.jpg)
This is our enemy? The threat to the safety of the planet? According to Bibi and his buddies, and the script they follow this is Ahmadinejad and the threat they want toe world to believe he represents.
By James Farganne
September 28,
2012
In 1992 Bibi said
Iran would have a nuclear weapon by 1997. Today he said Iran would cross the
"red line" next summer (left). Zionist governments & media have
been harping on this ad nauseam issuing empty and contradictory statements.
What IS their
game?
It's called "regime
change." Neo cons have been plotting regime change
in North Africa & the Middle East for exactly the same length of time.
"Regime change" means Zionist control.
According to such insider texts as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
the Jewish power elite have made a virtual science of engineering desired
changes by fomenting wars and revolutions. It is a dialectical strategy that
has won them almost unimaginable power.
I think a reasonable argument could be made that there
never has been a successful revolution that was truly grass roots, at least not
in the last hundred years or so. Real revolutions, whether social or political,
seem always to come to us from the top down.
Today, we watch from the edges of our seats as crazed
men like Bibi Netanyahu sabre-rattle the Middle East toward igniting a Third
World War. They decry Iran's "nuclear ambitions",
when even Mossad
has admitted
Iran
has no nuclear weapons in its arsenal.
In fact, such warheads require uranium that is at
least 90% enriched. Iran's enrichment has pegged out at 20%, and they have
shown no signs that they intend to take it higher.
This is pretty much common knowledge by now. Even the
MSM has admitted it. Yet the BeeBees and the Baraks continue to slaver their
venom ... as if they were blindly adhering to a script.
Ask yourself why?
Because they are adhering, albeit not blindly, to a script.
Their dialectic methods dictate that if you want to
destroy a country, then you must demonize it first. We should remember that
BeeBee's current campaign of virulent rhetoric against Iran is but the
culmination of a series of outbursts going back some twenty years.
IRAN
BOMB ACCUSATION TIMELINE (YAWN)
Iran's nuclear power program began in the late 1970s.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's pro-West puppet leader, embarked on an
ambitious program to build upwards of 20 nuclear reactors. But then Western
intelligence agencies reported that the Shah had intentions of putting together
a secret nuclear weapons program.
In 1979, a revolution deposed the Shah, and thus was born the Islamic Republic of Iran. If the Protocols are any indication, we can safely assume that the purpose of setting up the Islamic Republic was to create a bugbear, a Great Satan slated for destruction down the road.
The new Iranian regime had no love for things nuclear. .
Ayatollah Khomeini denounced all forms of the
technology and suspended the country's nuclear activities. In 1984, engineers
from West Germany visited the Bushehr nuclear facility.
The reactor was still unfinished, and yet shortly thereafter, West German intelligence claimed that Iran's effort to produce a nuclear bomb was "entering its final stages".
It was in 1992 that Israel started sounding alarms
about a supposed Iranian nuclear threat. Bibi himself, then a parliamentarian,
broke the ice by claiming that Iran was within five years of having The Bomb,
and calling for "an international front headed by the US".
Sound familiar?
That same year, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres,
appearing on French TV, upped the date to 1999.
"Iran," he warned, "is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East, because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militancy."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ~ only
this case, black was actually not the kettle's color.
Israel already had nukes.
Iran had never even made an attempt to develop them.
1992 also saw both the House Republican Research
Committee and CIA chief Robert Gates leveling similarly empty accusations from
the States. Meanwhile, a "Defense Strategy for the 1990s", leaked
from the Pentagon, all but omitted Iran from its conflict scenarios.
Why this discrepancy?
Blur forward to 1995, and we had The New York Times
pounding this same ominous drum, reporting US and Israeli officials'
"fears" that Iran, once again, was about five years from
developing a nuclear arsenal.
Then, in 1997, The Christian Science Monitor reported
that, owing to political pressure on Iran's suppliers, Iran had been
"forced ... to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb." The
dreaded new outlook was a nuclear Iran within eight to ten years..
The period in this saga from 1998 ~ 2002 began when we
were told that Iran had test-launched a medium range missile. Now the US and
Israeli war hawks had a fresh new pretext for their allegations.
In 1998, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told
Congress that Iran would have an ICBM capable of hitting the continental US ~
and can you guess how long he said it would take?
Yawn.
Five years.
In 2002, we were given a ludicrous new specter called
the Axis of Evil, a fiendish chimera combining three bogeymen: North Korea,
Iraq, and of course, Iran.
The MEK, an Iranian opposition group, in August of the
same year, accused Iran of hiding enrichment facilities. Belief that Mossad had
put them up to this accusation was widespread.
In 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced
that Iran was trying to affix a nuclear warhead to a missile.
In 2005, designs for nukes were alleged to have
surfaced from an intercepted Iranian laptop. Iran categorically denied their
authenticity, claiming intelligence agencies had forged them. Given such
agencies' known antics, this is not a far stretch.
.
.
From 2006 to 2009, we saw intermittent flurries of
thinly-veiled threats from the Bush administration and the Zionist-controlled
media. All of them subsisted on the assumption that Iran would soon be a
nuclear power and therefore a threat to the "free world".
Yet 2007 brought a harbinger to the present din of
mixed signals. America's 16 spy agencies released a combined National
Intelligence Estimate in which they opined, "with high confidence",
that Iran's nuclear ambitions had evaporated in 2003. In June 2008, US
Ambassador to the UN John Bolton predicted an Israeli attack on Iran by January
2009. In May of that year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee emphatically
concluded that
"There is no sign
that Iran's leaders
have ordered up a bomb".
CONCLUSION:
The foregoing timeline reveals Illuminati tactics at
play. By periodically repeating the same lies, they condition the public into
accepting a false premise. They use false flags (9-11) as a form of trauma-based
mind control to sear that premise emotionally into the public mind.
Then, while admitting truth
that obviates the false premise,
they steam ahead with their plans
anyway.
In 2007 General Wesley Clark revealed that Paul
Wolfowitz indicated in 1991 that the Neo Con plan was to destabilize and oust the
regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
.
.
.
This last stage
is to use imaginary nuclear
weapons
as a pretext to satisfy
an arcane legal requirement.
an arcane legal requirement.
By then, the public are too disoriented to know what
to think, so they can formulate no coherent opposition.
The Illuminati use this non-reaction to justify their atrocities.
This is a MO ~ repeated, via predictive programming and doublethink, ad nauseam
throughout the annals of Zionist media and Hollywood.
What about the dissenting military brass, both
American and Israeli, who have called an attack on Iran a suicide mission?
What about all the recent friction between Netanyahu
and Obama?
I would like to believe, and indeed retain some hope,
that these are signs of an unexpected turn of events, something the Zionist
think tanks did not foresee.
But my horse sense tells me it's just a big soap
opera, with celebrity spats woven into the denouement for good measure.
REFERENCE:
RELATED:
No comments:
Post a Comment
If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.