Trump vroeg Iran toestemming tot bombarderen onbelangrijke doelen, dit in actie: red mijn gezicht

Het is Trump werkelijk geheel en al in de psychopathische vrouwonvriendelijke rotbol geslagen, de knurft zou Iran, nadat het een VS drone uit de lucht haalde in eigen luchtruim, om een paar plekken te mogen bombarderen, plekken die van geen belang zijn, aldus Elijah Magnier..... (Magnier is een echte Midden-Oosten deskundige en veteraan oorlogscorrespondent) Trump wilde dit om z'n gezicht te redden, zo stelt Magnier, een mening die de Britse ex-ambassadeur in Washington, Kim Darroch*, deelt.

Uiteraard heeft Iran categorisch geweigerd aan dit verzoek te voldoen en heeft gesteld dat zelfs wanneer de VS een strand van Iran zou aanvallen dit als een oorlogsdaad wordt gezien, waarop Iran terug zal slaan.......

Het volgende artikel over het meer dan belachelijke voorstel van Trump werd eerder gepubliceerd op Moon of Alabama en werd door mij overgenomen van Information Clearing House en werd geschreven door Moon of Alabama:

"Pretty Please" - Trump Asked Iran To Allow Him To Bomb It

By Moon Of Alabama

July 08, 2019 "Information Clearing House" - On June 20 Iran shot down a U.S. spy drone. U.S. President Trump decided not to retaliate. The White House and the media claimed that Trump had ordered a strike on Iran but pulled it back at the last minute. We said that this was likely bullshit:

The whole storyline of "a strike was ordered but Trump held back and saved the day" might well be fake.
...
A strike in retaliation for the downed drone may have never been on the table. An alternative interpretation is that the U.S. sought agreement for a symbolic 'strike' from Iran. It would hit some empty desert place to allow Trump to save face. Iran would have disagreed with that plan.

The British ambassador to the U.S., who's briefings to London leaked yesterday, agrees with that take:

[Sir Kim Darroch] questioned Trump's recent claim that he aborted a missile strike on Iran because it would have caused a predicted 150 casualties, saying it 'doesn't stand up'.

'It's more likely that he was never fully on board and that he was worried about how this apparent reversal of his 2016 campaign promises would look come 2020' – at the next Presidential election.

Elijah Magnier reported that Trump had asked Iran to allow him to strike back, but was rebuffed:

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

An Iranian general yesterday confirmed Magnier's take (also here):    

A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through diplomatic channels, recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale operation in the Iranian airspace in order to save its face following the IRGC’s shoot-down of a US spy drone.

Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran’s Civil Defence Organization, said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will respond to any act of aggression.  

“The Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as a war and will give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war but this is Iran which will finish it,” he said Sunday.

The idea that the U.S. would ask Iran to allow it to bomb some targets without hitting back sounds crazy.

Dear Mr. Rouhani,

could you please name me three targets in your country that I am allowed to bomb?

It is urgent as I need to look tough on Iran.

Pretty please!

Donald Trump

But this is the Trump White House and the only thing Trump really seems to care for is his own rating.

Trump wants a new nuclear deal with Iran. One with his signature, not Obama's, on it.

Trump's nuking of a deal while pressing for a new one shows that he has not the slightest idea how Iran, or any other independent country, reacts to such pressure. There will be no talks unless Trump rejoins the deal and lifts the sanctions:

The US sent over 60 diplomatic delegations to Iran as mediators to hold talks with Iran but the leader of the Islamic Revolution rejected the US calls for talks and Iran began to scale back its commitments under the JCPOA.

The Trump administration seems to have genuinely thought that Iran would not react to its ever tightening sanctions by exceeding the technical limits of the nuclear deal, which it now does. Back in November Secretary of State Pompeo opinedthat Iran would not do this:

Asked what the administration would do if the Iranians restart their nuclear program, Pompeo replied, “We’re confident that Iranians will not make that decision.”

That was of course nonsensical. Why was Iran expected to stick to a deal it does not benefit from? Such wishful thinking has no base in reality:

A U.S. official familiar with the issue told POLITICO on Sunday that the Trump team hopes for three things: that Europe imposes some sanctions on Iran to keep it from further violating the deal; that a financial mechanism the Europeans have set up to help Iran obtain non-sanctioned goods succeeds; and that recent U.S. military maneuvers in the Middle East are enough to deter Iran from further military escalation.

