Trump ordered killing of Iranian General Soleimani: Pentagon

[monty]

Maram Susli, a Syrian geopolitical analyst @partisangirl on Twitter says Epstein was a Mossad asset, lsrael has Trump blackmailed with footage of underage girls
They asked Trump to lure Saleimani to Bagdad with promises of de-escalation then assassinate him.

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/sta...458110976?s=19

[monty]

I just started watching this over two hour video

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JE7oC7bv1G4/



with Adam Green interviewing some interesting well spoken guy I have never heard of named Angelo John Gage.

Gage seems to have the same take that Dr. James Fetzer stated recently and that is that Saleimani is a good guy in terms of serving his country Iran honorably.

This show is sounding pretty good to me and I intend to invest this evening listening to the rest of the video.

I have read some Angelo John Gage’s material. He is well informed.

https://www.youtube.com/c/angelojohngage

[monty]

Consortium News ~ Veteran Intelligence Officials for Sanity, VIPS, Memo to President Trump

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/0...-time-on-iran/

“We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid doubling down on catastrophe,” VIPS tells Donald Trump in its latest memo to the president.
January 3, 2020

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Doubling Down Into Another “March of Folly”?

The drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to World War I. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of “severe revenge.” That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty. And escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given the multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in nearby waters.What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated. Quite the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S. in the region.Cui Bono?

Full Article

[keehah]

Here we go again.

Same as it ever was.

In Iraq the Feds will war-crime against another country they won't 'win' against (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc) to protect public servants from violent protests.
In America the Feds will stand-down and not protect conservatives meeting in public from violent protests.


https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/statu...708189699?s=20

Assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

NYT: Pence Links Suleimani to 9/11. The Public Record Doesn’t Back Him.


“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”
― George Orwell

[vacuum]

I'm not Islamic, or Catholic.
I don't want war.
"We" and "They" and "Us" have no personal meaning for me in the context in which you speak.
When you say "we", I am assuming you have a mouse in your pocket, because that group certainly doesn't include me.

You are living in a civilization that was created by christianity. Whether you are a christian or not, you are benefiting from it.

You could move to Turkey if you really don't care whether you live in an islamic nation or not. Since you drink beer, I'm guessing you actually do have a side in this whether you realize it or not.

That said, I don't want war either. But I'd rather have it over seas then in my neighborhood like they do in Europe.

[woodman]

You are living in a civilization that was created by christianity. Whether you are a christian or not, you are benefiting from it.

You could move to Turkey if you really don't care whether you live in an islamic nation or not. Since you drink beer, I'm guessing you actually do have a side in this whether you realize it or not.

That said, I don't want war either. But I'd rather have it over seas then in my neighborhood like they do in Europe.

The world that is being created by Israel and it's Zionist creators will be the end of Christianity and of Christians. These very same Zionists are the ones bringing in all of the third worlders here. You don't seem to be seeing things very clearly. If you want to live somewhere that is safe for Christians and is a decent place overall, then you need to rethink your mindset. Iran is not and has never been a problem. Israel and the US as it's attack dog are the problem. Why are we even in the Mid-East? It is not our country. We will not even protect our own borders, yet we have bases all over the world. Your mindset is very ignorant. Wise up. You sound like a rabid Zionist. A real Neocon, in which case you are not ignorant but something far worse.

Iran has never attacked America. They have never attacked Israel. We have caused untold misery to them. Read some history. Investigate what we have done there from the days of Mossaddegh onward. Who the fuck is paying for our militarism all over the world? We live in a land of plenty and it is being stolen from us along with our children's future.

[Amanda]

The world that is being created by Israel and it's Zionist creators will be the end of Christianity and of Christians. These very same Zionists are the ones bringing in all of the third worlders here. You don't seem to be seeing things very clearly. If you want to live somewhere that is safe for Christians and is a decent place overall, then you need to rethink your mindset. Iran is not and has never been a problem. Israel and the US as it's attack dog are the problem. Why are we even in the Mid-East? It is not our country. We will not even protect our own borders, yet we have bases all over the world. Your mindset is very ignorant. Wise up. You sound like a rabid Zionist. A real Neocon, in which case you are not ignorant but something far worse.

Iran has never attacked America. They have never attacked Israel. We have caused untold misery to them. Read some history. Investigate what we have done there from the days of Mossaddegh onward. Who the fuck is paying for our militarism all over the world? We live in a land of plenty and it is being stolen from us along with our children's future.

Woodman-

I TOTALLY AGREE with everything you said. 100% accurate.

