in a peaceful manner rather than wait until the situation deteriorates to the level where the military might be required to send in troops.

including dirty shit by the CIA -
FBI infiltration of protest movements -
NSA stepping on the privacy of Americans..

This is not strictly for European or Asian consumption IMO. It works at home too.

Last year, the DoD's Minerva Initiative funded a project to determine 'Who Does Not Become a Terrorist, and Why?' which, however, conflates peaceful activists with "supporters of political violence" who are different from terrorists only in that they do not embark on "armed militancy" themselves. The project explicitly sets out to study non-violent activists:

"In every context we find many individuals who share the demographic, family, cultural, and/or socioeconomic background of those who decided to engage in terrorism, and yet refrained themselves from taking up armed militancy, even though they were sympathetic to the end goals of armed groups. The field of terrorism studies has not, until recently, attempted to look at this control group. This project is not about terrorists, but about supporters of political violence."

Those are your full blown domestic terrorists, right there.

Not to catch muslim terrorists, but to squash domestic protests and protect corporate power.

1) Total information awareness FOR PROFIT

and

2) A surveillance state to prevent resistance by those being exploited FOR PROFIT.

mentioned in the article. There is a lot of hyperbole, paranoia, and cherry-picking in this article. I know Erin Fitzgerald and I know the program officers. I've prepared and presented project briefings to the DoD. This article is not describing what we're studying accurately.

and let him know he's full of "hyperbole, paranoia and cherry picking"
because his next article continues on with the same theme

Defence officials prepare to fight the poor, activists and minorities (and commies)
The self-defeating logic of militarised social science targets anti-capitalist 'extremists' in the new 'age of uncertainty'

Yesterday I wrote about the Pentagon's dubious role in funding social science research that could be applied to active military operations in the context of the increasing propensity for global systemic crises to challenge US interests. Several key research projects highlighted the extent to which US security agencies, assisted by civilian academic institutions, view entire populations – particularly those involved in political activism – as potential terror suspects who, therefore, deserve to be carefully monitored and studied.

It is not just the US where the effort to subordinate social science to the demands of state military ideology continues apace. In Britain, a key area where this is occurring is in the Research Councils UK (RCUK) Global Uncertainties programme, recently rebranded as the 'Partnership for Conflict, Crime and Security Research.'

The programme is led by the Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC), and supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). But it is not an independent exercise.

Rather it is explicitly designed to "help governments, businesses and societies to better predict, detect, prevent and mitigate threats to society" in the context of" environmental change and diminishing natural recourses, food security, demographic change, poverty, inequality and poor governance, new and old conflicts, natural disasters and pandemics, expansion of digital technologies, economic downturn and other important global developments."...more>
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/13/uk-defence-fight-poor-activists-minorities-marxists-commies

website: http://www.nafeezahmed.com/p/contact.html
Email: nafeez.ahmed@iprd.org.uk
http://www.facebook.com/DrNafeezAhmed
http://www.twitter.com/nafeezahmed

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is a bestselling author, investigative journalist and international security scholar. He is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization among other books. He writes for the Guardian on the geopolitics of environmental, energy and economic crises on his Earth insight blog

engaging in hyperbole, paranoia and cherry picking - either that or he's really not a very good investigative journalist. But thanks so much for the suggestion.

they'll be just as incompetent and clueless at this, as they are at anything else.

Failure is what they do best: both the militarists and their mercenary academics.

They won't be able to predict jack-shit, is my guess. Monitor, yes (up to a point); understand, no.