Whatever happened to Julian Assange?

jackiebaron

Just wondering.

Not long ago he was up on rape charges and the US wanted him (or at least some of the more hysterical American politicians) wanted him dead (forget about due process). So why has the whole thing gone quiet?

And why is there no clamour about "Axis of Evil" member, North Korea?

And why is Venezuela one day the greatest threat to the stability of the Western Hemisphere yet we haven't heard about this "threat" for months?

Why is anyone even buying this shït?

Whatever happened to the NewsCorp phone hacking caper? Kinda went cold, that trail, no?

Just wondering what happens to all these "threats/stories du jour".

humanji

Well you answered your own question by calling them "stories du jour". That's all most stories are, just something to gain peoples interest. The news is big business so tv shows and papers have to keep things fresh to keep their audience's attention. If they continue on with the same story for a protrated period of time, then people will tune out and the news companies will lose money.

Julian Assange is waiting for his deportation hearing. There's been no new developments, so no reason to cover it.

North Korea hasn't done anything interesting of late, so there's no reason to cover that either.

I didn't know Chavez had been hyped up like that, but again he hasn't actually done much lately.

And the News Corp investigation is on going, with no new details.

They're just non-stories at the moment until something interesting happens.

studiorat

Article about him last Sunday here (warning possible Jewish liberal content!)

paky

they whacked him

Kernel

jackiebaron wrote: »

Just wondering.

Not long ago he was up on rape charges and the US wanted him (or at least some of the more hysterical American politicians) wanted him dead (forget about due process). So why has the whole thing gone quiet?

Two camps on this one: He's pretty much been silenced. Imprisonment can be a powerful bargaining tool. Possibly striking a deal.

Or, the second camp which I am more inclined to believe is that he was a government asset who has completed his job and aired the laundry.

jackiebaron wrote: »

And why is there no clamour about "Axis of Evil" member, North Korea?

Seem to be doing a good job of destroying themselves - the country is in an economic dark age. Strategic importance may have shifted from Kissinger philosophy (to Brzezinski philosophy) away from the region to concentrate on the 'arab-spring' uprising. I'm sure NK is still on the list however.

jackiebaron wrote: »

And why is Venezuela one day the greatest threat to the stability of the Western Hemisphere yet we haven't heard about this "threat" for months?

Lots of resources, non-conformist government and again same reason as above.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why is anyone even buying this shït?

Lots!

jackiebaron wrote: »

Whatever happened to the NewsCorp phone hacking caper? Kinda went cold, that trail, no?

That's a deep one, haven't looked too much into it, but Murdoch is a powerful man - which actually deepens the mystery as to the origins of the scandal.

Toppling Egypt, Libya and having Syria close behind is a major achievement, maybe that's tying up resources. I only hope Brzezinski has thought through the long-term effects of the regime changes - unlike the radicalisation of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion (later becoming the Taliban). I wonder if the new Libyan and Egyptian regimes will develop into radical Islamist States.

Jonny7

Kernel wrote: »

Two camps on this one: He's pretty much been silenced. Imprisonment can be a powerful bargaining tool. Possibly striking a deal.

Or, the second camp which I am more inclined to believe is that he was a government asset who has completed his job and aired the laundry.

So what evidence brings you to the "second camp"?

Seem to be doing a good job of destroying themselves - the country is in an economic dark age. Strategic importance may have shifted from Kissinger philosophy (to Brzezinski philosophy) away from the region to concentrate on the 'arab-spring' uprising. I'm sure NK is still on the list however.

On the list? the list of what exactly?

That's a deep one, haven't looked too much into it, but Murdoch is a powerful man - which actually deepens the mystery as to the origins of the scandal.

Its ongoing, hardly a huge "mystery".

Toppling Egypt, Libya and having Syria close behind is a major achievement, maybe that's tying up resources. I only hope Brzezinski has thought through the long-term effects of the regime changes - unlike the radicalisation of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion (later becoming the Taliban). I wonder if the new Libyan and Egyptian regimes will develop into radical Islamist States.

Sweet jesus, go on then, how was it done and evidence?

/waits for the RT youtube videos and links to blogs of vehemently anti-Western types

Kernel

Jonny7 wrote: »

So what evidence brings you to the "second camp"?

