Hillary Clinton's CRF farewell address - Remarks on American Leadership

[Mick]

Hillary Clinton's farewell address was given at the Council of Foreign Relations - an organization that features prominently in the "New World Order" conspiracy theory mythos. So it seems very likely that parts of her speech will end up as out-of-context excerpts used to support this theory. This is especially likely as her speech essentially IS about a new world order, one she describes as "a just, rules-based international order" and how we "need a new architecture for this new world".

It's an interesting, comprehensive, and intelligent speech, and worth reading or listening to in full, regardless of your opinion of Clinton's motives.



Transcript:
http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-p...dership/p29911

[Mick]

One interesting section was on the internet:

Content from external source:

You can't be a 21st-century leader without 21st-century tools, not when people organize pro-democracy protests with Twitter and while terrorists spread their hateful ideology online. That's why I have championed what we call 21st-century statecraft. We've launched an interagency Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications at State. Expert, tech-savvy specialists from across our government fluent in Urdu, Arabic, Punjabi, Somali use social media to expose al- Qaida's contradictions and abuses, including its continuing brutal attacks on Muslim civilians. We're leading the effort also to defend Internet freedom so it remains a free, open and reliable platform for everyone. We're helping human rights activists in oppressive Internet environments get online and communicate more safely, because the country that built the Internet ought to be leading the fight to protect it from those who would censor it or use it as a tool of control.

Basically that's what the theorists would call "government shills". I myself have been accused of being a government shill many times. Pretty much every debunker will at one time or another get that accusation. Conspiracy theorists use the open discussion of this type of (arguably) wartime propoganda as evidence that a broader network of "shills" must exist.

They often point to Cass Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theories" paper (well worth reading), which suggests the government should take action to counter conspiracy theories.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-c.../Susstein1.pdf

Content from external source:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

Content from external source:

An obvious answer is to maintain an open society, in which those who aretempted to subscribe to conspiracy theories do not distrust all knowledge-creating
institutions, and are exposed to corrections. But we have seen that even in open societies,
conspiracy theories have some traction; and open societies have a strong interest in
debunking such theories when they arise, and threaten to cause harm, in closed societies.
Here we suggest two concrete ideas for government officials attempting to fashion a
response to such theories. First, responding to more rather than fewer conspiracy theories
has a kind of synergy benefit: it reduces the legitimating effect of responding to any one
of them, because it dilutes the contrast with unrebutted theories. Second, we suggest a
distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy
theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their
allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will
undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so
by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups,
thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.

As with the Clinton speech though, this is part of a much larger discussion. Key to that discussion is that in both cases the focus is upon genuine debunking - upon exposing falsehoods (the "crippled epistemology"). It's very unfortunate though that this type of thing, which is almost entirely directed towards foreign potential terrorists, has become an excuse for domestic conspiracy theorists to ignore any debunker.

I debunk because I find it interesting and I think it will do some good. Nobody pays me. I don't work for anyone. I am not affiliated with any government or government agency, or any other entity.

[George B]

Hillary Clinton's farewell address was given at the Council of Foreign Relations - an organization that features prominently in the "New World Order" conspiracy theory mythos. So it seems very likely that parts of her speech will end up as out-of-context excerpts used to support this theory. This is especially likely as her speech essentially IS about a new world order, one she describes as "a just, rules-based international order" and how we "need a new architecture for this new world".

It's an interesting, comprehensive, and intelligent speech, and worth reading or listening to in full, regardless of your opinion of Clinton's motives.



Transcript:
http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-p...dership/p29911

Well it does seem she is paying homage to an extra governmental organization not unlike her diabolical evil twin Dick Cheney. . . LoL!!!

[Grieves]

Hillary Clinton's farewell address was given at the Council of Foreign Relations - an organization that features prominently in the "New World Order" conspiracy theory mythos. So it seems very likely that parts of her speech will end up as out-of-context excerpts used to support this theory. This is especially likely as her speech essentially IS about a new world order, one she describes as "a just, rules-based international order" and how we "need a new architecture for this new world".

lol.

[Mick]

lol.

