Monday, November 7, 2011

Turkey's NGO, IHH and it's role in the destruction Of Libya

What to post today?
Not that there is any lack of information that needs to be aired. Just that there is so much, too much ongoing, it is overwhelming really.

For this post we are going to take a look at Libya.
Specifically were going to look at Turkey's role in destroying that nation. A role they are reprising in Syria.
You weren't aware of Turkey's role in the destruction of Libya? Nor was I until recently.
Turkey will likely play a pivotal role as an occupier/oppressor of the newly destroyed Libya. Finishing the job they started as NATO allies.

Perception Management

For beginners I want to thank dmodusoperandi for bringing much of this information to my attention.

A couple of weeks back I had heard an interesting interview with Pepe Escobar.
I am going to embed that at the end of the post.
In that interview Pepe mentioned that Turkey would likely play a role of occupier/enforcer/"peacekeeper" in Libya. That revelation on the surface seemed to come out of nowhere.
Why would Turkey get involved with this?
There were other nations available to perform said duties for the masters of death and destruction.(NATO)
One would also think that Turkey is otherwise preoccupied- being deeply involved in destabilizing Syria.

Then dmodusoperandi showed up here- Angelina Jolie goes where no humanitarian group can go.
We had a nice little exchange. A very informative exchange.
Suddenly Turkey's role in the destruction of Libya became very obvious.

Their role was covered or acted out quite nicely through the humanitarian outfit IHH.

Upon a deeper look, IHH is looking sort of like USAID. The so called humanitarian arm of the US military. The IHH is supposed to be an NGO( Non-governmental organization), the entire concept of the NGO is a sort of smoke and mirrors. You are supposed to believe that an NGO is not affiliated with government. Problem being, many if not all NGO's are covers for governmental agendas. USAID already mentioned.

There are also religious groups that are infiltrated by said interested parties. World Vision being a Christian organization that comes to mind. It is often affiliated with the CIA. These types of groups operating under the guise of charity, most often in other nations, make perfect covers for all types of operations. Covert Operations. Not having a dam thing to do with charity.

The IHH fits this bill. A so called religious aid organization on the surface, underneath something else, entirely.

Recently the IHH received a certificate of appreciation from the Turkish Consul for the relief efforts in Libya

Turkish consul in Benghazi and Libya National Transitional Council gave a certificate of appreciation to the IHH for its humanitarian relief efforts in Libya

The Turkish Consul in Benghazi?

Also reported in April 2011 the IHH sends 682 tons of humanitarian aid to Misurata/Misrata
April 2011? Just one months after the no fly zone was blessed by the UN?

Misrata, of course, being the base for the so called anti- Gadaffi rebels. Misrata the home of all those NATO rebels or NATO backed rebels, whichever

682 Tons of aid? Where would our NGO get the money for such a substantial shipment of aid?

A ship carrying 682 tons of humanitarian aid, including food, medicine and a portable hospital was being readied Tuesday for dispatching to the besieged Libyan city of Misrata.

The cargo, worth 5 million Turkish Liras, is the first being sent by the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, or İHH.

So in April 2011 there is a huge humanitarian shipment heading off to Misurata/Misrata. This follows on the opening of a previous branch in Benghazi.

“We will be sending more humanitarian aid to the Libyan people,” Yıldırım said, adding that the İHH had already opened a branch in Benghazi.

“[After it reaches Libya] the aid will then be distributed to civilians through our Benghazi branch.

When was the aid branch of IHH opened in Benghazi? Obviously prior to this shipment to Misrata in April.

Are you finding this odd? The IHH happens to be shipping all of it's so called humanitarian aid to rebel/NATO strongholds? What is wrong with this picture?
Did the people of Sirte not matter? Doesn't seem so?

Chairman Yildirem of the IHH makes a rather bizarre statement

“Unprotected people are being killed by bombs dropped from the air by international forces that want to conquer [countries] at any opportunity, and by ground-based bomb attacks by state [armed forces], who pretend they own the country,” Yıldırım said.

Yes, unprotected persons were being killed by bombs dropped by NATO. That description does not fit the NATO backed rebels. So why is the IHH aiding them only. Benghazi and Misrata.
And then this " and by ground-based bomb attacks by state [armed forces] who pretend they own the country”

Umm..... what about the Libyans attacked and killed by the non-state/ NATO backed forces? The so called rebel forces. Are their victims no less deserving of humanitarian aid, food and medical care? In the opinion of the IHH chairman these same humans don't appear to be worthy of humanitarian aid. An odd statement from a charitable group?

