Could all the anger, the fury, the unkempt paedo hairstyle, the grim face, the "bad deal" rants; could it all be acting?
Well, why not? Israel was the instigator of 9/11 and all the wars ever since, and the assassination of Rafik Hariri, and sending IDF soldiers into lands occupied by Hezbollah to provoke the war in 2006 with Hezbollah as per A Clean Break. All this has been covered up in the media. What we see on TV, read in the newspapers and on the internet, and hear on the radio is a movie. In our heads is a movie. Well, actually it is a Ziomovie. Reality is something very different.
I love peace. I really do.
And I hate war. I really, really hate war. So when peace conquers war, or alternatively love conquers hate, then I'm happy. Which is why I support the P5+1 deal with Iran that was agreed last weekend. It gives peace a chance. God knows it needs a chance with Jihadi lunatics like Bandar bin Sultan on the loose.
But in the back of my mind there has always been a niggling doubt about it all, similar to one I had about Eustace Mullins and his support for the bona fide traitor Andrew Jackson.
That niggle was, why were Hague and Kerry, who pushed for war on Syria so much during the summer, pushing for peace with Iran? Even to the point of making Netanyahu look foolish?
As I explained over the weekend, PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses stated that Iran was a bigger threat to US national security than Iraq. Iran is the ultimate target of all the wars in the Middle East. Iran is why there was a war in Syria and on Hezbollah in the last few years; to either take them out or neutralise them in preparation for a war with Iran.
And I also highlighted Which Path to Persia? to show just how much Iran means to the Zios. There is no Which Path to Damascus? Or Which Path to Beirut? Or Which Path to Tripoli?
Tony Cartalucci has answered that doubt I had about this P5+1 deal.
"...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."
-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.
[source : Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not "Breakthrough", Land Destroyer, http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/nuclear-deal-with-iran-prelude-to-war.html, 26th November 2013]
Yes. We should celebrate peace. Live it. Love it.
But when I see Hague at the dispatch box in The Marsten House telling Netanyahu to calm down dear, when throughout the summer Hague sported his al Qaeda bandana with pride as he pushed for war, war and more war on Syria, when Syria and Iran were named to General Wesley Clark after the mother of all inside Ziojobs 9/11, then I am suspicious.
Can we believe that the USA would hold secret talks with Iran behind Netanyahu's back?
There are so many questions that this raises that one blog will not cover them all.
One question I have is: Why was The
No comments:
Post a Comment