My point being that the actual new world order - i.e. the state the the world finds itself in, is a different thing to the New World Order of conspiracy theory - whereby a small group of people has been dictating the future of the world via secret meetings and powerful machinations.

[Grieves]

I see it as a tomato tomato, potato potato situation. One is an extreme interpretation of the other, which clearly and admittedly exists. A relatively small group of people -do- currently have an inordinate level of control over global affairs. Whether you think they're owl-worshiping Satanists who want to commit mass genocide, an example of greed and self-interest climbing toward a self-perpetuating peak as a result of the evolution of corporate structures into trans-national entities many of which are literally too all-invasive to police (HSBC was found guilty of not only facilitating the laundering of terrorist/drug cartel money, but of 'instructing' launderers as to how best to go about it unnoticed, and was only charged with a 'slap on the wrist' fine because HSBC has simply too many jobs in America to revoke their corporate license), or a brave collection of captains of industry leading us boldly to a brighter tomorrow.
Whatever you believe, as you said yourself, it's already here. Nation-states are already something of an economic backdrop to the modern global markets, no longer the key players, they're more just influencing factors, sometimes 'positive' and sometimes troublesome. On this new global scale, the world is becoming a class-culture of a small number of highly wealthy aristocrats and a peasant population largely subservient to them. Whatever extremes you want to take that too, or however much you want to downplay it, it's not really a 'theory' any more, is it..?

[Mick]

Whatever you believe, as you said yourself, it's already here. Nation-states are already something of an economic backdrop to the modern global markets, no longer the key players, they're more just influencing factors, sometimes 'positive' and sometimes troublesome. On this new global scale, the world is becoming a class-culture of a small number of highly wealthy aristocrats and a peasant population largely subservient to them. Whatever extremes you want to take that too, or however much you want to downplay it, it's not really a 'theory' any more, is it..?

But the aristocrat/peasant situation describes the historical world situation. Long term history has been a narrowing of the gap between the powerful and the powerless. Development results in a reduction in the Rich/Poor ratio.

But the NWO "theory" under discussion is to do with the degree to which the order of the world has been planned, rather than emerged.

[George B]

Good point. . .

Content from external source:

But the NWO "theory" under discussion is to do with the degree to which the order of the world has been planned, rather than emerged.

[Grieves]

I'd wager there's a relatively large degree of planning and coordination involved. Long term history has indeed seen a narrowing of that gap in -some- parts of the world, but recent history, especially in the united states, strongly indicates that gap is beginning to rapidly widen once more. America, in spite of being a highly developed nation, has a 'middle-class' under serious threat currently, and the planned 'austerity measures' coming down the pipeline seem to each have foreboding implications for people hovering above the poverty line. One disturbing but darkly amusing study I've come across suggested that if the money spent, in total, on the 2012 elections had been put toward the poverty crisis in America, there wouldn't be one. In any event, the lord/peasant dichotomy has only been applied regionally in the past. There isn't really much of a historical 'world' situation prior to modern times, as Globalization is a relatively modern effort. A 'unified' globe is a rather entirely new scenario, and that it's developing into the old feudal structures is hardly a positive thing.

It's easy to assume everyone's just blindly snatch-grabbing what they can, and the currently developing structure of the 'new world order' is just the chance result of those individual selfish efforts, and I agree that's entirely possible. Still, I think it's somewhat naive to assume that there aren't incredibly wealthy individuals, who've been incredibly wealthy for generations upon generations, playing 'the long game' out there. Just because the average person/government can't plan beyond the immediate future doesn't mean it's beyond everyone. If humanity ever wants to get off this pretty little rock we call home or transcend our predilection for war against ourselves (something I personally think is terribly unlikely to happen) a long-term plan, as in a plan that spans more than years or decades, but whole generations, is more or less essential. I think it quite probable that extremely wealthy, highly educated, and traditionally self-aggrandizing families/individuals may be attempting to execute long-term plans of their own, hoping to bring about a future that suits their view of how the world should be, or at least a future in which they remain firmly in the lead where the human 'race' is concerned.