Curious too, the last part of the quoted statement "state(armed forces) who pretend they own the country"
Clearly the IHH does not support the pro-Libyan faction. Clearly the IHH is backing the NATO rebels.

What does this tell us about the IHH?

As an aside, I would like to make note of this interesting fact.
As dmodusoperundi pointed out after the UN/ Angleina Jolie freak show the IHH was the ONLY, the sole, NGO allowed into the so called Syrian refugee camps in Turkey.
You can find that information here on Page 11- quoting
" The IHH was the only non-government organisation to be allowed entry in the camps, on an informal basis."

Is the IHH providing a similar service to fighters ensconced in the 'refugee camps'?
The same service that the IHH provided in Libya. Supplying the rebels.
It is quite clear that's the role the IHH played.
They provided the necessities for the NATO backed rebels to overthrow the government and kill the masses of Libyans.
Given that background it would make sense that they are providing the rebels who have been long attacking Syria the means to do so.
Interestingly in this news from the IHH site- Clearly they are spinning against the Assad government

“By leaving their property behind, Syrians have taken refuge in Turkey to flee their government’s bloody crackdown"
Oh yes, Syrian government bad. "bloody crackdown" No mention of destabilization.
Reviewing the IHH role in Libya and in the refugee camps in Turkey, this makes perfect sense.

Having this background helps to make sense of reports such as this-Sponsor of Flotilla Tied to Elite of Turkey
Which begs the question- Was the Mavi Marmara a lamb to slaughter?
I'll let you ponder that one.

The last bit of this post. The interview with Pepe Escobar- from Red Ice Radio


  1. The Turkish military are pretty tough scary guys. Turkey does seem to be part of the New World order.

    - Aangirfan

  2. Turkey does indeed seem to be part of the NWO as does the IHH.

    Which seems to be working in tandem with the Turkish government and NATO

  3. Wittingly or not, Penny here is providing you folks with a LOT of disinformation. See and stop giving credence to these fakes--like Pepe Escobar.

  4. Anonymous 6:46
    Thanks for your comment.

    I checked out the website you left.
    Are you promoting this site?
    Are you affiliated with it?
    It would seem so as it (the website) has no relevancy to this post.

    What "disinformation" am I providing folks with according to you? In your opinion?

    There is nothing specifically cited.

    What you engaged in was a smear and run.

    Or a standard propaganda tactic Name Calling-

    "Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal."

    Your name calling/labelling serves no purpose other then to have readers not consider the information in the post.

    The information in this case being that a good case can be made that the NGO known as the IHH is acting as an arm of the Turkish government.

  5. That wellaware site is very funny in places. Sadly I think the guy is serious.

  6. Hey freethinker

    I saw the site had some funny stuff.
    There was stuff posted there that I could agree with.
    But, it didn't seem relevant to anything in my post

    "Sadly I think the guy is serious."

    But, serious about what, specifically?

    I have blogged since 08. I am in my fifth year of this time consuming hobby/passion.

    Everything I have ever posted is here, with links, and how and why I have drawn the conclusions that are made.

    If the anonymous poster had some relevant information,(relevant to the post on the IHH) he/she should have left it.

    Additionally if anonymous has an issue with Pepe Escobar, then anonymous should take it up with Pepe Escobar.

    I try to focus on information and it's validity or not, as opposed to being hung up on individuals

    I may not always do it perfectly, but, I try.

    Strangely enough I had an exchange with slozo about what I would do when the day came, the disinfo accusation was tossed my way.


    "So far no one has accused me of being disinfo. Yet. But, I suspect it will happen at some point in time. I will shrug my shoulders and keep on keeping on."

    So here is me, shrugging my shoulders and just keeping on

  7. Oops apologies, a miscount on my part

    I have blogged since 08.
    I am in my FOURTH year of this time consuming hobby/passion.

  8. I meant sadly the wellaware guy appeared to be serious about his 'analyses' even though quite a lot of it is LOL funny. I especially liked the 'analysis' of Maurice Strong and his doppelganger - if only he had plastic surgery. If I had plastic surgery I could look like Gerard Butler ;)

    Doesn't let the bastards grind you down, Pen. No-one with an ounce of sense would believe you are disinfo.

  9. "Doesn't let the bastards grind you down, Pen."

    Thanks freethinker. :) I try not to.

    "No-one with an ounce of sense would believe you are disinfo."

