigmatized by the fact that they were recipients of CVE programming."
Given all of the problems with the State Department's work, why didn't the National Security Council, which oversees government-wide foreign-policy operations from the White House, intercede to stop the CSCC earlier? Part of the problem is that, according to the senior administration official, the NSC didn't approve each of the CSCC's messages. "For a very brief period of time when CSCC was piloting their English-language effort, the NSC would lead an interagency approval process," the official said. "But [the program] didn't go through NSC clearance per se."
The NSC, which includes representatives from the major cabinet departments and intelligence agencies, did hold meetings to try to "unpack and understand" ISIS's messaging strategy and viral appeal. In those meetings, policymakers recognized the need to contrast ISIS's utopian claims and the less rosy reality. But, the official said with a laugh, "You have to understand that some of the people who were creating those messages were not necessarily involved or at the table when those more strategic policy conversations were happening."
Looking back, the official said, "I think the NSC maybe could have set the tone a little bit better in terms of the focus of the messages."
Green is intimately familiar with this issue. While at the NSC, she helped organize the February 2015 White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism. One of her tasks was inviting civil-society organizations working on counter-narratives to attend the summit and share their experiences. Not only were many groups interested in participating, but many of them approached her afterward with creative CVE proposals that built on the enthusiasm generated at the summit. But the funding ultimately wasn't there.
"People were inspired and they wanted to do something, but there wasn't some ready-made pot of money that we could use to support those efforts," Green said. "That was my frustration: the mismatch between getting people really excited and then what we actually had at our disposal to follow through."


How to improve counter-messaging
If the U.S. and its allies want to dissuade would-be jihadists from joining ISIS, they need to start from square one. "We need a compelling story that makes our story better than theirs," Liang said. "And so far their story is trumping ours."
The anti-extremist story can't just be a paean to human rights and liberal democratic values. It must provide clear promises about what the Middle East will look like if ISIS is defeated. "What are we going to do if we take back the land that [ISIS] is inhabiting at the moment?" Liang said. "What government are we going to set up, and how legitimate will it be? If you look at, right now, the Iraqi state, it's extremely corrupt, and it has to prove that it will be the better alternative."
Part of the challenge that counter-narrative designers face is that the anti-extremist story can't just be a sweeping theoretical message. It has to be pragmatic, full of real promises. But no one has a clear idea of how to do this. "To be totally honest, we haven't cracked that nut yet," the former senior administration official said. "Maybe it is liberal values and a democratic order and human rights and democratic values. I would hope that that would be the case. But I don't think that there's evidence yet that that would be equally compelling as a narrative or a set of values.
"Everyone agrees [that] we can't just counter-message," the official added. "We have to promote alternative messages. But nobody understands or agrees or has the answer in terms of what are the alternate courses of action or pathways that one could offer."
While the big-picture thinkers devise a story, others should focus on a bevy of vital changes to how counter-narratives are produced and distributed. For one thing, the content is too grim. Instead of going dark, Beutel said, go light: Offer would-be jihadists hope. Humanize ISIS's foot soldiers instead of demonizing them, so that your intended audience understands that you care about their fate and not just taking them off the battlefield. "When you have people who are espousing incredibly hateful worldviews, the tendency is to want to demonize them—to want to shut them out [in order] to isolate them," Beutel said. "More often than not, that actually repulses people rather than [getting] them to open up."
Frenett has seen firsthand that offering people hope can work. He participated in a pilot project testing this approach, and the results were encouraging. "We had a team of former extremists reach out to these individuals if they were doing things like, for example, openly promoting ISIS, openly promoting [ISIS leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi," Frenett said. "When they messaged them saying, 'ISIS is terrible, they're doing this and this, do you realize what's going on?' they tended to get very low response rates." But when the former extremists launched conversations with budding jihadists on positive terms, more people responded, and those conversations went better.
"When we try and intervene directly with potential extremists online," Frenett said, "that positive messaging can also be quite effective."
It is vital to recruit former jihadists—who know better than anyone else what the world of ISIS is like—to reach out to would-be extremists and relay their experiences. "They can empathize in a way that others can't," Green said. Not only are former jihadists more likely to pierce that initial wall of skepticism, but their ability to say "I've been where you've been" gives their words more power.