Well, what is your understanding as to how wikileaks came upon the data?

Jonny7 wrote: »

On the list? the list of what exactly?

The American Sh1tlist for Perpetuity of American Hegemony.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its ongoing, hardly a huge "mystery".

That's not the mysterious part, the initial scandal coming to light is.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sweet jesus, go on then, how was it done and evidence?

Propaganda, intelligence operations, and even the use of Nato military power. Evidence for the first two won't be found at this time. Evidence of the CIA meddling in foreign nations throughout it's lifetime is there if you look. Or do you think it no longer engages in such activities? If so, why wouldn't it?

Jonny7 wrote: »

/waits for the RT youtube videos and links to blogs of vehemently anti-Western types

I'm not anti-western at all. I believe in the continuance of American and western hegemony, since it has a direct impact on my own life, and I like America. Don't assume that people who oppose propaganda or conspiracies are necessarily against them all, from an ideological point of view. Free thinking is never a bad thing.

Jonny7

Kernel wrote: »

Well, what is your understanding as to how wikileaks came upon the data?

Is this a serious question?

That's not the mysterious part, the initial scandal coming to light is.

It came to light like any other scandal. NWO wouldn't go with a story unless they had hard facts and this was the extremes they were willing to go to. Ironic considering a prevailing attitude on this forum that the media prints nothing but lies.

Propaganda, intelligence operations, and even the use of Nato military power. Evidence for the first two won't be found at this time. Evidence of the CIA meddling in foreign nations throughout it's lifetime is there if you look. Or do you think it no longer engages in such activities? If so, why wouldn't it?

Based on evidence from the Cold War? Do you have any relevant evidence to the situation? Let me list countries where uprisings and protests took place;
Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Iran, Oman, Morocco, Kuwait, Saudi, Lebanon.

Ironically the papers have been dug up by HRW about the CIA and MI6 involvement with Libya, but it was to do with cooperation with Gaddafi and his internal security.

Some are so paranoid about the CIA they accuse it of propping up dictators and at the same time taking them down, which is it?

I'm not anti-western at all. I believe in the continuance of American and western hegemony, since it has a direct impact on my own life, and I like America. Don't assume that people who oppose propaganda or conspiracies are necessarily against them all, from an ideological point of view. Free thinking is never a bad thing.

Fair enough, but some of the "free thinking" on this forum relates to "selective" thinking when it comes to the subject of US and Israel. It can hard to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

Kernel

Jonny7 wrote: »

Is this a serious question?

No, I just enjoy typing replies on boards.

Jonny7 wrote: »

It came to light like any other scandal. NWO wouldn't go with a story unless they had hard facts and this was the extremes they were willing to go to. Ironic considering a prevailing attitude on this forum that the media prints nothing but lies.

NWO is a political agenda, rather than an organisation. I would question the timing of the scandal, and the British government involvement at a time when Murdoch was about to complete a takeover of BSB.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Based on evidence from the Cold War? Do you have any relevant evidence to the situation? Let me list countries where uprisings and protests took place;
Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Iran, Oman, Morocco, Kuwait, Saudi, Lebanon.

Well, no I don't have evidence. As I've often said here, a successful intelligence operation doesn't leave evidence to the general public like myself. The fact that these uprisings were sparked initially by social networking and the subsequent involvement of Nato in airstrikes to support the Libyan 'rebels' just points towards it being a western intelligence led operation. It's how I imagine an intelligence agency should operate in order to achieve a regime change. Of course, it could all just be a coincidence. But I don't buy that personally.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ironically the papers have been dug up by HRW about the CIA and MI6 involvement with Libya, but it was to do with cooperation with Gaddafi and his internal security.

Not aware of those. Are they old? Do you have a link?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Some are so paranoid about the CIA they accuse it of propping up dictators and at the same time taking them down, which is it?

Whichever suits the agenda for a region, I would imagine. Propping up dictators which help them to achieve their goals and taking down those who prevent them from achieving their goals would seem logical to me.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Fair enough, but some of the "free thinking" on this forum relates to "selective" thinking when it comes to the subject of US and Israel. It can hard to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

I've nothing against Israel either, bar the fact that I think the government are acting too aggressively against the Palestinians, which often involves human rights abuses against civilian populations. Wasn't too impressed by the Irish passport scandal either, though. Not very inspiring.

