Every time that something happens in the world, especially
in the Middle East where Jewish squatters are occupying someone else's family
home called Palestine, members of the Jewish mob of pundits in America come out
in force and spin the news in a way that ends up telling America what it must
do. Invariably, this turns out to be a suggestion on how to better serve the
interests of Israel .
The justification for taking this approach has always been
that to do what the Jews propose will serve the interests of America . But if
you look closely at what these organized mobsters are proposing, you'll find
that they want America
to implement aspects of the Judeo-Israeli agenda which never line-up with those
of the American agenda. In fact, you'll discover that what interests them the
most is to transform everything that's around Israel into lifeless rubble.
The reason why the Jews want this to happen is that they
want to make it possible for Israel
to just walk into these places and collect the spoils. This is how they intend
to expand the area they occupy, and create the opportunity to bring in more
Jewish squatters from around the world. The sad truth is that for half a
century, America
has been listening to the Jewish mobsters, and faithfully executing their
instructions to its detriment.
In fact, what has resulted throughout the decades is that America lost a
proverbial arm and a leg each time it played the Jewish game. The losses were
limbs that America
was never able to re-grow. At the same time, however, Israel gained a proverbial finger each time that
America
lost something. But the irony is that sooner or later, one way or the other,
greed made Israel
lose what it had gained.
You can see how a member of the Jewish mob of pundits is
once again trying to nudge America
to continue playing the same old deadly game. He is Richard Goldberg who wrote,
“What to do about Syria ––
and its chief accomplice, Iran ,”
an article that was published on April 9, 2018 in the New York Post. What
follows is a condensed version of what Goldberg is saying in his article:
“Trump should increase his leverage over Putin and break Iran 's strategic foothold in Syria . First
and foremost, he should respond militarily to Assad's crimes. Last April, Trump
responded to Assad by launching cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase; Iran 's military presence in Syria has
expanded. America
needs more than cruise-missile strike to defend our interests. Making
exceptions to our Iran
sanctions helps Iran build
another missile to wipe Israel
off the map. The president should make clear he won't withdraw from territories
liberated in eastern Syria .
These territories put America
in control of 70-90 percent of its pre-war oil production. The president should
then target the financial lifeblood of Iran :
the Central Bank of Iran .
The timing is perfect for the re-imposition of sanctions on the bank. Now is
the ideal time to hit Iran 's
central bank and shake the regime to its core”.
These passages show that after four thousand years of
misery, the Jews still have not learned to design a program with a plan B or an
exit strategy. Once fired up, what they concoct goes off like a ballistic
missile without guidance or the means to abort the mission. The end result has
always been a catastrophe that hurt the Jews who designed the monstrosity, and
hurt the innocent people that got caught in their draft.
Likewise, believing that what the Jews concoct is always
approved by God, Richard Goldberg wants America to do more than attack Syria
with cruise missiles; do more than take over the Syrian oil reserves, more than
maintain troops in the eastern part of Syria, pull out of the Iran nuclear
deal, and impose crippling sanctions on Iran's banking system. He wants to do
all that and whatever else, having suggested no plan B in case plan A doesn't
work the way he envisaged it, and without an exit strategy in case things turn
tragic.
Since no rational argument can be made that America stands to gain from implementing the
Richard Goldberg plan, the only thing that can be said about it is that
regardless of the final outcome, the author believes that if America implements it, Israel will
stand to gain much and risk almost nothing. And he totally ignores the obvious
reality that whether the plan works or not, America has much to lose and
nothing to gain.
This being the pattern that has plagued America for decades
when it comes to dealing with Jews, the case is made to the effect that America
must adopt the strategy used by smart investors when something goes wrong with
one of their investments: They stop throwing good money after bad.