“Fundamentally, we want them to stay in the deal,” the U.S. official said, when asked why the Trump administration wants the European financial mechanism, known as INSTEX, to work. There’s no desire to engage in an all-out war with Iran or see it build a nuclear weapon, the official said.

Europe is for now unlikely to impose sanctions on Iran for a deal that Trump broke. If it does, the whole JCPOA deal is off. INSTEX is a joke. It 'allows' Iran to barter only something other than oil, and only against humanitarian goods which are not under sanctions. It is worse than the 1990s oil for food program that caused major economic destruction in Iraq. Iran does not fear U.S. military might. U.S. military assets in the Middle East do not deter. They are targets. Iran knows that Trump wants to avoid a war.

The little thought out U.S. policy gives Iran escalation dominance. It can and will increase its nuclear activities, as it announced, every 60 days. Tankers and other interests of its enemies around the Gulf will receive more damage. Trump will come under ever increasing pressure. Iran's actions, like the sabotage of some ships near Fujairah, already show results:

[D]emand for ship fuel at Fujairah, the United Arab Emirates coastal shipping hub close to the Strait, has waned as some tankers stay away, traders involved in the regional market said.

The British ambassador expects no change in the confused White House policy on Iran:

One memo, sent by Sir Kim on June 22, refers to 'incoherent, chaotic' US-Iran policy, adding: 'Its unlikely that US policy on Iran is going to become more coherent any time soon. This is a divided Administration'.

But the British policy on Iran is no better. On one side it is a signatory of the nuclear deal with Iran and claims that it wants to uphold it. On the other side it follows orders from the White House and hijacks a tanker that carries Iranian oil which it claims is going to Syria. Britain has absolutely no legal basis to do such. Even the former Swedish prime minister and rumored CIA asset Carl Bildt finds that behavior too crude:

Carl Bildt @carlbildt - 9:24 PM - 7 Jul 2019

The legalities of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of EU. And EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi called the British act "robbery" and said that the ship was not heading to Syria. Its real destination is said to be "a new southern European customer" for Iranian oil, probably Italy. Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier-General Amir Hatami promised to respond to the British act of piracy.

As usual the response will be asymmetrical and will come at a time and place of Iran's choosing.

This article was originally published by "MOA" -

=========================================
* Deze Darroch heeft afgelopen week zijn ontslag ingediend bij de Britse regering, nadat hij Trump volkomen terecht o.a. incompetent, chaotisch en onzeker noemde, waarop Trump in een Twittertirade o.a. stelde dat Darroch niet langer welkom is in het Witte Huis.

Zie ook:
'VS stuurt 500 militairen naar Saoedi-Arabië als inzet tegen 'Iraanse agressie''

'Israël maakt zich op voor oorlog tegen Iran'

'Groot-Brittannië saboteert de Iran deal en de belofte van de EU de VS sancties te compenseren: Iraanse olietanker werd op verzoek VS overvallen'

'De VS en niet Iran is een schurkenstaat'

'VS chanteert de wereld: geen olie import uit Iran, anders........'

'Pompeo (VS minister BuZa): Iran is de grootste sponsor van terrorisme..... Goh, nooit geweten dat Iran subsidie geeft aan het Pentagon'

'VS verwijt Iran nucleaire chantage, chantage waar de VS zichzelf schuldig aan maakt'

'VS plant een bombardement op een Iraanse kerncentrale, verkennende VS drone neergeschoten'

'Kapitein Japans schip spreekt Trump administratie tegen over Iraanse kleefbom op zijn tanker'

'VS heeft stok 'gevonden' om oorlog tegen Iran te beginnen: Iran zou tankers hebben aangevallen'

'Twee olietankers aangevallen in Golf van Oman: VS oorlogsbodem in de buurt'

US Continues to Escalate Tensions, Raising Fear of Imminent War With Iran

US Might Send 10,000 More Troops to Middle East

'VS dreigt Iran met militair geweld op beschuldiging van terreur die de VS zelf op grote schaal uitoefent'

Yemen Be Damned, Pompeo Doubles Down on US Support for Saudi Arabia

'Het verborgen motief achter de Israëlische agressie tegen Iran en Syrië'

'Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen...)....'

'Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël'

'Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen.........'

'De VS gaf meer dan 1 miljoen dollar uit om protesten tegen Iraans bewind uit te buiten (en te organiseren)'

'Lt. General McInerney says Obama helped build ISIS with Weapons from Benghazi'

'Rex Tillerson (VS BuZA) geeft toe dat de VS een staatsgreep wil uitvoeren in Iran........ Het is nog 'iets te rustig' in dat gebied........'