Counter-messaging must also emphasize the futility of ISIS's regional ambitions. As has been noted, the group derives much of its appeal from a combination of religious prophecy (the coming of an apocalyptic event) and material stability (the promise of a steady job and all the benefits that accrue from that). But the group isn't close to achieving its goals, and anti-extremist messages need to point that out. "Insofar as ISIS can continue to show that they have momentum and that they're the victors, people will be attracted to joining them, because people want to be associated with a winning cause," the former senior administration official said. "I think the administration, particularly [the Department of Defense], has tried to show more evidence that [ISIS is] on their back foot."
There are already some programs designed to improve the quality of the counter-messages that CVE efforts produce. The University of Maryland hosts a National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) that offers CVE fellowships. A Dubai-based group called Hedayah hosts workshops bringing together private companies and civil-society organizations. These programs offer a starting point for future efforts. "It's just that those things need to be scaled up," Green said, "and they need to be much more sustainable."
Even a great message is nothing without a sophisticated distribution plan. Anti-extremist messengers will need to learn more about the places where budding jihadists congregate, including which ISIS propagandists are influential, in what ways, and to whom. With their massive databases of user information and carefully refined analytical tools for processing data, tech companies are well-positioned to help here. Google, Beutel said, could help "map out [ISIS's] social networks and then begin to identify the key nodes of people who produce these messages and develop different messaging strategies."
Tech companies can also leverage their understanding of how messages spread to post anti-extremist advertising campaigns in ways that they know will resonate best. Google is already doing this in the United Kingdom, putting links to counter-narratives in the search results for queries like "join ISIS." Twitter, perhaps ISIS's favorite platform, is partnering with NGOs "to empower credible non-governmental voices against violent extremism." Social networks can also whitelist government accounts to stop terrorists from fraudulently reporting them as abusive, a tactic that ISIS once used to bring down the "Think Again, Turn Away" campaign's Twitter account. "Technology companies have been more and more engaged with nonprofits and with governments to produce positive material to place on their platforms," said Frenett, "partly so they can defend against calls for greater censorship."
Local governments, trusted religious and cultural figures, and respected nongovernmental organizations are also crucial allies in CVE efforts, and the State Department's Global Engagement Center is actively pursuing such partnerships."You have to have [help from] civil society, that is independent of any influence from the state, to be able to take on those kinds of things," Beutel said. "They have the most potential to know their audience." Religious leaders like imams may have enough "scholarly cred," as Beutel put it, to overpower the words of someone on the Internet urging the target to follow a radical path.
Local governments, imams, and NGOs also have a freer hand in how they engage with would-be extremists, because they can criticize Western governments' policies on issues like drone strikes and foreign aid for Israel in order to build a rapport. "That ability and willingness to share some ground with these people that are disaffected is something that makes a huge difference," Frenett said.
But these local actors' independence can be a double-edged sword for governments planning CVE work. Not only does trusting them mean giving up control of the message, but these people and groups might have their own controversial pasts. "There are religious leaders, like Imam Suhaib Webb, who have a really significant following with young people and are very credible," Green said. But the U.S. would risk fierce criticism from some of its allies if it partnered with people like Webb, "because there are some controversies around what he and others have said and stances they've taken on certain foreign-policy issues." Embracing someone who sharply criticizes Israel, for example, can be just as controversial as issuing the criticism directly.
As the State Department moves toward the new approach embodied by the Global Engagement Center, experts said, it should be mindful of what governments are still well-suited to doing in the CVE space. Frenett stressed the importance of giving former extremists and other credible voices the tools to engage in a space that may be new to them—especially if they're members of an older generation. "Very credible individuals," he said, "don't necessarily have the kind of social-media expertise of the millennial generation that they're trying to counter."
Experts praised the GEC's new focus on local partnerships, but they warned of risks beyond the potential for an imam to say something controversial. For one thing, if the State Department funds a campaign, it must be careful not to endanger the autonomy or credibility of its local partner. "Whoever's leading the charge on this effort to collaborate with local partners," Pandith said, "is going to have to do it in a way that the localized partners on the ground globally feel as though they have the right to produce the content—that there is no structure that the U.S. government is telling them what to say."
It is unclear exactly how much of a propaganda coup it would be for ISIS to link a local CVE effort to the West. On the one hand, to people who have been steeped in ISIS messages about Western corruption, the discovery that the State Department is paying your imam to criticize ISIS "reinforces the extremist narrative of some kind of conspiracy or discrimination," Romaniuk said. But as Frenett pointed out, ISIS is fond of labeling every CVE campaign "the work of Zionists," and that message may not resonate as deeply outside its core flock. "Your hardened ISIS [militant] isn't necessarily your audience," he said. "Your audience is that person that's considering moving over to that side. To that audience in particular, it'll make a huge difference that there's not a State Department logo at the end of those videos.""The song will keep living on"On Feb. 16, Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken delivered a speech entitled "New Frameworks for Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism" at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "We are expanding partnerships to develop the expertise to better understand violent extremism and its drivers at the international, regional, national, and local levels," Blinken said. "We are developing the research and evidence base to shape rigorous and targeted initiatives tailor-made to the communities in which they will be implemented."
Blinken did not mention the problem that Liang identified as the core of the U.S. government's failures up to this point: the absence of a compelling story. Civil-society organizations, tech companies, and local religious leaders can provide all the insight and expertise that they have to offer, but that wisdom will be useless without a story to contrast with ISIS's message of glorious, spiritually fulfilling jihad.
It's unclear, in fact, whether creating a single, unified story is even on the agenda. The former senior administration official said that the National Security Council, which oversees interagency CVE work, now has a better understanding of what worked and what didn't in counter-messaging. "They have more people on staff who are looking at the intelligence and understanding the messages," the official said. "I think it's gotten better."
The next step will be even harder. Once the anti-ISIS messengers develop a compelling story, they will have to confront a sobering reality: 15 years of targeted killings, drone strikes, and Special Forces raids have created general mistrust and Middle Eastern turmoil. Just killing terrorists isn't enough. Eventually, the U.S. and its allies will need to start persuading potential terrorists to rethink their lives.
"We're spending billions on the kinetic war, trying to kill the singers," Liang said, "but the song will keep living on."