    It is the people that lack even an ounce of sense that are cause for concern.
    And there seems to be far to many of them.

  10. I've seen a couple of this 'wellaware' guy's videos before. He seems to do a lot off 'EXPOSED' videos. In one he claimed the OWS protesters and the cops on the bridge were actors. His argument went something like "if you can't tell, you're an idiot".

    Since the person criticizing you chose anonymity, I suspect he's just a fan of 'wellaware'. To him I say, we are all 'well aware' of what constitutes disinformation, and of all of the prominent figures involved in the world of conspiracy theory. Penny deserves our thanks, not our suspicion. I'll waste no more time addressing you, since this was a hit-and-run.

    Penny, the people who follow you are familiar with you and your motives. You communicate openly with your readers (unlike certain bloggers), and your thought process is out in the open, and these facts makes your credibility pretty much unassailable. It is not even a question for your regulars. If ever the question were raised, I have no doubt that many quality people would have your back. Don't worry about accusations.

  11. Hi, this is the Anonymous referred to above. I've tried in vain to find an e-mail address for Penny in order to open a dialogue about this matter discreetly. This comment system is the only means I could find. Frankly I'd prefer to use a phone (remember those?)

    To answer Penny directly, providing links to disinfo agents without qualifiers is what I mean by "providing disinformation." It took me all of 10 seconds to glance at his Wikipedia entry to discern that Pepe pushes the Osama and Al Qaeda memes.

    He is as transparently disinfo as Sibel Edmonds ever was. In fact, I classify anyone giving credence to SE as either dim-witted or a disinfo agent. The same goes for Wikileaks and Anonymous. If you trust these organizations then your world view needs a major adjustment.

    So no Penny, I'm not accusing you of being disinfo. I'm accusing you of being less than perfect in the vetting of your sources. You say that I should take my issue directly to Pepe but it is your act of promoting him that is my concern. I'm sure that I cannot pay him nearly as well as his current employer.

    Regarding the material on wellaware1, there is ample evidence (what, a hundred videos or so?) that is irrefutable proof of a sophisticated conspiracy to generate false narratives for the masses. I don't need to make any arguments for or against anything on the site as it speaks for itself. Commenters who pick one or two videos to disagree with are missing the point. If only one or two of those videos are persuasive (as I believe the majority are), the conspiracy is proved (to the individual). The professional and familial connections of the actors involved are not in question. So if, say, Rep. Giffords wasn't actually shot (and this is obviously the case), then who else must be involved in the hoax? All I ask is that everyone watch the videos on that site with their power of deduction actively participating. The implications are staggering and relevant to every post on this blog. Much more relevant than, say, what disinfo agent Pepe Escobar has to say about Libya.

  12. Blammo; thanks for the kind words they are greatly appreciated

  13. Hello thevespers:

    I am glad you came back to own your words.

    I see you have just signed on to google as of this month. I believe I was the first viewer of your profile.

    I would like to address as briefly as possible the issue at hand.

    This is what you said

    "Wittingly or not, Penny here is providing you folks with a LOT of disinformation. See and stop giving credence to these fakes--like Pepe Escobar."

    Your issue is with Pepe Escobar.(claimed by yourself)

    Yet, you accuse me of providing a LOT (all capitals) of disinfo.

    That reads like an accusation aimed my way.
    Here is my reference to Pepe Escobar's commentary

    "A couple of weeks back I had heard an interesting interview with Pepe Escobar.
    I am going to embed that at the end of the post.
    In that interview Pepe mentioned that Turkey would likely play a role of occupier/enforcer/"peacekeeper" in Libya. That revelation on the surface seemed to come out of nowhere.
    Why would Turkey get involved with this?"

    The interview is embedded so people can listen to the reference made to Turkey's involvement

    I then continue on with some information left by another blogger in a previous post
    The role of Turkey's NGO in Libya
    And some background on the information.

    It is all there for anyone and everyone to read through for themselves.

    Clearly Turkey was deeply involved in the destabilization and destruction of Libya.

    On this Pepe is not dishing up any "disinfo"

    The information all jibes beautifully.

    The role Turkey played in Libya is being acted out, again, in Syria.

    "I'm accusing you of being less than perfect in the vetting of your sources."

    Well that is a slight improvement over LOTS of disinfo.

    "You say that I should take my issue directly to Pepe but it is your act of promoting him that is my concern.

    I still contend you should take your issue to Pepe. There is surely contact information available for him somewhere?