[George B]

I'd wager there's a relatively large degree of planning and coordination involved. Long term history has indeed seen a narrowing of that gap in -some- parts of the world, but recent history, especially in the united states, strongly indicates that gap is beginning to rapidly widen once more. America, in spite of being a highly developed nation, has a 'middle-class' under serious threat currently, and the planned 'austerity measures' coming down the pipeline seem to each have foreboding implications for people hovering above the poverty line. One disturbing but darkly amusing study I've come across suggested that if the money spent, in total, on the 2012 elections had been put toward the poverty crisis in America, there wouldn't be one. In any event, the lord/peasant dichotomy has only been applied regionally in the past. There isn't really much of a historical 'world' situation prior to modern times, as Globalization is a relatively modern effort. A 'unified' globe is a rather entirely new scenario, and that it's developing into the old feudal structures is hardly a positive thing.

It's easy to assume everyone's just blindly snatch-grabbing what they can, and the currently developing structure of the 'new world order' is just the chance result of those individual selfish efforts, and I agree that's entirely possible. Still, I think it's somewhat naive to assume that there aren't incredibly wealthy individuals, who've been incredibly wealthy for generations upon generations, playing 'the long game' out there. Just because the average person/government can't plan beyond the immediate future doesn't mean it's beyond everyone. If humanity ever wants to get off this pretty little rock we call home or transcend our predilection for war against ourselves (something I personally think is terribly unlikely to happen) a long-term plan, as in a plan that spans more than years or decades, but whole generations, is more or less essential. I think it quite probable that extremely wealthy, highly educated, and traditionally self-aggrandizing families/individuals may be attempting to execute long-term plans of their own, hoping to bring about a future that suits their view of how the world should be, or at least a future in which they remain firmly in the lead where the human 'race' is concerned.

Not hard to believe at all . . .

[SR1419]

the world is becoming a class-culture of a small number of highly wealthy aristocrats and a peasant population largely subservient to them

Same as it ever was...only less so.

[Oxymoron]

But the aristocrat/peasant situation describes the historical world situation. Long term history has been a narrowing of the gap between the powerful and the powerless. Development results in a reduction in the Rich/Poor ratio.

This is the point... the gap between the rich and the poor is growing at an alarming rate. It is a reversal of the trend which was fought for in the west. There is an upward flow of money to the corporations and the elite whilst very many of the rest are experiencing real hardships.

In other areas such as Africa... there is absolutely no reason why Africa should be so terribly poor. It has every resource imaginable in great abundance. It is only poor because it has been raped and abused, admittedly by its own dictators/warlords in part but even worse by the 'developed' nations, that's not to mention the use of it as a dumping ground for toxic waste. Politicians like to talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. Speaking with forked tongues has been the way and it appears they have got even better at it of late.

But the NWO "theory" under discussion is to do with the degree to which the order of the world has been planned, rather than emerged.

I think it has clearly emerged that it is planned in great detail

[Grieves]

Not entirely true, SR. A predominant trend because by its nature it's so aggressive, and one that's certainly had a measure of global appeal well before there was even such a thing as 'the globe', but it's a relatively recent trend from the perspective of us as a species, and I don't think it's 'in our nature' as is often presumed. I also don't think I understand what you mean by 'less so'. Human rights abuses are still frequently occurring all over the world, many of them still exceedingly 'medieval' in nature, and the scales are inevitably far grander, not just in the sense of population growth. Technology, while our greatest asset as a species, increasingly allows for levels of carnage to which medieval times cannot even begin to compare, from any perspective. And advanced as these technologies have become, the talk of 'smart-bombs' is a propaganda device. Show me a bomb that can distinguish for itself before impact and detonation whether its target, ordered from several hundred, if not thousands of miles away, is a group of enemy combatants or some lanky tweens with sticks/citizens collecting bodies, then I'll grant it a mote of intelligence.