The Outside Agency

jonny7 wrote:

Based on evidence from the Cold War? Do you have any relevant evidence to the situation? Let me list countries where uprisings and protests took place;
Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Iran, Oman, Morocco, Kuwait, Saudi, Lebanon.

You can find historical examples of CIA involvement in helping topple democratic governments on the CIAs own website here.

I'd mainly be referring to South America where during the 80's many democratically elected governments were removed from power through help from the CIA.

There are some 10 million declassified documents so it's really up to you if you want to understand how the CIA works and what it's intended purpose is.

The CIA don't play that active a role in making and breaking foreign governments as much as they did in the 80s, that job is largely left to organisations like NED (National Endowment for democracy), USAID, ICG and various other wolf in sheeps clothing institutes.

The whole process today is largely run by private companies so that there is no direct involvement with politicians in any particular country.

This strategy if you like was the result of Ronald Reagan being exposed in the Iran/Contra affair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35KcYgMPiIM

Irish journalist Maidhc O Cathail offers his own analysis of these various middle eastern uprisings if you care to listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d7VqNyTHLw

Jonny7

Kernel wrote: »

NWO is a political agenda, rather than an organisation. I would question the timing of the scandal, and the British government involvement at a time when Murdoch was about to complete a takeover of BSB.

The "NWO" is open to each persons individual interpretation of it. Its more faith-based than fact-based.

Well, no I don't have evidence.

Why are you believing something without evidence? I agree that it can be incredibly interesting stuff, but its crossing the line into fantasist notions and exaggeration.

Not aware of those. Are they old? Do you have a link?

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/03/165282.html

Whichever suits the agenda for a region, I would imagine. Propping up dictators which help them to achieve their goals and taking down those who prevent them from achieving their goals would seem logical to me.

You would imagine, but in the real world it doesn't make any sense to claim that the US is friendly with Mubarak whilst at the same time taking him down, which is it?

Jonny7

nivekd wrote: »

You can find historical examples of CIA involvement in helping topple democratic governments on the CIAs own website here.

Ah I think you misread me, I am quite aware of the Cold War. There's nothing on the Arab Spring.

By the way Maidhc O Cathail is another T Meyysans, Cynthia McKinney or Walter Fauntroy. Anti-US/Israel. The rough equivalent of Bill O'Reilly/Anne Coulter, etc (obviously not on the same level of exposure)

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

By the way Maidhc O Cathail is another T Meyysans, Cynthia McKinney or Walter Fauntroy. Anti-US/Israel.

So by that broad definition, I take it you call the Dalai Lama anti-China?

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

So by that broad definition, I take it you call the Dalai Lama anti-China?

If I want to know about China I can do better than reading the opinions of the Dalai Lama or Chinese communist party officials.

Although if the Dalai's Lama's youtube channel and blogs were solely full of stories maligning the US and Israel I'd be a little suspicious to say the least.

The Outside Agency

jonny7 wrote:

By the way Maidhc O Cathail is another T Meyysans, Cynthia McKinney or Walter Fauntroy. Anti-US/Israel. The rough equivalent of Bill O'Reilly/Anne Coulter, etc (obviously not on the same level of exposure)

It's pretty irrational to argue Maidhc is "Anti-US/Israel" just because he offers a different perspective of the situation in the middle east.

You could atleast counter some of the points he made, assuming you actually watched the video and absorbed information in it.

Like you and many others, anyone who has any valid criticism of US foreign policy is "Anti-US" or "Unpatriotic" ..even US citizens are considered "traitors".

You might not have a problem with it, but my idea of freedom and democracy is not sending thousands of uneducated, mainly poor americans to the middle east to kill poor people in the deserts with expensive hi-tec weaponry while their own country falls apart.

And I don't like emotional commentators like Bill O'Reilly or Anne Coulter, lecturing me through a TV about why it's great to kill women and children in the middle east...they're really very boring to listen to after 2 minutes.