Al kako ovo da čoveka ne iznervira? "CIA je imala plan koji je mogao da zaustavi ISIS još pre četiri godine al Obama, pederčina, nije dao", veli uvod teksta. Plan? Da se ubije Asad. Jer, iako to tekst ne kaže eksplicitno, Amerikanci valjda misle da je Asad osnovao islamsku državu i da nje ne bi bilo  da on nije na vlasti, a, dalje kaže tekst, ne bi bilo ni napada hemijskim oružjem (do danas nedokazano da su to radile Asadove trupe), ni izbegličke krize u Evrpi. Pošto je to tako DO JAJA prošlo u Gadafijevom slučaju, jelte. Ameriko, Ameriko, posle se pitaš što te mrze... Da je bar Obama kandidat za predsednika pa da razumem što ovako seru...

  Obama nixed CIA plan that could have stopped ISIS: Officials

Quote
The CIA in 2012 proposed a detailed covert action plan designed to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, but President Obama declined to approve it, current and former U.S. officials tell NBC News.
It's long been known that then-CIA Director David Petraeus recommended a program to secretly arm and train moderate Syrian rebels in 2012 to pressure Assad. But a book to be published Tuesday by a former CIA operative goes further, revealing that senior CIA officials were pushing a multi-tiered plan to engineer the dictator's ouster. Former American officials involved in the discussions confirmed that to NBC News.
In an exclusive television interview with NBC News, the former officer, Doug Laux, describes spending a year in the Middle East meeting with Syrian rebels and intelligence officers from various partner countries. Laux, who spoke some Arabic, was the eyes and ears on the ground for the CIA's Syria task force, he says.
Laux, an Indiana native who joined the CIA in 2005 at age 23, says he wrote an "ops plan" that included all the elements he believed were necessary to remove Assad. He was not allowed to describe the plan, but he writes that his program "had gained traction" in Washington. His boss, the head of the Syria task force, regularly briefed members of the Congressional intelligence committees on what Laux was seeing, hearing and suggesting.
A former senior intelligence official said Laux's ideas—many of them shared by other members of the CIA's Syrian task force–were heavily represented in the plan that was ultimately presented to Obama.
But the president, who must approve all covert action, never gave the green light. The White House and the CIA declined to comment.
RELATED: Obama: Deadly consequences if 'madmen' terrorists get nuclear material
The White House and CIA leaders "had made it clear from the beginning that the goal of our task force was to find ways to remove President Assad from office," Laux complained. "We had come up with 50 good options to facilitate that. My ops plan laid them out in black and white. But political leadership...hadn't given us the go-ahead to implement a single one."
Laux's account was heavily censored by the CIA, which reviews every book by a former officer and removes classified information. The agency would not let Laux describe his Syria prescriptions in detail. Still, some observers have found it surprising that the agency allowed a former officer to write that the CIA was planning the overthrow of a foreign government.
Petraeus and others who supported the plan believe it could have prevented the rise of ISIS, Assad's use of chemical weapons, the European refugee crisis and the tens of thousands of civilian deaths that have happened since, the former officials say. President Obama and many other analysts strongly disagree.
Elements under discussion at the time included not only bolstering Syrian rebels, but pressuring and paying senior members of Assad's regime to push him out, the former officials said. The idea was that the Syrian civil war could then have been peacefully resolved–a huge uncertainty.
Laux ultimately resigned in frustration — over that and other issues – after it became clear the Obama administration would not move forward.
Some time later, Obama authorized a more modest CIA plan to arm and train Syrian rebels than the one Petraeus had recommended, but that effort has not been decisive on the battlefield. The moderate Free Syrian Army collapsed, and many Syrians opposed to Assad were drawn into the orbit of extremist groups, including al Qaeda and ISIS. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf countries began arming different rebel groups and pursuing their own agendas.  MSNBC Live, 3/22/16, 10:45 PM ET 