[jvnk08]

We've launched an interagency Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications at State. Expert, tech-savvy specialists from across our government fluent in Urdu, Arabic, Punjabi, Somali use social media to expose al- Qaida's contradictions and abuse

This is key. Conspiracists usually don't understand much about what is possible with technology, opting in some cases to believe that everything in science fiction is possible(usually grounded in technophobia). There are two possible methods of "shilling" online, one consists of what amounts to spamming pre-defined messages and the other requires human intervention. Obviously the second is more effective, but also very expensive and must be used with care(the potential of self-exposure or unintended consequences is very high).

What they fail to realize is that everyone in the US already depends 100% on the graces of the government and corporations for the freedom we enjoy online. If any online discussion regarding a conspiracy actually was on to something that the nefarious leaders did not want disclosed, it could quite easily be censored. Most folks have never heard of encryption, let alone can use it properly, so the the notion of the web being an unstoppable force of disclosure is actually on really weak legs.


Some really scary stuff covered in this talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/evgeny_moro...ll_feared.html

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv...and_the_i.html

Maybe if these doom-and-gloom technopocalypse folks spent more time learning about technology, they could join the effort in the form of DarkNet/MeshNet initiatives to rectify the situation from a technological perspective. Alternatively they could get involved with politics and enact some legislation that protects the Internet freedom we enjoy.

[SR1419]

I also don't think I understand what you mean by 'less so'.

I referring to the idea that a small number of highly wealthy aristocrats and a peasant population largely subservient to them has been the predominant make up of civilization since..well...since civilization began.

Its only recently (last 150yrs) that some dilution of that trend has emerged.

You are correct that our technical prowess has led to capabilities which medieval times cannot even begin to compare...but you have to admit that a laser guided bomb has a greater chance at avoiding "collateral damage" than say...dropping bombs from a B52 during WW2- which amounted to looking out the window and hoping for the best. It is "smart" because it goes exactly where you tell it to.

[jvnk08]

In other areas such as Africa... there is absolutely no reason why Africa should be so terribly poor. It has every resource imaginable in great abundance. It is only poor because it has been raped and abused, admittedly by its own dictators/warlords in part but even worse by the 'developed' nations, that's not to mention the use of it as a dumping ground for toxic waste. Politicians like to talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. Speaking with forked tongues has been the way and it appears they have got even better at it of late.

I think it's a combination of the two, dictators/warlords negotiating deals that allow exploitation of their people and resources by developed nations in order to profit more themselves, instead of less lucrative deals that profit themselves less and their people more.

the world is becoming a class-culture of a small number of highly wealthy aristocrats and a peasant population largely subservient to them

I'm in the middle class and I just don't feel that way at all. Comparatively speaking I enjoy an absurd amount of autonomy and freedom in comparison to the majority of human history where your observation would ring consistently true.

I don't feel subservient at all, there is no-one telling me how to spend my time or what to do with my life in general. If you devote some energy to specializing in a skill that is by nature intellectual and open-ended, then you've basically got a blank check in terms of both compensation and self-direction.

The only thing the rich have access to that I don't is frequent worldwide travel(at my discretion at least) and aesthetic luxuries. Over the last century we've seen countless products that were at one time considered luxuries which are now more than affordable for the vast majority of people.

The statistics don't agree either, or perhaps your definition of peasant-hood differs from my own. Half a billion people escaped poverty in 5 years, if the 'global elite' are trying to keep everyone else in positions of peasant-hood then they aren't being very effective.

Content from external source:

The Millennium Development Goal to halve the rate of global poverty by 2015 was met sometime in 2007, says the Brooking Institution in a new report, Poverty in Numbers: The Changing State of Global Poverty from 2005 to 2015.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/hal...rty-2005-2010/

the gap between the rich and the poor is growing at an alarming rate. It is a reversal of the trend which was fought for in the west. There is an upward flow of money to the corporations and the elite whilst very many of the rest are experiencing real hardships.

Well yes, the rich are becoming richer. It is incredibly easy to increase your wealth by investing if you already have some. But it's important to note that the poverty line has gone down. The poor only need to increase their wealth by a tiny, tiny fraction of that gap in order to raise their living standards to be on par with what we enjoy.