'VS liegt schaamteloos om het westen verder op te zetten tegen Iran........'

'VS bewandelt dezelfde weg richting Iran, als die voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, aldus één van de verantwoordelijken voor die oorlog........'

'Netanyahu vergelijkt Iran met nazi-Duitsland en stelt dat Iran een bedreiging is voor de wereldvrede..... ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Washington uit op oorlog met Iran......'

'Oliemaatschappijen weigeren n.a.v. VS sancties de jet van Iraanse minister af te tanken'

'Israël bezig met voorbereiding op meerdere fronten oorlog........ (met hulp van de VS'

'John Bolton heeft beloofd dat Iran voor 2019 onder een ander regime zal leven.......'

'Saoedi-Arabië dreigt Iran aan te vallen voor vanuit Jemen afgevuurde 'raketten' op Saoedische 'doelen..........''

'VS rechter gelast Iran miljarden te betalen aan de families van 911 slachtosoennieten zijnffers.....' (terwijl 9/11 niet werd uitgevoerd noch werd geregisseerd door Iran, waar 'de daders'  ook nog eens soennieten zouden zijn en Iran hoofdzakelijk een sjiitisch land is)

'Iran moet hangen en Iran-deal moet van tafel....... Israël speelt wolf in schaapskleren'

'VS ambtenaren: Israël zoekt steun VS voor oorlog tegen Iran.......'

'VS, de werelddictator: Iran-deal is van nul en generlei waarde (op basis van leugens en achterklap).......'

'Iran houdt zich aan de nucleaire deal dit in tegenstelling tot de VS........'

'Israël laat er geen twijfel over bestaan: met het uit de Iran-deal stappen van de VS is definitief de oorlog verklaard aan Iran.........'

Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen.........

De protesten in Iran worden met grote graagte door de westerse media en politici uitgedragen als een welkome opstand tegen de fundamentalistische heersers, zonder rekening te houden met de huidige gematigde regering. Iran is fout punt uit!

Door deze eenzijdige reactie van het westen, krijgen juist de fundamentalistische heersers op de achtergrond de wind in de zeilen, immers het westen is allesbehalve een vriend van Iran of haar burgers. De roep om ingrijpen in Iran klinkt al jaren keihard, niet bepaald in de laatste plaats door de VS en het grootste deel van de NAVO leden. Daar deed de handreiking van Obama weinig aan af, een handreiking die intussen al weer is teruggedraaid door de Trump administratie......

De VS heeft trouwens al veel langer gewelddadige activisten in Iran gesteund, dit om de regering ten val te brengen (waarin ook Nederland een rol speelde) en reken maar dat de CIA zelf ook actief is in Iran........

De huidige demonstranten zijn bepaald niet vreedzaam, zoals dit wel het geval was tijdens het grootste deel van de 'Groene Revolutie' in 2009, ze zijn gewapend en brengen grote vernielingen aan, zoals het in brand steken van gebouwen...... De aantallen demonstranten zijn een stuk minder groot dan men aanneemt in het westen. Politiebureaus en wapendepots zijn door demonstranten overvallen om zo aan meer wapens te komen....

Zoals gezegd: de kans is weer levensgroot dat een deel van de demonstranten in Iran is gekocht door de VS, die een reputatie hebben op het gebied van opstanden organiseren, opstanden die dan moeten uitlopen in het afzetten van een VS onwelgevallige regering....... Voorbeelden van het organiseren van dit soort opstanden door de VS (CIA), opstanden die in een coup moesten uitmonden en wat meestal lukt: Libië, Oekraïne, Syrië (in dit land mislukte de coup tegen Assad) en voor Zuid-Amerika Honduras, Brazilië en Venezuela (let wel: dit zijn de laatst bekende voorbeelden). In het volgende artikel kan u lezen dat Rex Tillerson, de VS minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, e.e.a. toegeeft wat betreft Iran, zo bleek uit een uitgelekt memorandum.....

Ook in het volgende artikel (van Darius Shahtahmasebi) o.a. de stelling dat de conservatieve krachten in Iran baat hebben bij deze protesten om zo de gematigde president Rohani onder druk te zetten...... Dat de VS zelfs deze krachten zou steunen is niets nieuws, als de VS een regering ten val wil brengen, schijnt alles geoorloofd te zijn (zelfs samenwerking met terreurgroepen als IS en Al Qaida...)......

