What’s Annoying the North Koreans? US policies.

[HiPointDem]

53. Nope, you witch-hunted the author of the OP: who is not the director of global research. BTW,

Nope, you witch-hunted the person who wrote the counterpunch article, who is not the director.
you missed this part of Michel Chossudovsky's bio when you pulled the 'anti-semite' charge off wikipedia: he's jewish.

Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist.

He is professor of economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. Chossudovsky has been a visiting professor internationally, and has been an advisor to governments of developing countries. In 1999, Chossudovsky joined the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research as an adviser. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism" (2005) and Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011).

Based at the University of Ottawa from 1968 he is founder, editor, and director of the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), located in Montreal, Canada. It is "committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the new world order". CRG maintains the website GlobalResearch.ca which is critical of United States foreign policy and NATO, as well as theories concerning the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the war on terror, media disinformation, poverty and social inequality, the global economic crisis, and politics and religion. Chossudovsky was profiled in the Ottawa Citizen in an article by Juliet O'Neill.

Chossudovsky responded that there was a disclaimer that the website was not to be held responsible for the views expressed in the forum, and he had the comment removed. He also said that he was of Jewish heritage and would be one of the last people to condone antisemitic views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

Smears of anti-semitism, red-baiting, witch-hunting -- not one 'critic' here has actually addressed the material in the article. They can't. The events noted are facts. You can argue with the analysis, but you can't argue that those things didn't happen.

Yes, very creepy.