program and an expert, but who posted an article which basically stated
Iran is not a threat and can be trusted but America is once again a problem.
His one sentence snotty reply is what winning looks like as I get this
type of nonsense of self grandeur from people like Dinesh D'Souza
reverting to their "accomplishments" when they can not answer in knowing
they have been proven wrong.
It is rare to interact with any of these published or all knowing types
who knows all they claim to.
Enjoy
Stephen Lendman wrote----
I've written plenty about my country going back to its
beginning and have no illusions about our inglorious
democracy.
>
>
> Dear Mr. Lendman,
>
> I read your article posted on the Rense program and
> am wondering if your question on "Decades back,
> could anyone have thought things would come to
> this." was bewilderment or rhetorical as anyone who
> knows the entire Aryan or Iranian situation from
> it's current genesis of World War II worship of
> Nazism, to the British socialism thwarted in the CIA
> coup by installing the Shah as a strong US ally who
> was then deposed by MI 6's socialists by installing
> Khomeini who was a Baathist by Jimmy Carter's
> ineptness to regain oil for the communists and put
> extreme pressure on the United States economic
> state.
>
> While the world has lingered on bin Laden
> Islamofascism, the Baathists who are a hybrid form
> of French European communism have taken control with
> the Russian Bolshevik by capturing Zawahiri and
> converting him to the new Islamocommunism which now
> controls most of the Middle East and all of Iran.
>
> I would respectfully submit where was the cooler
> head decades ago when this was allowed to cement in
> the basement of the Middle East and now build an
> arsenal against the west.
> Sir, why do you think the socialist President of
> France 2 years ago out of the blue threatened to
> strike Iran with nuclear weapons? The answer is
> simple in Iran purchased out of the old Soviet Union
> a number of SS warheads which now on the Shahab 3
> are capable of hitting most of Europe.
> Why do you think that Bill Clinton "allowed" the
> Pakistani's funded by the Saudi's to be blackmailed
> into having both of them now have nuclear weapons?
> The answer is the several nuclear warheads Putin's
> Bolsheviks sold to Iran needed a US ally to counter
> them.
>
> The only reason the US has not hit Iran already are
> those Soviet warheads in Iran. Flight TWA 800 proved
> Iran was capable of strikes in the United States
> when Ricard Clark deliberately covered up that mass
> murder, because Bill Clinton did not want to have to
> start a Middle East war to deal with. President
> Clinton knew it had to be either Iraq or Iran behind
> it, but simply in documented policy believed a few
> hundred dead Americans a year was a reasonable
> exchange for no wars.
> This culminated not in the 9 11 attack and others,
> but in published reports now being swept under the
> rug in 2 detained Muslims died of radiation
> poisoning in New York 2 weeks after the attack.
> There were at least 2 nuclear devices on US soil,
> whether they were delivered or the "foundlings"
> deposited here by the Soviets as they did in western
> Europe and England for a war has never been revealed
> but the fact remains cooler heads have prevailed a
> macabre cast of innocent dead in the thousands.
> One can debate whether loosing New York with at
> least a trillion dollar cleanup is acceptable to a
> war in Iraq with 1/100th the casualties or should
> the Pentagon and politicians be swayed as Colin
> Powell worried about dead Iraqi's out of Kuwait
> instead of being more worried in what happens when
> Iran which has been documented in funding the
> building of a North Korean nuclear facility so the
> Israeli state would vaporize Damascus (Please
> remember the literal reports last summer of Putin's
> FSB and GRU were feeding Syria bogus intelligence to
> try to get Assad to first strike the Israeli state
> that these communists in Russia and Iran are trying
> to get Syria blown up so they can pick up the
> pieces.
> The pieces being nuclear oil fields, so that loud
> voices will call for the removal of US forces from
> the region. I have written of this plan of action
> which would mean that Russia which wants a Europe
> united under it's leadership from Dublin to Moscow
> would be the sole supplier of oil to blackmail all
> of Eurasia leaving the Chinese people as fodder for
> war against America.)
>
> Those points can be debated on which future the
> world wills, but to look at Iran as some docile
> nation when the people of Darfur are dead, because
> they helped ship Saddam's chemical weapons there so
> the Islamocommunists there could murder Christians,
> Flight 800 and now the literal taking over of the
> Islamocommunist branch of al Qaeda by Iran in
> directing it and Hamas along with Hezbollah is
> fomenting a Ron Paul type policy which negates to
> answer, "What will pundits do when the Israeli
> socialists of Olmert decide that loosing Tel Aviv
> will not be acceptable and a massive strike of real
> polluting plutonium and thermonuclear bombs makes
> Iran even more of a death zone.
>
> Your cooler heads need to discuss what you are going
> to do to stop this as leaving Iran alone will bring
> about a policy that has Iran exporting nuclear arms
> to the narco communist regimes in South America as
> the FARC documents revealed. Then what will the
> United States do with open borders, latino gangs and
> open shipping trucks filtering real nuclear weapons
> into several American cities.
> Jimmy Carter in leaving the Shah alone, created this
> entire mess when Iran was left alone by Bill
> Clinton.
>
> Your quotes of British Intelligence are the same
> socialists who installed the current Iranian regime
> carrying out a centuries old plan of payback on the
> United States which was not under it's control.
> You can also find quotes during the Clinton years
> which had Ghadaffi of Libya being a completely
> nuclear free nation and having only peaceful
> intentions. After 9 11, the reality is Libya was on
> the road to nuclear weapons and only needed fuel to
> build several bombs.
>
> Perhaps when one has both left and right wing
> politicians stating Iran is a problem, knowing even
> more what is in intelligence files than has been
> revealed here, it is time to start taking the proxy
> war of Iran on America at the behest of Russia a
> great deal more serious.
> Proof of that is if these were generalissimo wars
> were just political wars, Iraq would have been over
> in 2 weeks as it was. The real problem is the same
> front of the "diamonds and guns" international mafia
> fronting wars against the United States and with
> it's own adept propaganda machine has pundits
> stating that America attacked itself as there are
> always those who will believe anything against
> America.
>
> You need to sir discuss the complete scenario
> instead of bits and pieces, because the War
> Department was rife with strife over President
> Lincoln in the Civil War too and as the Confederacy
> was only fighting for state's rights and not making
> trade contracts with the British Empire and asking
> other European Empires to inflict war punishments on
> America, the Pentagon of the day must have been
> correct too.
>
> Thank you for your time in reading this and I
> sincerely hope your discussions broaden as no one
> desires to inflict anything on Iran, but there must
> be a solution which keeps this from fomenting into a
> nuclear exchange which is intended (not by America).
> Of course, if you consider Iran trustworthy, then
> you would be in favor of disbanding the US
> government and having Ahmadinejad be in the White
> House and their Oud forces in charge of our nuclear
> arsenal as they are sworn as you state to be against
> nuclear development.
> If you were not willing to go this far in trusting
> them, then perhaps they are not completely
> trustworthy in all they claim now.
>
> Sincerely