Everything the Media Isn’t Telling You About the Protests Rocking Iran Right Now

January 2, 2018 at 12:53 pm

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Over the past week, Iran has been hit with series of protests, reportedly in relation to the country’s current economic climate. Where this particular narrative is headed is of major concern because of the current atmosphere in the Middle East and its deadly dynamics.

Approximately two weeks ago, the truth about U.S. foreign policy was revealed in a leaked memo that purportedly coached Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on how to use human rights as a pretense to attack America’s adversaries

“Allies should be treated differently — and better — than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies,” stated the memo, which was written by Tillerson’s influential policy aide, Brian Hook. Approximately two weeks ago, the truth about U.S. foreign policy was revealed in a leaked memo that purportedly coached Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on how to use human rights as a pretense to attack America’s adversaries

As part of the U.S. foreign policy playbook, in June 2017, Tillerson himself confirmed that official U.S. policy towards Iran included a regime change strategy. He said:

“We continually review the merits both from the standpoint of diplomatic but also international consequences of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in its entirety as a terrorist organization. As you know, we have designated the Quds [Force]. Our policy towards Iran is to push back on this hegemony, contain their ability to develop obviously nuclear weapons, and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Those elements are there, certainly as we know.” [emphasis added]

Around the same time, the Trump administration appointed Michael D’Andrea, the CIA’s “Dark Prince,” to head the CIA’s “Iran operations.”  Given the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953, relying almost completely on one die-hard agent to do so, this program’s trajectory should be clear.

Barely days after D’Andrea’s appointment, Iran was coincidentally rocked by an ISIS-inspired attack. Republican congressman Rep. Dana Rohrabacher suggested the attack was “a good thing.”

In December, CIA director Mike Pompeo admitted he sent a letter to General Qassem Soleimani, a stalwart leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), saying he will hold Iran and Soleimani “accountable” for any attacks on Washington’s interests in Iraq. This is the same IRGC commander who announced Iran would begin supporting Palestinian forces in the Gaza strip after Trump’s infamous Jerusalem debacle.

Unsurprisingly, U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly just gave the green light to Israel to assassinate this commander, a clear act of war.

The timing of the current protests has coincided with reports that the U.S. and Israel formulated a joint plan to specifically target Iran. This coincides with Nikki Haley’s grandiose anti-Iran performance, which has been full of deceit and hawkish propaganda. Further, Israel hopes these protests will be an opportunity to take the Iranian government’s attention away from Israel, according to a top intelligence expert.

Even without Iranians taking to the streets, it is clear that the Trump administration and its regional allies have been planning to take the fight to Iran.

Discerning the Truth About the Recent Protests

What should we make of the recent protests sweeping the country?

Even according to the mainstream media, the protests are not exactly what they seem. Iran’s president acknowledged that Iranians have a right to peaceful protest and that the protesters are not necessarily guided by foreign elements as “a number of them are the people who came to the streets because of their (economic) problems.”

“Criticism is different [from] violence and destroying public property,” he also reportedly said.

According to Haaretz, the protests were initially riled up by Iran’s conservative hard-line opposition to put pressure on the current Iranian president, who is considered a moderate. The protesters are not necessarily the democracy-seeking students the media has portrayed them as.

The mainstream media further acknowledged that the Iranian authorities are actively trying to avoid a massive crackdown. From Slate:

“It seems clear that Iranian leaders are trying to avoid a massive crackdown of the surprisingly large protests for now, worried that any huge repression could lead to a crisis similar to what took place in 2009.”

As Reuters explained:

“Iranian moderates are appealing for caution even though some hardliners are calling for an iron fist to crush one of the gravest threats to Iran’s clerical leaders, who came to power in the 1979 Islamic revolution.

“Those divisions are making it hard for the authorities to defuse spontaneous demonstration, especially as there are no apparent protest leaders who can be identified and rounded up.”

The media is still treating the videos of anti-government protesters shouting “Death to the dictator!” as “unconfirmed,” meaning they haven’t been properly verified. Or consider this recent Reuters report, which stated the following:

“Mohsen Nasj Hamadani, deputy security chief in Tehran province, said about 50 people had rallied in a square but most had left after being asked to by police, while a few who refused were ‘temporarily detained,’ the ILNA news agency reported.”

Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister and co-chair for the European Council on Foreign Relations quickly took to Twitter to state that there were “[r]eports of signals of international satellite TV networks jammed in large cities of Iran. Would be sign of regime fear of today’s protests spreading.” However, the only reports that can be found online of jammed international TV networks are from at least five years prior to the current unrest. Not surprisingly, Wikileaks cables suggested Bildt served as a U.S. government informant when he was just 27 years old.

In other words, it would pay to be overly meticulous when following the reports on this intricate topic.

To be clear, the protests are not nearly as concerned with Iran’s foreign policy as much as some media outlets are claiming they are. As the Atlantic explained:

“Unlike what President Trump suggests, the protests aren’t about Iran’s broader behaviour and foreign policy. And they’re not about the regime’s support for terrorism…their main concern lies in the price of day-to-day items and goods, such as poultry and eggs, as well as unemployment and access to services.”

The death toll in the protests and the authorities’ inevitable response quickly grew to at least 12 — a damning statistic for the Iranian government. However, whether the following allegations are true or not, the mainstream media has acknowledged that deaths occurred as a result of confrontation, specifically, the claim that armed protesters began storming military bases and police stations. Other government compounds were stormed, as well, with protesters lighting fires in government offices.

These are no longer students who are complaining about the price of eggs or the right to dress in modern clothing (in a remarkable coincidence, just before the protests erupted, Tehran’s police stated they would no longer arrest women for violating the Islamic dress code). Overrunning military bases and police stations with arms doesn’t make you a protester, it makes you a militant. As journalist Ben Norton wrote on his Facebook page, “If ‘armed protesters’ (quite a phrase) tried to overrun military bases and police stations in the US, it would declare martial law.”

Things may not be so dire in Iran to require an armed uprising just yet (just take a look at the thousands of pro-government supporters who have rallied the streets of Iran’s major cities). It would be disingenuous to pay sole attention to the anti-government protesters while ignoring the thousands of those who do support their government. This is not to say that Iranians do not have genuine cause to take to the streets and protest, but it certainly gives good cause to the international community that perhaps — just this once — it would do well to mind its own business.

Even according to some of the biggest corporate media outlets, there is likely foul play if people are taking arms against the Iranian government in the current circumstances. As the New York Magazine acknowledged:

“As The Guardian and New York Times point out, small protests focused on economic issues are normal in Iran, but politically charged protests across the country where people feel safe chanting ‘death to the dictator’ — a knock on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — are not. The protests will undoubtedly be an important test for the relatively moderate Rouhani, who has not been spared as a subject of chanting at the rallies; in his remarks on Sunday, Rouhani was clearly trying to walk a delicate line. There is also apparently suspicion among members of his administration and other reformers about what forces may be behind the unrest.” [emphasis added]

The West’s Hypocrisy is Staggering

Despite this, Donald Trump was quick to take to Twitter to condemn Iran and voice his support for the protesters. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert also said in a statement that the U.S. urged “all nations to publicly support the Iranian people and their demands for basic rights and an end to corruption.”

This is the same administration that banned the Iranian people from merely visiting the United States.

Even Hillary Clinton voiced her support for the Iranian people currently protesting against the government. Apparently, Clinton has forgotten about the video of her where she broke into hysterical laughter while talking about the U.S.’ desire to launch a war against Iran, which would undoubtedly kill hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iranians.

We would also do well to remember that after Donald Trump was elected U.S. president at the end of 2016, America was inundated with anti-Trump protests. Los Angeles police arrested at least 462 people at the time. America’s NATO ally Turkey arrested, detained, suspended, and fired tens of thousands of teachers, lawyers, military officers, and court officials (with at least 249 deaths in total) – and yet Donald Trump has only appeared to praise the Turkish government’s crackdown.

America’s Middle Eastern darling, Israel, has also been rocked by thousands of protesters participating in anti-corruption marches specifically targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel also infamously locked up a young teenage girl who was brave enough to slap an Israeli soldier who had invaded her home.

For the sake of argument, let’s all agree that Iran’s protests are genuine. That fact alone isn’t grounds for an illegal regime change operation given the international standards the rest of the world has been operating under for years. Allowing Trump to take the protests for a ride to serve his own ludicrous foreign policy agenda also undermines the intellect and history of Iran and its people, as the Atlantic explains:

“Iranians aren’t ‘finally’ waking up and ‘getting wise,’ as Trump suggests. Instead, Iran has a dynamic and active civil society, which has created and embraced opportunities for reformation and progress for decades…And many Iranians have paid for these ideals with their lives.”