[Mick]

What they fail to realize is that everyone in the US already depends 100% on the graces of the government and corporations for the freedom we enjoy online. If any online discussion regarding a conspiracy actually was on to something that the nefarious leaders did not want disclosed, it could quite easily be censored. Most folks have never heard of encryption, let alone can use it properly, so the the notion of the web being an unstoppable force of disclosure is actually on really weak legs.

The web IS an unstoppable force of disclosure until someone actually tries to stop it. And when they do try to stop it, people will notice.

Look at Wikileaks. The US tried incredibly hard to put that Genie back in the bottle, but once it's out, it's out.

All these conspiracy theorists who go on about how everything is censored, they never seem to notice that THEY are not censored.

[MikeC]

I
...but you have to admit that a laser guided bomb has a greater chance at avoiding "collateral damage" than say...dropping bombs from a B52 during WW2- .

Actually no......... B-52's caused no collateral damage at all in WW2!

sorry...couldn't resist!

[Mick]

This is the point... the gap between the rich and the poor is growing at an alarming rate. It is a reversal of the trend which was fought for in the west. There is an upward flow of money to the corporations and the elite whilst very many of the rest are experiencing real hardships.

I'm certainly no fan of wealth inequality. I think it's a major problem for any nation. However the poor are not getting poorer, it's just that the rich are getting incredibly richer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

[jvnk08]

The web IS an unstoppable force of disclosure until someone actually tries to stop it. And when they do try to stop it, people will notice.

Look at Wikileaks. The US tried incredibly hard to put that Genie back in the bottle, but once it's out, it's out.

All these conspiracy theorists who go on about how everything is censored, they never seem to notice that THEY are not censored.

Well yes, I agree, once enough eyeballs have seen something and the Streisand effect takes over it's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. The problem for governments wishing to do such a thing is that they must be preemptive of a future disclosure by knowing what to censor first. Wikileaks blindsided the US gov in this regard. However, there is nothing stopping a government from using deep packet inspection to preemptively censor the data before it goes viral other than whistleblowers getting the data out there first. Wikileaks also leveraged encryption before and during the initial days of the disclosure that rendered any prior investigation into them moot, even if the government knew what was going to be disclosed beforehand. I admire Wikileaks' disclosure platform personally.

There are other things that can be done by powerful entities that aren't censorship but still negatively impact the equalizing nature of the web and the perception of events by the public. Give that video a watch and that blog post a read. China in particular is doing some really scary things that have nothing to do with the "Great Firewall of China" or censorship but are equally oppressive.

I remain optimistic because there are hacktivist groups out there with a lot of skill. The players with talent(many of them within the institutions who may seek to censor the web) won't surface until there is a significant threat to web freedom. Groups like Telecomix are doing really interesting things, their BlueCabinet project is an initiative to document all vendors of hardware/software censorship & surveillance products: http://bluecabinet.info/wiki/Blue_cabinet

Your last point is the irony I was trying to illustrate here. If these people were actually on to something nefarious that runs to the highest levels of governments around the globe, it's likely they would be aggressively censored and would have a tough time discussing the subject at all online.

[Grieves]

Why should any effort be made to police a minority opinion when the machine is in place with which to wholly discredit it in the eyes of the majority?


I'm not entirely sure where your 'technophobe' point came from, was it directed at me..? Because rest assured, I -love- technology. And as previously stated, I think it's quite obviously our greatest asset as a species. It's our basic evolutionary advantage, why we're generally weaker, slower and more fragile than every other similarly sized primate and yet own and manage the whole damn planet. Technology is awesome... my earlier statements were simply to point out that the atrocities of the middle-ages, though numerous to be sure, weren't greater than those of modern ages by any scale... and technology, as well as other factors beyond simple population growth, had something to do with that.

[Mick]

Why should any effort be made to police a minority opinion when the machine is in place with which to wholly discredit it in the eyes of the majority?

Can you give an example where you have evidence that this has been done?

[jvnk08]

Why should any effort be made to police a minority opinion when the machine is in place with which to wholly discredit it in the eyes of the majority?

I don't think that's really the case. If there was substantive evidence that any given conspiracy theory were true, it would not be disregarded by scientifically-minded or otherwise logical people. Please show an example...?