    My act of promoting him?
    That is an interesting assumption on your part.
    I am not promoting Pepe , per se, I am noting the fact that the concept of Turkey`s involvement in Libya was introduced to me via an interview with Pepe Escobar.

    I was intrigued and felt the need to dig further
    And synchronistically speaking dmodusoperundi and I had a little conversation that lead to some good info regarding Turkey`s involvement in Libya

    I actually found even more info then I had used in the post of Turkey's involvement.

    You can find that


    Or here here

    this is also an interesting article, put it through the translate from spanish to english
    someone linked this very post to that article, for obvious reasons

    That all said what Pepe said about Turkey's involvement seemed quite true- quite correct.

    Therefore, I must ask what is your agenda in attempting to smear me?
    Did you not want the dots connected from Turkey to Libya and conversely Turkey playing the same role in Syria?
    Regardless of your accusations the dots line up beautifully.

    As for attempting to contact me.
    You can say what you need to say here, in a reasonable and respectful fashion.
    I take no issue with that what so ever.

    I am not going to address the well aware site, because quite frankly I don't have the time or the interest to do so.


  14. My comment isn't posting. This is a test...

  15. "I am not going to address the well aware site, because quite frankly I don't have the time or the interest to do so."

    So, you claim that Al Awlaki is phony and leave it at that. You're not interested in the identity of the actor that plays this character on television? Nor the fact that this actor is a member of a prominent and well-connected American dynasty? That this same actor is involved in the manufacture of multiple narratives, many dangerously similar to "alternative" narratives?

    My agenda, if I have one, is to negate the influence of this network of imposters upon those that seem, like me, to value truth/reality above all else. They are targeting you and your readers and bringing unlimited resources to bear--I suggest you take an interest in them before it's too late. Even if you believe that you yourself can keep the disinfo separate from reality, I trust that in time you will find that most of your fellow truth-seekers will have succumbed to one or a thousand corrupt memes.

    Consider, if you will, Penny: The opposition is paying people to say the same thing you are saying and to the same audience. Doesn't that imply that they aren't really concerned with the impact of such revelations? I don't mean to diminish what you do as I do value it highly--but it isn't going to save the world.

    Does it matter what evil organizations may do when the individual perpetrators will walk away from it all with NO ACCOUNTABILITY whatsoever? The real alternative movement is busy playing the oligarchs' game of politics (an edgier 'eXtreme!!!' version of the same tired democrat/republican debate). But I believe that TPTB are just people. They have children, family BBQs, and neighbors. Dallas Goldbug has done what no other has done (please share if you know of any exceptions): he has named names. He has made this all VERY REAL. The hoaxes that he has uncovered can all be further investigated (and prosecuted) right now. We have a representative in the U.S. Congress who is a fictitious person (consider who else needs to know this in order to cover it up). We have people impersonating judges and police officers. The amount of fraud and coverups to keep this all running is massive. It is this information (if information of any sort is a threat to them) that is the only real threat to TPTB. It is the one thing you will never hear Pepe or his ilk discuss. It is my new acid test for fellow truth-seekers. Unfortunately his website is a trainwreck. I'd suggest just viewing his Youtube channel:

  16. This is the first half of my response, with the second half posted above. I guess it was too long...

    OK, I'll capitulate on the "LOTS of disinfo" phrase. There was a previous article of yours that I found objectionable on similar grounds and upon which I commented (anonymously) but cannot find it now.

    "On this Pepe is not dishing up any disinfo. The information all jibes beautifully."

    This is careless of you. Pepe is a con-artist who is paid to inseminate people like you with memes tailored by the oligarchy. If he says nothing new, but merely repeats information from other more trustworthy sources, his effect is to bring what may be true into disrepute. If he adds even one seemingly benign nuance to a story, that is to be discarded in accordance with his lack of trustworthiness. There is no scenario in which his commentary can aid in the search for truth apart from this: his commentary is seen as the voice of the opposition and sifted for the underlying intent and methods of said opposition.

    Look at OWS... They say a lot of things that we would agree with and this is how they build their credibility. I would prefer that you, normally a voice of reason, not aid (even if incidentally) these people in their quest to pollute the "alternative" meme pool.

  17. Thanks for pointing out all this info, Penny, it looks clear that IHH politics is tied to Turkish government, IHH is aligned with NATO and CIA in Libya and Turkey. I don't have evidences of the links betweeen IHH and AKP but I am sure IHH is a tool of the Turkish government. And I think there's a lot more to tell about it... Here I send you another interesting links:

    We could make a movie or something now!