[Amanda]

The Line in the Sand
Eric Striker • January 3, 2020

https://www.unz.com/estriker/the-line-in-the-sand/


“Most Americans did not know Qasem Soleimani until the Israelis found the perfect opportunity to have him assassinated. They gave the Pentagon the orders and kindly handed Donald Trump all the credit while he ate his ice cream and watched it on TV.”…


“The war with Iran is 40 years in the making, bipartisan and the decision is not up for referendum. This goes for all the weapons of mass destruction we gave to Saddam Hussein to use against Iran in the 80s, to Obama’s nuclear agreement which was really just a way to collect intelligence on Iranian infrastructure and capabilities, to the current campaign to provoke the Ayatollah into entering the classic war the Jews in Washington and their orange golem are ready to kamikaze-pilot our country into. The only thing Iran can to make it stop is cease to exist or fight. Israel and American Jewry (95% which support Israel) will never tolerate a competent and ideologically principled regional rival.


A Lion in the Winter


General Soleimani was not some random military officer. This figure is considered a legend in his home and much of the Middle East, uniting both hardliners and reformers as a patriotic symbol. Even Soleimani’s most passionate haters in Tel Aviv and Washington grant that he is a military genius, a pius warrior-monk, and a man who has always led from the front.


After 9/11, Soleimani offered intelligence and aid to the United States government, but was rejected. Soleimani’s guidance was instrumental in helping Hezbollah defeat Israel during the 33-days war in 2006, which required surgical precision due to the massive US troop buildup in the region that Israel thought would give it cover. In Iraq and Syria, Soleimani was the single most important figure in taking these two countries back from ISIS and Al-Qaeda. When ISIS, with all their American weapons, was on the brink of taking Baghdad, the General was shuttled in as a moralizing supervisor, uniting Shi’ite militias to embrace the fight of their lives. In Syria, Soleimani led non-sectarian battle groups of Muslims and Christians to drive the barbarians Israel and America had unleashed on the East Mediterranean state out.



Soleimani’s life mission was familiar to those of us struggling against Zionist genocide against us in our own lands: to free his people of not just Israeli menacing, but international Jewry as a whole. His military career saw the castration of the Saudis, the containment of Israeli expansion, the last-minute salvation of Christian and other religious minorities, and until today, a rising, final resistance to the consolidation of Jewish power over the whole world.”

[Amanda]

Maram Susli, a Syrian geopolitical analyst @partisangirl on Twitter says Epstein was a Mossad asset, lsrael has Trump blackmailed with footage of underage girls
They asked Trump to lure Saleimani to Bagdad with promises of de-escalation then assassinate him.

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/sta...458110976?s=19

I like Syrian Girl and followed her during the Zionist war on Syria,but on this one, I'm not really buying it. I just think that if they had anything on Trump, they would have used it to stop him from running in the first place. We all know that (((TPTB))) wanted it to be a JebBush/Hillary race.

But I certainly agree that Trump is under control, but I'd say that the control stems from the knife to his neck in the form of Impeachment.

But this guy makes a compelling argument that the change in Trump occurred as a deal to make Mueller go away (he does a great job in highlighting the foreign policy changes missed by most of us):

Tit for Tat? Why Did Mueller Let Trump Off the Hook?

Mike Whitney • April 28, 2019 •
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/tit-for...-off-the-hook/

Why did Robert Mueller end the Russia investigation when he did? He could have let it drag it out for another year or so and severely hurt Trump’s chances for reelection. But he didn’t do that. Why?...

Mueller did none of these things which simply proves that his final report was what many people had expected from the very beginning; a purely political document that twists the truth to achieve Mueller’s particular objectives. But to understand what those objectives are, we need to determine what the real goals of the investigation were. So, here they are:

1. To help sabotage Trump’s political agenda
2. To create a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump’s election
3. And to prevent Trump from implementing his plan to normalize relations with Russia.

These were the real objectives of the investigation, to create a forth branch of government (Special Counsel) that had the power to keep Trump permanently on the defensive while the media made him out to be either an unwitting accomplice in Russian espionage or, even worse, a traitor. The aim was to reign him in and keep the pressure on until a case could be made for his impeachment. Mueller played a key role in this travesty. His assignment was undermine Trump’s moral authority by brandishing the cudgel of criminal indictment over his head. This is how a D.O.J. appointee, who had never held public office in his life, became the most powerful man in Washington.

My question is simply this: Why did Mueller give up all that power when he did?

I think I can answer that, but first, we need a little more background. Check out this quote from candidate Trump in 2016:

“We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]… We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.”