I'm not entirely sure where your 'technophobe' point came from, was it directed at me..?

Nay, it was a generalization about conspiracists. I often see techno-phobic banter about some things while simultaneously thinking the Internet is this unstoppable force of good that TPTB are powerless to control. Meanwhile, the Internet is one of the things TPTB can fully control, and the things they are synthesizing technophobia around most often don't exist at all.

[Grieves]

http://screechingkettle.blogspot.ca/...rmine-and.html
little blog about how it's done in the 'truth movement'. I'm sure I don't have to go digging up all the examples of how corporate media makes a concerted effort even where newscasts are concerned to manipulate opinions/behaviors in their favor, while twisting or discrediting opposing views. That's just marketing, and billions of dollars are spent on it yearly. Remember the build-up toward that Iraq business? News Media certainly did seem to have pretty good idea of what it was talking about until we'd been there a year or so, didn't it? Not much coverage devoted to the small but loud voices screaming 'WTF are you people talking about..?!' was there?

[Joe]

I'm certainly no fan of wealth inequality. I think it's a major problem for any nation. However the poor are not getting poorer, it's just that the rich are getting incredibly richer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

Its the middle class thats is the biggest loser . Hillary YUK !

[Joe]

Clinton Blames America For Failures In Islamic Regions‏ – OpEd http://www.eurasiareview.com/0302201...E2%80%8F-oped/

[Thomas Hughson]

(sorry off topic) After watching Hillary's speech at CFR I can't help but feel America lost out by picking Obama over her.I can only hope she runs for the big job in four years. In the end only one person is to blame for her not being president right now. I will never forgive you Oprah Winfrey.

[Mick]

(sorry off topic) After watching Hillary's speech at CFR I can't help but feel America lost out by picking Obama over her.I can only hope she runs for the big job in four years. In the end only one person is to blame for her not being president right now. I will never forgive you Oprah Winfrey.

Yeah, she's quite impressive. More businesslike. But I don't think Obama was terrible.

[jvnk08]

http://screechingkettle.blogspot.ca/...rmine-and.html
little blog about how it's done in the 'truth movement'. I'm sure I don't have to go digging up all the examples of how corporate media makes a concerted effort even where newscasts are concerned to manipulate opinions/behaviors in their favor, while twisting or discrediting opposing views. That's just marketing, and billions of dollars are spent on it yearly. Remember the build-up toward that Iraq business? News Media certainly did seem to have pretty good idea of what it was talking about until we'd been there a year or so, didn't it? Not much coverage devoted to the small but loud voices screaming 'WTF are you people talking about..?!' was there?

Regarding claims of WMD in Iraq in the run-up to the invasion, it's not like there was no basis for them. Saddam did have loads of chemical weapons and other WMD at one time in the past. Do you think the media was silent after the invasion as time went on and no evidence was produced?(hint: they weren't) I think you will find most people agree with your sentiment here. I think the possibility exists that WMD were in the country, but it wasn't grounds for invasion unless Saddam was threatening us or our allies with them.

There is also the possibility that Iraq's chemical weapons stockpile went over the border into Syria and/or Iran, one of which has denied the existence of its own stockpile until just a year ago.

[Grieves]

There is also the possibility that Iraq's chemical weapons stockpile went over the border into Syria and/or Iran, one of which has denied the existence of its own stockpile until just a year ago.

Oh, rest assured JVNK, it's more than a 'possibility', though if it's happened it hasn't happened the way you seem to suspect.

Did you know that in Turkey/Jordan, the Syrian rebel forces (who aren't foreign Islamist extremists, some of which have direct ties to AlQueda, being funded and financed by NATO at all, but are just wholesome, freedom-loving Syrian folk rising up against their oppressor of course) are being trained in the handling of Chemical weapons, on the 'off chance' they discover any in a captured weapon's cache/factory? Apparently this training consists entirely of how to handle them though, and not on how to use them. I mean, it's not as if they'd want rebels to set off a chemical weapon and then blame Assad regime or anything. That would be crazy.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-p...045648224.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1360057522


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1360068442
Some fascist pawns of the Assad regime?