Don’t buy into the hypocrisy. Donald Trump does not care about ordinary Iranians, and he certainly doesn’t care about Iran’s access to democracy. If Donald Trump cared about the Iranian people’s economic concerns, the simple solution would be to stop unilaterally slamming the country with economic sanctions on a routine basis.

In the words of the Atlantic, Donald Trump “barely understands the country he’s repeatedly demonized.”

We’ve been here before. The groundwork is being laid for a direct confrontation with Iran, and we are naïve at best if we decide to take the bait. America’s footprint in the Middle East was never rooted in any concerns for human rights, and believe it or not, America’s interests and desires are always rooted in money.

The last thing Iran needs right now in order to move towards a more democratic and economically viable country is the direct interference of the United States, a country that has reportedly killed over one million Muslims since the 9/11 attacks.

If the Iranians want to exact change; they can and will do it themselves. As stated by the Tudeh Party of Iran, an Iranian communist party formed in 1941:

“It should be noted that under the critical conditions of the current dangerous regional tensions, the regional reaction – supported by the Trump administration in the US and the right-wing government of Netanyahu in Israel – is seeking to distinctly impact the developments in our country and to replace the current reactionary regime with another reactionary regime.

“The support of these forces…for the Iranian monarchists and those political groups whose agenda is to cooperate with the most reactionary regimes of the region and to persuade the European states to impose sanctions on Iran’s economy – thereby exacerbating the misery for the destitute and disadvantaged people of our country – and to encourage foreign states to interfere militarily in Iran, leaves no room whatsoever for any optimism regarding the future designs of such ‘opposition’…We should not let the past repeat itself whereby the heroic struggle of the nation for freedom, democracy and social justice is hijacked by a bunch of reactionary opportunities who do not believe in the people’s rights or democratic freedoms.”

Correction: A previous version of this article stated the Trump administration was behind the arrests of protesters in Los Angeles after his election in November 2016. It has been corrected to reflect that while police arrested protesters, they did not do so at the direction of the Trump administration as he had not yet taken office. Protesters at his inauguration, however, were arrested and have gone on to face charges this year.

Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

============================

Zie ook:  
'Rutte 3 heeft begrip voor de moord op Soleimani en hoopt dat de VS zich niet terugtrekt uit Irak, een soeverein land >> westerse propaganda......' 

'KLM vliegt na 'risicoanalyse' niet meer in luchtruim van Iran en Irak' 

'Oorlog tegen Iran: VS heeft lak aan democratie >> Irak wordt gedreigd met sancties en 'herstelbetaling''

'VS moord op Qasem Soleimani is een oorlogsverklaring aan adres van Iran.......'

'Iran stelt terecht dat het VS leger een terroristische organisatie is'

'Iraakse regering pissig over VS beschuldiging dat Iraanse bewind corrupt is'

'Trump volgt het scenario van deep state: oorlog met Iran 'is onvermijdelijk....''


'Rudy Giuliani viert het sterven van Iraniërs en stelt desondanks dat het Iraanse bewind door de VS geweldloos zal ondergaan.......'

'Jeremy Bowen (BBC correspondent) vindt Iran een gevaar voor het Midden-Oosten'

'Iraanse protesten gezien door de propaganda bril van de VS en de rest van het westen........'

'Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël'

'Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen...)....'

'Rudy Giuliani viert het sterven van Iraniërs en stelt desondanks dat het Iraanse bewind door de VS geweldloos zal ondergaan.......'

'US Empire Is Running The Same Script With Iran That It Ran With Libya, Syria'

'Nikki Haley (VS ambassadeur in de VN) bedreigt sjiitisch Iran met militair ingrijpen......' (klik ook op de links onder dat bericht)

'VS liegt schaamteloos om het westen verder op te zetten tegen Iran........'

'Reagan middels manipulaties tot president gekozen; waarom de gijzelaars in Iran moesten wachten op hun vrijheid....'

'Saoedi-Arabië beschuldigt Houthi's en Iran van raketbeschieting en noemt dit een oorlogsverklaring............'

'CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi's beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz.........'

'Israelische officier met de koperen fluit waarschuwt voor Iraanse expansie...... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Iran: moderne oorlogspropaganda ingezet door VS tegen 'ongehoorzaam land...''

'Iran houdt zich aan nucleair verdrag, ondanks VS agressie'

  en zie:

Warmonger Called Out on Live TV After Pretending to Care About Iranian Protesters