Unfortuantely, Maidhc just doesn't say what you want to hear, but that's fine with me.

ed2hands

Jonny the way i see it is nobodys blog or youtube channels have a responsibility to be balanced or unbiased.

If an individual or group of individuals concentrate on one particular issue or one government or intelligence agencies' nefarious activities and specifically target that issue, it does not mean they are by default anti-(insert countries inhabitants).
There is no obligation by a person criticising an issue to add some superflous facts to give the impression of balance. It just doesn't work like that.

Blogs, youtube channels and online commentators should not be pigeonholed in this fashion because they have dedicated to a specific issue.

It's preposterous to label someone anti-US for criticising the activities of the CIA.

Jonny7

nivekd wrote: »

It's pretty irrational to argue Maidhc is "Anti-US/Israel" just because he offers a different perspective of the situation in the middle east.

These things take time, I researched the guy before I made that comment. I'll write out the criticism in awhile.

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

It's preposterous to label someone anti-US for criticising the activities of the CIA.

Have you researched the guy in question?

Personally I have criticised the activities of the CIA, I'm not too fond of them myself.

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

Have you researched the guy in question

No.

The Outside Agency

Jonny7 wrote: »

Have you researched the guy in question?

Why not share your research?

Rather than researching the messenger (which you seem to be focusing on here), why not research the content of his message?

What exactly did Maidhc say which you didn't agree with?

Ad hominem attacks?

studiorat

Maidhc makes some Tenuous links all the same. Leaves out quite a bit and seems to want to paint Otpor in a bad light for some reason. Why would that be?

Otpor existed before any NGO's donated to their cause. Our "journalist" pal here would have people think that Otpor are some sort of stooges for the CIA and as a result comes across as an apologist for totalitarian regimes.

The links between Otpor and Egypt, Myanmar, Georgia etc were well documented even as the Arab Spring was only beginning. At a time I might add when the "idiot Left" was giving it it's full support. Only when they noticed that the mainstream were also giving their support did they seem to baulk at the idea.

Furthermore, since you have brought Nicaragua into the argument, I feel it's only right to bring a little balance into the story. And portray it in the framework of the time. Since the CIA are being blamed for toppling and supporting governments we should also look at who the KGB was supporting and toppling at the time. Who else but the Sandinistas, surprise, surprise!
The Soviets provided them with aircraft, missiles and arms. They were no strangers in Afghanistan either at the same time lest we forget. They even tried to poison the Afghan president. IMO the KGB were much more ruthless in their plots than the CIA ever were.

As an aside into the KGB's work here you could look at this : http://wais.stanford.edu/Russia/KGBDeathMountbatten.htm

So we see, both sides in the conflict were supplied with arms from the two super-powers of the time. Thing is the US had a law which limited aid to the Contras, when that law was seen to be broken, there was a court case. The difference with the KGB was, that whether or not any laws were broken the people of the Soviet Union wouldn't have had a clue either way...

Finally I notice, the Freedom House NGO mentioned a bit. What Maidhc doesn't mention is that it has been going since the Second World War. It supported the black civil rights movement in the States, the Anti-Apartheid movement and Polish Solidarity amongst others.

Are these movements a bad thing as well because they have been supported by Freedom House? If we were to believe the idiot left it would seem so.

I should also add that support for the student activist is not only the preserve of the CIA. The Soviets were deeply involved in supporting Marxist groups across Europe.

Check this : http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/ out for Marxist's plan to support the revolutionaries of the day.

The Outside Agency

studiorat wrote:

Finally I notice, the Freedom House NGO mentioned a bit. What Maidhc doesn't mention is that it has been going since the Second World War. It supported the black civil rights movement in the States, the Anti-Apartheid movement and Polish Solidarity amongst others.

Maidhc was clearly referring to Freedom Houses board members, not when it was established -- board members with questionable ethics.

Donald Rumsfeld for example, do you think he's a champion of freedom?

studiorat wrote:

Are these movements a bad thing as well because they have been supported by Freedom House? If we were to believe the idiot left it would seem so.

I hope you're not calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot, but I wouldn't be surprised.

studiorat wrote:

I should also add that support for the student activist is not only the preserve of the CIA. The Soviets were deeply involved in supporting Marxist groups across Europe.