  18. Thanks for capitulating on your wild accusation. I appreciate that you can admit the error of that action.
    If you hadn't noticed I had replied to freethinker

    "I try to focus on information and it's validity or not, as opposed to being hung up on individuals"

    For the very reason you point out- individuals all have their own reasons for what they say
    A pay cheque
    A personal bias
    A religious leaning

    But information is just that, it is information. To be found correct or to be found lacking.

    If Pepe's mention of Turkish involvement had brought me to a dead end, I would have concluded this was incorrect information and the post would have never came to fruition.
    Except this is not what happened.

    The fact that you are so hung up on Pepe Escobar is the exact reason I am not.
    The hangup takes away from the information.

    If I made a whole post of Pepe Escobar being disinfo would the very important information of Turkish underhandedness come to light?
    No, it would not have.
    I think this is where your opinion and mine separate
    I am concerned with the message
    Therefore I prioritize and focus on the information.
    Is it good or bad and why?

    You are concerned with the messenger.
    Not that there is anything inherently wrong with your concern.
    But, too much time focused on the individual can serve as a distraction.
    A distraction that can aid in the truth/fact of a situation coming to light or not coming to light.
    I simply do not have the time or energy or resources to take all these aspects into consideration.

    Being so concerned with Pepe, you have not seen the forest, Turkey’s role as NATO/OWO destroyer, for the trees or in this case the tree named Pepe..
    A role that is obvious and you have yet to acknowledge as so.
    Turkey’s as a nation destroyer.

    At the top of my blog is a saying
    Truth exists; only lies are invented.
    It is there for a reason.

    Truly, this is all I can say on this subject. I hope you have a better understanding of how it is this blog functions and what it’s priorities are.
    If other individuals have the time and resources to address situations or persons from differing angles-more power to them.
    Keeping in mind that too much of that kind of focus can end up being a distraction from what really needs to get out to readers.

  19. dmodusoperandi!

    you are most welcome and I must thank you again for all the links you previously left and more for today!!!

    We could make a movie!

    I always says who needs tv , real life is a heck of a lot more interesting!

  20. I agree with your treatment of Libya and Syria thus far and find the Turkey/Israel role to be entirely plausible. However, I'm not so sure that one can dredge the sewer of disinformation (read: news agencies and eccentric internet personalities) and produce a healthy soup. Take the scenario of the ongoing debt crisis in Europe. The complexity of the issue and the multitude of sources each with conflicting narratives render the truth inscrutable. We are left to follow the narrative that most faithfully follows our preconceptions: confirmation bias. Therefore we have only an approximation of truth, a representation that may be more real than that held by others, but an imperfect representation all the same.

    Is geopolitics any less complex? While the number of sources and narratives are admittedly fewer (as is their audience), are any of the sources more credible?

    The existential uncertainty involved in such pursuits is what drives me to seek that which can be truly known. Such as the identities of the shills and their paymasters.

    All that said merely to explain my approach more fully in the event that anyone should care. But please continue with your work and I'll continue to point out any future shills with a comment.

  21. thevespers!

    "All that said merely to explain my approach more fully in the event that anyone should care."

    Understood and appreciated.

    "But please continue with your work and I'll continue to point out any future shills with a comment."

    I can live with that :)
    But would hope that you will comment on the information also.

  22. Thanks to you, Penny, it's a pleasure to be here!

    You pointed out in your article that IHH sent aid to Bengasi in April, which followed the opening of a previous branch of IHH in Benghazi.

    And you asked: "When was the aid branch of IHH opened in Benghazi?"

    I provide you with the answer here (the link is in Turkish language, I had to you a translator):

    IHH started its activity in Libya February 23th, just 3 days later of the beginning of the so-called "peaceful protests".

    I think this is confirms what both of us suspected before... So IHH has been a tool for the war against Libya.

  23. thanks dmodus-

    translator has some serious shortcomings


    Let's see if I got this right?

    IHH started its activity in Libya February 23th, just 3 days later of the beginning of the so-called "peaceful protests".

    IHH became active in Libya via the Benghazi office on February 23/2011
    and just 3 days after that the "peaceful protests" began?

    Is that correct?

  24. oops sorry dmodus!

    Reading right through that article it seems it was the other way, allegedly....

    So three days after the 'protests' the IHH moved in.