Imagine how terrified the foreign policy establishment must have been when they heard Trump utter these words. No more regime change wars? Are you kidding me? That’s what we do: Regime-Change-Is-Us., and now this upstart, New York real estate tycoon is promising to do a complete 180 and move in another direction altogether. No more destabilizing coups, no more bloody military interventions, instead, we’re going to work collaboratively with countries like Russia and China to see if we can settle regional disputes and fight terrorism together? Really?

At the same time Trump was promising this new era of “peace, understanding, and good will,” Hillary Clinton was issuing her war whoop at every opportunity. Here’s candidate Hillary trying to drum up support for taking on the Russians in Syria:

“The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the Assad regime in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, and the Russians in the air…When I was Secretary of State, I advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones.”

Interesting, isn’t it? Here’s Hillary, the “liberal” Democrat, pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria... In other words, if Hillary had been elected, she was all ready to flip the switch and start WW3 ASAP. Is it any wonder why the establishment loved her?...War, war and more war, that’s the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell. It was Hillary’s relentless hawkishness that pushed leftists into the Trump camp...they did hope that his dovish comments would steer the country away from nuclear annihilation. That was the hope at least, but then everything changed. And after it changed, Mueller released his report saying: “Trump is not guilty after all!”

So, what changed?

Trump changed.

Think about it: In mid December 2018, Trump announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria within 30 days. But instead of withdrawal, the US has been sending hundreds of trucks with weapons to the front lines. The US has also increased its troop levels on the ground, the YPG (Kurdish militia, US proxies) are digging in on the Syria-Turkish border, and the US hasn’t lifted a finger to implement its agreements with NATO-ally Turkey under the Manbij Roadmap. The US is not withdrawing from Syria. Washington is beefing up its defenses and settling in for the long-haul. But, why? Why did Trump change his mind and do a complete about-face?

The same thing happened in Korea. For a while it looked like Trump was serious about cutting a deal with Kim Jong un. But then, sometime after the first summit, he began to backpeddle. He never honored any of his commitments under the Panmunjom Declaration and he never reciprocated for Kim’s cessation of all nuclear weapons and ballistic missile testing. Trump has made no effort to “build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula” or to strengthen trust between the two leaders. Then, at the Hanoi Summit, Trump blindsided Kim by making demands that had never even been previously discussed. Kim was told that the North must destroy all of its chemical and biological weapons as well as its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs before the US will take reciprocal steps. In other words, Trump demanded that Kim completely and irreversibly disarm with the feint hope that the US would eventually lift sanctions.

Trump made these outrageous demands knowing that they would never be accepted. Which was the point, because the foreign policy establishment doesn’t want a deal. They want regime change, they’ve made that perfectly clear. But wasn’t Trump supposed to change all that? Wasn’t Trump going to pursue “a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past”?

Yes, that was Trump’s campaign promise. So, what happened?

There are other signs of capitulation too; like providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, or nixing the short-range nuclear missile ban, or joining the Saudi’s genocidal war on Yemen, or threatening to topple the government of Venezuela, or stirring up trouble in the South China Sea. At every turn, Trump has backtracked on his promise to break with tradition and “stop toppling regimes and overthrowing governments.” …’ At every turn, Trump has joined the ranks of the warhawks he once criticized.

Trump is now marching in lockstep with the foreign policy establishment. In Libya, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Iran, in Lebanon, he is faithfully implementing the neocon agenda. Trump “the peacemaker” is no where to be found, while Trump the ‘madman with a knife’ is on the loose.

Is that why Mueller let Trump off the hook? Was there a quid pro quo: “You follow our foreign policy directives and we’ll make Mueller disappear?

It sure looks like it.

******

[monty]

I like Syrian Girl and followed her during the Zionist war on Syria,but on this one, I'm not really buying it. I just think that if they had anything on Trump, they would have used it to stop him from running in the first place. We all know that (((TPTB))) wanted it to be a JebBush/Hillary race.

But I certainly agree that Trump is under control, but I'd say that the control stems from the knife to his neck in the form of Impeachment.

But this guy makes a compelling argument that the change in Trump occurred as a deal to make Mueller go away (he does a great job in highlighting the foreign policy changes missed by most of us):

Tit for Tat? Why Did Mueller Let Trump Off the Hook?

Mike Whitney • April 28, 2019 •
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/tit-for...-off-the-hook/

Why did Robert Mueller end the Russia investigation when he did? He could have let it drag it out for another year or so and severely hurt Trump’s chances for reelection. But he didn’t do that. Why?...

Mueller did none of these things which simply proves that his final report was what many people had expected from the very beginning; a purely political document that twists the truth to achieve Mueller’s particular objectives. But to understand what those objectives are, we need to determine what the real goals of the investigation were. So, here they are:

1. To help sabotage Trump’s political agenda
2. To create a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump’s election
3. And to prevent Trump from implementing his plan to normalize relations with Russia.