Yet again, you're trying to excuse the actions of CIA because KGB were doing similar things while also insinuating anyone who criticises actions of the CIA to be Marxists or communists....it's a very weak response.

studiorat

nivekd wrote: »

Maidhc was clearly referring to Freedom Houses board members, not when it was established -- board members with questionable ethics.

Donald Rumsfeld for example, do you think he's a champion of freedom?

Rumsfeld is not on the Board of Freedom House. Sorry to burst your bubble.

nivekd wrote: »

I hope you're not calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot, but I wouldn't be surprised.

"Idiot Left" look it up, it describes a demographic which I believe Maidhic et al appeals to.

nivekd wrote: »

Yet again, you're trying to excuse the actions of CIA because KGB were doing similar things while also insinuating anyone who criticises actions of the CIA to be Marxists or communists....it's a very weak response.

Where have I excused the actions of anyone? Monty had a very good post on jumping to conclusions some time ago. Check it out.

Neither have I accused anyone of being Marxists. I simply pointed out that your argument like Maidhic's was one-sided since it contained no frame of reference to what else was going on at the time. Coercing civilian unrest is not the sole preserve of the CIA no the KGB for that matter, however using the example of one without the other is disingenuous, particularly since it's using history as an example.

Would you care to consider my question now? Are movements like he black civil rights movement in the States, the Anti-Apartheid movement and Polish Solidarity a bad thing as well because they have been supported by Freedom House?

The Outside Agency

studiorat wrote:

Rumsfeld is not on the Board of Freedom House. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Not now, but he was like many other chicken-hawks and corrupt men.
You haven't burst anything my friend.

studiorat wrote:

"Idiot Left" look it up, it describes a demographic which I believe Maidhic et al appeals to.

So you are calling someone who disagrees with you an idiot? fine..

studiorat wrote:

Where have I excused the actions of anyone? Monty had a very good post on jumping to conclusions some time ago. Check it out.

No thanks, i'm bored with you already.

Jonny7

To start from the beginning, here is the original youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d7VqNyTHLw&feature=player_embedded

Uploaded by http://www.youtube.com/user/argonium79
and from the uploader himself
"I make video presentations of articles whose views I support. The content in these videos does not necessarily reflect the views of the authors or the narrator."

A brief look through the titles of the videos, etc gives a clear representation of the types of views he supports.

Regarding this specific video he links to http://thepassionateattachment.com/
Which was created and is edited by Maidhc Ó Cathail
Its a blog with the stated aim of
"The aim of this political weblog is to inform the people of the United States today and others about the “variety of evils” that ensue from America’s passionate attachment to Israel."

From the beginning of the video (excepts from the above Maidhc Ó Cathail from the site theuglytruth.podbean.com) edited by the youtube user argonium79.

The site - theuglytruth.podbean.com http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/ which states "The ugly truth when it comes to Israel, Zionism, corruption and the ‘war on terror" - "Destroying Zionism one show at a time", etc.

The video is an interview in which Maidhc basically lists off people and makes links between them, its a not so subtle O'Reilly-esque guilt by association ploy more than anything - probably to give the listener the impression they are all somehow working together.
Personally I am not sure what his beef with Soros is, the man donated millions upon millions to get Bush defeated in 04, supports the legalisation of cannabis - the man is practically a CT hero, but for the purposes of this interview he is the opening salvo in a long list of names and connections. I am not sure why the mention of so many Jews? they supported Mubarak, even Soros's op-ed piece quotes "The main stumbling block is Israel".

The editor has spliced in clips from Russia Today media which is a huge red flag by any standards.

I am not doubting Maidhc's obvious extensive knowledge of ex-neocon's and jews going back to the Reagan era, but he doesn't make any direct claims, which doesn't really lend any weight to the ambiguous point he is making.

studiorat

nivekd wrote: »

Maidhc was clearly referring to Freedom Houses board members, not when it was established -- board members with questionable ethics.

Donald Rumsfeld for example, do you think he's a champion of freedom?

nivekd wrote: »

Not now, but he was like many other chicken-hawks and corrupt men.

I don't believe you. When was he?
Why the change? First you say he is then he isn't?

nivekd wrote: »

So you are calling someone who disagrees with you an idiot? fine..

