How many words are there in this sentence: “Maintain the sanctions
on Iran”? You'd be correct if you said there are 5 words. In fact, that's all
it takes to convey the message contained in the sentence.
Let's qualify that assertion by saying that such would be the case
if you're a normal human being. But if you're a lawyer that's heavily
influenced by Jewish logic, you'll need sixteen hundred haggling words to say
that same, “maintain the sanctions on Iran.” This, in fact, is what Andrew C.
McCarthy did in an article that came under the title: “For Regime Change in
Iran” and the subtitle: “We do not want to invade to achieve it, but it should
be our objective.” The article was published on June 29, 2019 in National
Review Online.
How did Andrew McCarthy do it? He did it by studying the lessons
in the book of the Jewish mob of pundits, issued to justify Israel's wicked
attitude toward the human race, and its horrific behavior toward its neighbors.
For example, the first thing that Andrew McCarthy did was to employ a reverse
technique of the trick known as shiny object. That is, instead of distracting
the audience by giving it something amazing to mesmerize it while he pushed
forward another discourse, he gave the audience something to stir its hatred
while he got busy pushing another discourse. Here are the four words with which
McCarthy started the discussion: “President Obama was dishonest.” How much more
hate can you pack in a four-word sentence?
With the adroit use of vague language, McCarthy went on to
misrepresent the facts. Here is an example: “Obama lined Iran's pockets with
$1.7 billion in cash and other curious money transfers.” Well, there is nothing
curious about Iranian investments in America earning $1.7 billion in interest.
When the investment assets were unfrozen, the interest they earned was handed
back to Iran along with the assets. How a simple notion like this can stir the
bile of haters is beyond comprehension.
Another trick that McCarthy learned from the Jews and used in his
discussion, is how to redefine the words to suit his current need. Look how he
did that: “Trump pressured other nations to resist dealing with Iran for fear
of being cut off from the US financial system. Increasingly a pariah, Iran has
seen its revenues shrivel and its economy contract”.
The fact is that you don't become a pariah because a screwball put
the gun to someone's head and told them not to deal with you. The truth is that
those who become pariah, earn the label by bringing it on themselves. They do
it by behaving in a villainous manner. The closest example to fit this
description in today's world, is non-other than Israel. It is the self-created
villain that has managed to turn off humanity everywhere on the planet for ever
and ever. Unfortunately, America that associated itself closely with Israel, is
moving toward earning that same label.
Also, a consequence of someone earning the label pariah, is that
when they get involved in a violent dispute, the public automatically considers
them the aggressor. This is why McCarthy's assertion that: “Iran remains the
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism,” sounds hollow to audiences that
regard Israel as the only terrorist entity on the Planet, and that America is
the leading sponsor and bankroller of its terrorist acts.
Thus, when the whole world hears America repeat the chant, “all
options are on the table” and then hears the Israelis repeat the same chant to
the Iranians, the world expects the Iranians to respond with the Farsi chant
“down with America, down with Israel.” And because the world speaks many
languages, most people know that quirks in translation will make the chant
sound differently in different languages. It might, for example, sound like
“death to America, death to Israel” in English and a few other languages.
But did Israel or the Jewish mob of pundits in America that
promotes its interests, take any responsibility for what the Jews say has gone
wrong with the world? The answer is absolutely not. In fact, they blamed the
failure of the Iraq adventure on someone else; the very invasion that’s known
to have been the crown jewel of their handiwork; the one and only invasion that
turned out to be America's biggest mistake. Here is how McCarthy repeated the
Jewish slander which made it that the Jewish idea of America attacking Israel's
nemesis was correct but that the non-Jews who carried out the attack messed up its
execution:
“The combat phases in Afghanistan and Iraq were swift and successful.
What bogged us down was the experiment built on a fiction that our liberty and
security hinge on the promotion of freedom in Muslim countries. The invasion of
Iraq was a mistake only because of the way it was carried out. Bush said he was
targeting regimes that supported terrorism. He then proceeded to prioritize
Iraq, which was less a culprit than Iran, thus got bogged down in a project
that drained America”.
There are two more sacred cows the Jews don't want Donald Trump to
mess with. They are that endless wars are not a bad thing, and that
disproportionate attacks in response to actual or anticipated
provocation––however minor it may be––is the right thing to do.
In fact, this is how Israel has been treating the unarmed
Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. It is how the Jews want America to
treat Iran as well as the Arab and other Muslim majority countries. In fact,
here is how Andrew McCarthy ended his article:
“The president should drop the nonsense about 'disproportionate'
attacks and 'endless wars.' If he is serious about stopping Tehran, he must
convince the regime that he is keeping all options on the table”.
And you, my friend, you should not be surprised to hear the
Iranians chant, “death to America, death to Israel,” should the president of
the United States obey the Jewish directive, and utter the words: All options
are on the table.