  What does ISIS want?    The Atlantic's Graeme Wood comments on the attacks in Brussels and talks about the state of ISIS. Wood says ISIS has suffered a lot of "battlefield defeats" especially in Syria and Iraq causing the group to look elsewhere to uphold its image.   ISIS had not yet broken from Syria's al Qaeda affiliate, or seized territory, when Laux was proposing his plan. By 2014, an allied coalition that included the U.S., U.K., and France was launching massive airstrikes against ISIS, which had seized a vast swath of Iraq and Syria and established a caliphate.
Looking back, Laux now says he doesn't believe his or any other covert plan could have stopped the rise of ISIS or ended Syria's bloody civil war. "There were no moderates," he says.
But Petraeus believes it might have, as does Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria, and Leon Panetta, the former defense secretary, former senior U.S officials told NBC News.
While the plan had risks, the situation in Syria "couldn't be worse" than it is now, another former senior official involved said.
In the memoir she published last year, "Hard Choices," Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she advocated having the CIA arm the rebels in 2012, siding with Petraeus in internal White House debates.
Petraeus, Ford and other officials held weekly meetings on the issue during the summer and fall of 2012, former officials say.
Neither Petraeus nor Ford would comment about the covert plan, but Ford said in an interview that he believes ISIS would not have been able to declare a caliphate in Raqqah, Syria, if the U.S. government had taken steps in 2012 to bolster what was then called the Free Syrian Army.
"I'm confident we would be looking at a different Syria today if the president of the United States hadn't overruled David Petraeus, head of the CIA, Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, and Leon Panetta, who was secretary of defense," Sen. John McCain (R.-Arizona) told NBC News.
President Obama has not commented on the full CIA plan, but he has said arming Syrian rebels would not have worked.
"The notion that we could have—in a clean way that didn't commit U.S. military forces—changed the equation on the ground there was never true," Obama told the writer Jeffrey Goldberg for the April edition of the Atlantic Magazine.
RELATED: Obama on ISIS: 'They're not an existential threat to us'
But former senior U.S. officials point out that the Lebanon-based terror group Hezbollah, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards, had not yet begun fighting in Syria in significant numbers in 2012. Many players in the region, they say, were waiting to see what the United States would do.
Laux said he believes U.S. policy at the time was "feckless," and shattered American credibility in the region, even before Obama declined to take military action when Assad used chemical weapons in August 2013.
For example, he said, in August 2012, then-Secretary of State Clinton announced in Turkey that the U.S. was considering enforcing a no fly zone against Assad's forces, a statement that made news.
"For the next few days, rebel leaders who had been suspicious of U.S. motives before happily shared everything with me — the state of their forces, where they were deployed, the names of important leaders, etc," Laux writes. "It yielded an intel bonanza."Soon, though, they began to ask when the U.S. jets were coming."The no fly zone pledge turned out to be a bluff to try to get Assad's allies to put more pressure on him to resign," Laux writes. "I wasn't told that either. What it accomplished was to flush the slim credibility we had in Syria down the drain."
After it was clear the administration wasn't going to move forward with covert action, Laux recommended that the CIA pull out altogether, an idea that did not win him any friends inside the agency.
He was soon overtaken by frustration.
"I had worked my ass off for almost a year, risked my life, and compromised my health and personal life because I was seriously trying to come up with a plan to help the Syrian opposition that would meet with the approval of the administration, Congress, and our Arab and European allies," he writes.
The experience left him "starting to question what I was doing with my life."
Laux, who had previously spent two years spying in Afghanistan, quit the agency soon afterward.
While the CIA would not comment on the Syria plan, a spokesperson did issue a statement about Laux's book.
"Sadly, Mr. Laux's career at CIA did not work out. We hope that someday, maybe with age and greater maturity, he will have better perspective on his time here. The American people should know that his former colleagues continue to do extraordinary work despite his departure, and do so without the need for public recognition."
Kevin Monahan also contributed to this report.
This article originally appeared on NBCNews.com.