You didn't look it up did you?

nivekd wrote: »

No thanks, i'm bored with you already.

You can't more likely. I think the contradiction is delicious. In an effort to denounce everything US or Israeli, instead of supporters of freedom, we now have supporters of totalitarian regimes. To even think about equating something the US is involved as not being the root of evil is incomprehensible to them, they would rather cut off their noses to spite their faces. The Marxists have become the Stalinists!

Have a look at Maidhic's conclusion, the people of Serbia, marching in the streets protesting against cuts and unemployment. The difference is protests under Milosevic would have seen arrests and the blackout of radio and television. Both systems are equally corrupt, the difference is you have the freedom to say it is. A small difference but an important one none the less.

The Outside Agency

studiorat wrote:

I don't believe you. When was he?
Why the change? First you say he is then he isn't?

Look under Affiliation History, 'Institutional Affiliations' on his Wikipedia profile here

It says 'Freedom House' - Board Member.

Are you happy now? please don't continue this childish little game, i'm not interested.

studiorat wrote:

You didn't look it up did you?

I don't have to look up the word "idiot" to know what it means despite your poor attempt at redefining it.

studiorat wrote:

You can't more likely

I'm just not interested in refuting all your juvenile responses.

I just have better things to do with my time, it's not my fault you can't research something properly.

studiorat

So he was involved in Freedom House 15 years ago. :rolleyes: I think this is an excellent example of just how selective with the truth Niked is being.

nivekd wrote: »

I don't have to look up the word "idiot" to know what it means despite your poor attempt at redefining it.

Missed it again. "Idiot Left" can't believe you haven't heard of it.

Kernel

Jonny7 wrote: »

The "NWO" is open to each persons individual interpretation of it. Its more faith-based than fact-based.

I don't agree. People seem to get NWO (the agenda) mixed up with groups like Illuminati, Bilderbergers etc. NWO is political, it is taught in Cambridge University courses, amongst other academic courses on international politics : http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/component/courses/?view=course&cid=3735

The new world order 1945
The bipolar world
The new world order 1991
Dr Philip Towle
Reader in International Studies, Department of Politics and International Studies

For that reason I don't really think it is open to interpretation. The different players may have different agendas, eg. US NWO doctrine is concerned with preserving America's hegemony in the NWO. British NWO is no doubt concerned with maximising Britain's role etc.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why are you believing something without evidence? I agree that it can be incredibly interesting stuff, but its crossing the line into fantasist notions and exaggeration.

Circumstantial evidence, a healthy dose of suspicion/skepticism, and my own knowledge of history and politics, I suppose.

Jonny7 wrote: »

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/03/165282.html

From reading that, the collusion seems to have taken place in 2004. Long before Libya was 'restructured' so to speak.

Jonny7 wrote: »

You would imagine, but in the real world it doesn't make any sense to claim that the US is friendly with Mubarak whilst at the same time taking him down, which is it?

Both, quite conceivably. It makes perfect sense, if you think about it.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

"Idiot Left" look it up, it describes a demographic which I believe Maidhic et al appeals to.

I believe the phrase was coined by the usual rabble of establishment conservative moneyed elite and their apologists to associate and thereby deride legimate protest/criticism with a lazy stereotype of the upper-middle class student type. The same sort of witless blogosphere characters came up with the lazy term 'Pilgered' to dismiss John Pilgers work. These terms speak volumes about the people repeating them; not least in that their careless position regarding human rights is personified by the careless lazy criticism they use as a counterpoint.

(Edit: am not saying you don't care about human rights studio!)

Jonny7

Kernel wrote: »

I don't agree. People seem to get NWO (the agenda) mixed up with groups like Illuminati, Bilderbergers etc. NWO is political, it is taught in Cambridge University courses, amongst other academic courses on international politics : http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/component/courses/?view=course&cid=3735

There is generally a more "flexible" definition of it used on these forums.

From reading that, the collusion seems to have taken place in 2004. Long before Libya was 'restructured' so to speak.

2002 to 2007. I see no evidence that Egypt nor Libya were "restructured" as part of any Western pre-planning. Iran 2009 is the most Cold War style "meddling", for which the regime was well prepared and well versed for.