And JV, in regards to Iraq, the American media only started to speak up when it was far too late for anything to be done about it. Hindsight is all well and good, but what happened to investigative journalism and fact-checking prior to openly and loudly declaring a lie as truth?

[Cairenn]

I read somewhere that Saddam wanted Iran and the Saudi's to think he still had WMD.

[jvnk08]

Oh, rest assured JVNK, it's more than a 'possibility', though if it's happened it hasn't happened the way you seem to suspect.

Did you know that in Turkey/Jordan, the Syrian rebel forces (who aren't foreign Islamist extremists, some of which have direct ties to AlQueda, being funded and financed by NATO at all, but are just wholesome, freedom-loving Syrian folk rising up against their oppressor of course) are being trained in the handling of Chemical weapons, on the 'off chance' they discover any in a captured weapon's cache/factory? Apparently this training consists entirely of how to handle them though, and not on how to use them. I mean, it's not as if they'd want rebels to set off a chemical weapon and then blame Assad regime or anything. That would be crazy.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-p...045648224.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1360057522


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1360068442
Some fascist pawns of the Assad regime?

The article and video regarding Britam are sourced from the Daily Mail and InfoWars, which are tabloids.

Secondly, I've looked at the emails myself(including their metadata), and while nothing immediately stands out as fake there is no way to verify their authenticity. Considering the language within them and the fact that there was only one email recovered, I have my doubts:

Content from external source:

Phil
We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
Kind regards
David

http://www.cyberwarnews.info/reports...ta-leak-files/

Note the filename is "Sirian issue.eml".


Regarding Christians in Syria - the Assad regime has been one of a handful that offer them protection in the region. I'm not surprised they like him. I'm not surprised extremist militants who have come to roost in the FSA have committed crimes against them either.

And JV, in regards to Iraq, the American media only started to speak up when it was far too late for anything to be done about it. Hindsight is all well and good, but what happened to investigative journalism and fact-checking prior to openly and loudly declaring a lie as truth?

How could the media have done a better job investigating? As far as I know the only ones qualified to do such an investigation were UN weapons inspectors. IIRC they were the ones saying no serious weapon caches had been found, during the run up to the invasion and afterwards... As I said before, I think the US had already built up momentum for invasion and decided to press ahead. Yay Bush.

[Joe]

Yeah, she's quite impressive. More businesslike. But I don't think Obama was terrible.

Yes she did such a good job covering up Benghazi ?

[Joe]

Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizerSaul Alinsky.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary..._senior_thesis

[jvnk08]

Yes she did such a good job covering up Benghazi ?

I'm curious, what is being covered up? No-one has denied that four gov't personnel died there.

[Joe]

I'm curious, what is being covered up? No-one has denied that four gov't personnel died there.

Many things , What was Stevens doing in Benghazi ? On Sept 11th ? What was taken from the safe house in Benghazi ? Where is the drone footage ? why did they not get help ? Why was the video used as a excuse ? who posted the Trailer to the vIdeo On sept 11th ? what is the link between Stanley Inc and the You Tube user News Politics Now ? Why when the video trailer was posted did they change the name From The real Life Of mohhamed to The Innocence of muslims ? Why is the Video maker still in jail ? where are the 30 rescued from Benghazi and whats their story ? Why did they after they knew keeped blaming the Video ? why did they stall till after the election ? Who lost their job over this ?

[jvnk08]

Many things , What was Stevens doing in Benghazi ? On Sept 11th ? What was taken from the safe house in Benghazi ? Where is the drone footage ? why did they not get help ? Why was the video used as a excuse ? who posted the Trailer to the vIdeo On sept 11th ? what is the link between Stanley Inc and the You Tube user News Politics Now ? Why when the video trailer was posted did they change the name From The real Life Of mohhamed to The Innocence of muslims ? Why is the Video maker still in jail ? where are the 30 rescued from Benghazi and whats their story ? Why did they after they knew keeped blaming the Video ? why did they stall till after the election ? Who lost their job over this ?