  Leading jihadis 'twice as likely to be students of science as of Sharia'

QuoteProminent jihadists are twice as likely to have studied science at university than subjects related to Islam, according to a new survey, while British fighters appear to know the least about their religion.
The report, which analysed the histories of 100 of the most prominent jihadist leaders of the last three decades, said that despite claiming to be the sole interpreters of Islamic theology, they often had little or no training in the subject.
Osama bin Laden himself went to a secular school and studied economics and business at university, and had little formal Islamic training.
This was important because the report also found that personal networks were more important in recruiting and promoting jihadists than individual jihadist organisations.
 
Many jihadists had been recruited from non-violent Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, and radicalised in the wars they then went to fight.
The report, by the Centre on Religion and Geopolitics, is backed by a separate analysis conducted on thousands of files recently leaked of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) entrance and exit papers for individual jihadists. It also found that many had little or no knowledge of Islamic law when they arrived.

   Nearly all of the 18 Britons whose files were released to the Telegraph put "basic" in answer to the question of how extensive their knowledge of Sharia law was.
Analysis of all 2,000 Isil fighters' entrance forms, revealed that British fighters were among the least knowledgeable on their religion. Foreign jihadists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Tunisia were most likely to answer "advanced" to the question.
Rising concern about "home-grown jihadists" has coincided with a military approach which focuses on "defeating" individual groups, such as al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, or Isil in Iraq and Syria.
 
   However, the report found that jihadist groups' ideologies and structures were flexible and that many senior jihadists moved from group to group.
The fact that half the 100 studies had begun their careers in non-violent Islamist movements - a quarter in the Muslim Brotherhood - is a blow to those who have argued that these groups should be encouraged as "alternatives" to radical Islamism.
 

   The report also found that at senior levels at least the common idea that jihadists came from "marginalised" communities or were under-educated was also false. A quarter of the group had either worked for government agencies themselves, or had close relatives who did.
Around half had attended university, with 57 per cent of them studying science subjects, compared to only 28 per cent studying Islamic subjects.
 
However, the report confirms some other common assumptions. It refers to the practice of Islamic societies - including at major British universities - to invite radical speakers who are in fact not recognised scholars.
Universities should "place a responsibility on managerial and student bodies to ensure that extremist viewpoints face intellectual challenge, especially during events and debates hosting controversial speakers," it said.
"Many serving faculty members are more qualified than external speakers to address such topics."
University College, London, was widely criticised after it was revealed that the so-called "underpants bomber", Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to detonate a bomb in a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, had run its Islamic Society, inviting radical speakers to address it.
His degree was in mechanical engineering.
The most notorious modern British jihadi, Mohammed Emwazi or "Jihadi John", was one of several to have studied at Westminster University.


The report finds that most senior jihadists have spent time in jail either before or after being radicalised. It says that governments should separate jihadists from other prisoners, and give them compulsory lessons to counter radical arguments.
"This should include a critical study of the core texts of the Salafi-jihadi ideology, the revisionist literature produced by leading figures and groups that have renounced violence, and a study of the works of major Islamic scholars through history in order to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the role of Islam in modern society," it says.

Masakr u klubu navijača Real Madrida: Džihadisti upali s kalašnjikovima i pobili 16 fanova

Kad čovek izgugla ovu vest prva tužna činjenica je da nju javljaju prvo i pre svega tabloidi. "Normalni" mediji praktično nisu zainteresovani za ovako nešto. Drugo je, naravno, da Islamska Država navodno veli da nisu napali ove ljude zato što prate fudbal nego jer su među njima šiitski borci... Jadan Irak... Sadam posle svega ispade još i dobar 

Pa Sadam samo Amerikancima nije valjo.Ni Vijetnamci im nisu valjali.Ni Srbi.
Jebešzemlju kojoj samo Šiptari valjaju.

a i tabloidi javljaju tek sto imali mogucnost u naslov ubaciti kao eu/spanjolsku/nogomet.
kliknem na naslov i sve se razocaram.

TEŽAK PORAZ PUTINA U SIRIJI Džihadisti granatirali ključnu bazu, uništena eskadrila helikoptera