  25. You are right, Penny!

  26. Pen,

    I thought thevespers made very vaild points, and I don't think you should get defensive about it.

    And, I do agree with him/her on the non-use of well-poisoners. Giving a link to someone who may give out some good information leads others to believe loads of disinfo coming from that same source. It's something I feel we should all avoid, and work hard to eradicate, as thevespers pointed out.

    I say check out thevespers contention that Pepe is pure disinfo - and if you find that he is, then never use him again (other than to point out disinfo, that is). Claiming you have no time to research whether an information link is disinfo or not is pretty disingenuous coming from you, Pen.

    Thevespers may have come off a bit strong wihch is why you got your hackles raised, but . . . his points deserve investigating. It benefits us all.

    I still love ya though Pen, and think you are doing a fine job, please keep it up!

  27. Hey slozo

    don't know if you will get to see this, hope so?

    "I thought thevespers made very vaild points, and I don't think you should get defensive about it."

    I won't disagree that thevespers made some valid points I believe I conceded that at some point in time.

    What got me on the defensive was the opening salvo that thevespers made as an anonymous commenter

    I think your aware, having dished out some criticisms, I can generally take criticism of some aspect of a post or even a source.

    But an attack such as that is a different story

    The "disinfo" label used to freely risks turning into the "boy who cried wolf" or the "anti-semtic" accusation

    I have seen it, you have seen.
    Everyone is " disinfo" in someones opinion
    (I get people coming here on the search words "dave Mcgowan disinfo")

    It's a label better applied very sparingly.

    "Claiming you have no time to research whether an information link is disinfo or not is pretty disingenuous coming from you, Pen."

    Actually it is the truth.
    It is just a simple fact.
    If you blogged you would understand this. It can over run ones life if not kept in check

    I do have a life, this is something I do in my spare time because I enjoy it. I like mucking through stuff. I like to "think".
    It keeps my brain going.

    You know my disappointment with this entire dialogue?

    I felt I had stepped into some controversial territory suggesting that the IHH is a tool of the Turkish government which could cause one to rethink the entire Mavi Marmara episode in the flotilla...

    Why was the MM the hardest hit ship?
    Who were the people killed on it?
    Were these executions? State sanctioned? Possibly by Turkey?
    And on and on...
    Because it was the MM and Erdogan's "tough line" with Israel that has given Turkey/Erdogan such credibility in the Arab world....

    But it does look as if it was a good bit of theatre

    Instead the focus was on one individual, or two,(Escobar and myself) rather then the information and what that info could possibly have signified.

    Because of that narrow focus the bigger picture was missed.

    This is the problem in my mind.
    Speaking as the person who put a couple hours of work into this post.

    I am glad you still love what I do and think I am doing a fine job.
    I don't think you will ever know how much that is appreciated.

    I always tell my husband I like ya.
    I don't know why but you give this "errant child" vibe. The prodigal son kind of thing.
    Perhaps it is an empty nest kind of thing for myself, I don't know.

    anyway, blah, blah blah, way too long

    have a good day slozo! :)

  28. Hmm. Lots of food for thought. And Pen, if I ever make a late comment like I did here, and it's something where I expect some kind of response, I always check back for it, as I did here.

    Well first off Pen, I get WHY you were offended - but rereading what he first wrote as anon, the only thing I could get offended by is the phrase "...a LOT of disinformation." which is a huge overstatement, considering all your valid and well-researched points. But, he did say "wittingly or not" and at the end said "stop giving credence to these fakes".

    And I totally get the fact that you have a life and all that and you can't track down every lead and every thing . . . but if you were willing to do the initial research and someone is telling you some guy in your links is a pure disinfo guy, and it seems to have some credence . . . why wouldn't you check it out? You wouldn't be Pen if you didn't check out exactly those things, like you have done countless times before.

    Anyways, I do get the point as well about misapropriating your initial point by emphasising this other Pepe thing . . . but, sometimes, the tangents lead right back to the real point in the first place, you know?

    Hmm . . . errant child, eh? My wife'll hop right on that comment, lol.

    Cheers Pen, and I truly appreciate the work you do. Not all of it is in my wheelhouse, I don't read it all word for word sometimes . . . but there is only so much time in the world that I can spare as a busy father of two, husband of one. And I do learn a lot here, so never let any of my criticisms, which might take a moment, to deflate any efforts of yours which might have taken hours. I do get how much work goes into this, trust me.

    My last sip of wine is a toast to you, my dear. Cheers!