....Stevens was the ambassador to Libya. I'm not sure why he wouldn't have been there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Christopher_Stevens


The trailer was online well before sept. 11th. Is The Real Life of Muhammad less insulting to Muslims than The Innocence of Muslims or something?

The video producer pleaded guilty, and he's only in jail for a year:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...sentenced.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/...nakoula-578341

Why do you think there was drone footage?

Got any citations for the "30 rescued from Benghazi"?

[Joe]

....Stevens was the ambassador to Libya. I'm not sure why he wouldn't have been there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Christopher_Stevens


The trailer was online well before sept. 11th. Is The Real Life of Muhammad less insulting to Muslims than The Innocence of Muslims or something?

The video producer pleaded guilty, and he's only in jail for a year:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...sentenced.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/...nakoula-578341

Why do you think there was drone footage?

Got any citations for the "30 rescued from Benghazi"?

Not in Libya in Benghazi where there was a clear danger , here was a attack the brits left Benghazi and our safehouse wall had a previuos attack .They were denied extra security . There was a drone in the sky the night of the attack http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#axzz2KAx1TRmM . as far as the video something really stinks about it , this guy did a pretty good job maybe someone could debunk him . When it first came out all his links worked now they dont , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7os9D-EsFmM . Stevens was trying to get weapons back from the rebels that overthrew Kadaffi . They were shipping them to Turkey for the Syrian rebels . Fast and Furious Benghazi style

[SR1419]

What was Stevens doing in Benghazi ? why did they not get help ? Who lost their job over this ?

Technically, Susan Rice didn't lose her job...she lost the opportunity to get the job she wanted. She was widely expected to be nominated as Secretary of State but was forced to withdraw her name from consideration as a result of this event.

AMB Stevens had a significant history in Benghazi, having spent several months in the city during the revolution. He was apparently quite fond of the city and its residents and they of him. 30,000 protested his death. He was in the city for 5 days of meetings. Standard diplomatic activity.

Content from external source:

When Stevens and Nathan Tek docked in Benghazi in April 2011, they were greeted by the rebel deputy minister of foreign affairs. Over the next days and weeks and months, the two met with everyone they could: the leaders of the Transitional National Council (the rebel government), shopkeepers, teachers, doctors, militiamen back from the front. "It was like they all spoke from the same script," Tek says. "They were all saying the same things to me: They all wanted a new Libya that represented the aspirations of the people. In my mind, it truly was a popular revolution."

Content from external source:

He knew Benghazi perhaps better than any U.S. diplomat

They did get "help" - obviously not enough to avert the outcome:

Content from external source:

Reinforcements arrived, six Americans from a quick-reaction force stationed in an annex about a mile away, accompanied by sixteen more men from the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade.

this is an interesting account of the attack:

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/news...?currentPage=1

[Joe]

Technically, Susan Rice didn't lose her job...she lost the opportunity to get the job she wanted. She was widely expected to be nominated as Secretary of State but was forced to withdraw her name from consideration as a result of this event.

AMB Stevens had a significant history in Benghazi, having spent several months in the city during the revolution. He was apparently quite fond of the city and its residents and they of him. 30,000 protested his death. He was in the city for 5 days of meetings. Standard diplomatic activity.

Content from external source:

When Stevens and Nathan Tek docked in Benghazi in April 2011, they were greeted by the rebel deputy minister of foreign affairs. Over the next days and weeks and months, the two met with everyone they could: the leaders of the Transitional National Council (the rebel government), shopkeepers, teachers, doctors, militiamen back from the front. "It was like they all spoke from the same script," Tek says. "They were all saying the same things to me: They all wanted a new Libya that represented the aspirations of the people. In my mind, it truly was a popular revolution."

Content from external source:

He knew Benghazi perhaps better than any U.S. diplomat

They did get "help" - obviously not enough to avert the outcome:

Content from external source:

Reinforcements arrived, six Americans from a quick-reaction force stationed in an annex about a mile away, accompanied by sixteen more men from the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade.

this is an interesting account of the attack:

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/news...?currentPage=1

Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...enghazi-visit/