These were the real objectives of the investigation, to create a forth branch of government (Special Counsel) that had the power to keep Trump permanently on the defensive while the media made him out to be either an unwitting accomplice in Russian espionage or, even worse, a traitor. The aim was to reign him in and keep the pressure on until a case could be made for his impeachment. Mueller played a key role in this travesty. His assignment was undermine Trump’s moral authority by brandishing the cudgel of criminal indictment over his head. This is how a D.O.J. appointee, who had never held public office in his life, became the most powerful man in Washington.

My question is simply this: Why did Mueller give up all that power when he did?

I think I can answer that, but first, we need a little more background. Check out this quote from candidate Trump in 2016:



Imagine how terrified the foreign policy establishment must have been when they heard Trump utter these words. No more regime change wars? Are you kidding me? That’s what we do: Regime-Change-Is-Us., and now this upstart, New York real estate tycoon is promising to do a complete 180 and move in another direction altogether. No more destabilizing coups, no more bloody military interventions, instead, we’re going to work collaboratively with countries like Russia and China to see if we can settle regional disputes and fight terrorism together? Really?

At the same time Trump was promising this new era of “peace, understanding, and good will,” Hillary Clinton was issuing her war whoop at every opportunity. Here’s candidate Hillary trying to drum up support for taking on the Russians in Syria:



Interesting, isn’t it? Here’s Hillary, the “liberal” Democrat, pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria... In other words, if Hillary had been elected, she was all ready to flip the switch and start WW3 ASAP. Is it any wonder why the establishment loved her?...War, war and more war, that’s the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell. It was Hillary’s relentless hawkishness that pushed leftists into the Trump camp...they did hope that his dovish comments would steer the country away from nuclear annihilation. That was the hope at least, but then everything changed. And after it changed, Mueller released his report saying: “Trump is not guilty after all!”

So, what changed?

Trump changed.

Think about it: In mid December 2018, Trump announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria within 30 days. But instead of withdrawal, the US has been sending hundreds of trucks with weapons to the front lines. The US has also increased its troop levels on the ground, the YPG (Kurdish militia, US proxies) are digging in on the Syria-Turkish border, and the US hasn’t lifted a finger to implement its agreements with NATO-ally Turkey under the Manbij Roadmap. The US is not withdrawing from Syria. Washington is beefing up its defenses and settling in for the long-haul. But, why? Why did Trump change his mind and do a complete about-face?

The same thing happened in Korea. For a while it looked like Trump was serious about cutting a deal with Kim Jong un. But then, sometime after the first summit, he began to backpeddle. He never honored any of his commitments under the Panmunjom Declaration and he never reciprocated for Kim’s cessation of all nuclear weapons and ballistic missile testing. Trump has made no effort to “build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula” or to strengthen trust between the two leaders. Then, at the Hanoi Summit, Trump blindsided Kim by making demands that had never even been previously discussed. Kim was told that the North must destroy all of its chemical and biological weapons as well as its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs before the US will take reciprocal steps. In other words, Trump demanded that Kim completely and irreversibly disarm with the feint hope that the US would eventually lift sanctions.

Trump made these outrageous demands knowing that they would never be accepted. Which was the point, because the foreign policy establishment doesn’t want a deal. They want regime change, they’ve made that perfectly clear. But wasn’t Trump supposed to change all that? Wasn’t Trump going to pursue “a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past”?

Yes, that was Trump’s campaign promise. So, what happened?

There are other signs of capitulation too; like providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, or nixing the short-range nuclear missile ban, or joining the Saudi’s genocidal war on Yemen, or threatening to topple the government of Venezuela, or stirring up trouble in the South China Sea. At every turn, Trump has backtracked on his promise to break with tradition and “stop toppling regimes and overthrowing governments.” …’ At every turn, Trump has joined the ranks of the warhawks he once criticized.

Trump is now marching in lockstep with the foreign policy establishment. In Libya, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Iran, in Lebanon, he is faithfully implementing the neocon agenda. Trump “the peacemaker” is no where to be found, while Trump the ‘madman with a knife’ is on the loose.

Is that why Mueller let Trump off the hook? Was there a quid pro quo: “You follow our foreign policy directives and we’ll make Mueller disappear?

It sure looks like it.

******

He does make a strong argument. Other analysts agree that it is the Impeachment debaucle that caused Trump to change course. I think Syrian Girl's statement is more speculation than fact based.

Also the money Sheldon Adelson dumped into Trump's campaign and the additional he added after the Inauguration certainly has to have some bearing on Trump's Middle Eastern foreign policy.