Updated: Jan 9, 2020
Chaplain Ayesha put me on the grunt detail of responding to Emma Fiala’s article at The Mind Unleashed website titled “No Iran didn’t attack the US Embassy in Baghdad.” I don’t normally like having to respond to absolute nonsense, but, in honor of our great Chaplain, I will.
Emma Fiala has written about five articles on how Iran is innocent and Trump is an awful man for barbequing Iran’s number two guy General Qassem Soleimani the other day at the Baghdad International Airport. Maybe she’s right, but why was Soleimani in Baghdad around the time that Iran is trying to replace America’s influence in Iraq by getting the Shia in Iraq to vote the Americans out? Was it because he’s helping negotiate Iran’s right to fill the vacuum if America leaves? Something to think about while reading this. Most of this is just Emma Fiala’s words over at The Mind Unleashed.
In the article “No Iran didn’t attack the US Embassy in Baghdad,” Fiala writes:
(TMU) — The United States and Iran are currently engaged in a tit-for-tat conflict in which attacks conducted every couple of days injure and kill each other’s nationals, a situation that is not so unusual for the two countries.
However, the U.S. significantly escalated tensions when, on January 2, Iran’s most powerful and well respected military leader, General Qassem Soleimani, was assassinated in a drone strike at Baghdad International Airport.
In just about all the recent articles and news reports in the fake news media, you will hear the term “tit-for-tat.” These are the words that the C_IA’s Operation Mockingbird put into the 4am talking points on how Trump is upsetting their supposed peace and love fest with Iran that was supposedly bought with the $150 billion that Obama gave Iran to get the Iran nuke deal done. By the way, this horrible deal was negotiated by Obama with Soleimani, whom Trump just sent packing.
Unfortunately, the deal was never to prevent the Iranians from having a nuke but to get them to pretend not to be building one with the oh-by-the-way-here’s-150-billion-to-build-your-nuke-program-wink-wink-nudge-nudge-say-no-more-say-no-more agreement. In the last week, we've heard or read this term “tit-for-tat” so much I believe these talking points were written in a strip club. In short, Fiala’s already admitted she’s spewing the Deep State talking points.
Tensions between Iran and the United States have been increasing ever since U.S. President Donald Trump formally reneged on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—in May of 2018, in what was a scandal in itself after Iran was repeatedly certifiably compliant with the terms of the JCPOA.
Wendy Sherman, a former Obama-era undersecretary for political affairs, blames Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA for destroying the “uneasy balance” that has existed with Iran, eventually resulting in the December 31 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Sherman explained:
“It is President Donald Trump’s failed policy toward Iran that has brought us to this combustible moment.”
So, after claiming Iran didn’t have anything to do with the embassy attack, Emma Fiala quotes an Obama administration official who essentially claimed that America deserved the attack because of how President Trump refused to go along with Obama’s terrible surrender to Iran in the form of a major “nuke treaty.” Wendy Sherman didn’t, in any way, say that Iran had nothing to do with the attack on the embassy but that it was Trump’s fault for not following her lead into a blissfully ignorant naiveté that the liberals use as an excuse for their collective obtuseness. The only thing I saw that was “combustible” was Soleimani’s body. Heh. Death to the Mullahs.
So there’s that.
Now, let’s refute her and understand why she’s covering for her beloved Obama. As Breitbart reports:
Iranian militia leader Hadi al-Amiri, one of several identified as leading an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday, reportedly visited the White House in 2011 during the presidency of Barack Obama….
In 2011, both Fox News and the Washington Times noted that then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki brought his transportation minister, al-Amiri, to a meeting at the White House. The Times noted that the White House did not confirm his attendance, but the official was on Iraq’s listed members of its delegation.
The al-Amiri accompanying al-Maliki, besides also being transportation minister, was identified at the time as a commander of the Badr organization, further indicating it was the same person. At the time, the outlets expressed concern that al-Amiri had ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the FBI has stated played a role in a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen. President Donald Trump designated the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization, the first time an official arm of a foreign state received the designation.
Did you catch that? The head of the Iranian militia Hadi al-Amiri, whether he was Iranian or Iraqi (not stated), was a guest of Obama in the White House. Just another terrorist to visit Obama, who gave the Iranians, a state sponsor of terror since at least the 1970s when we finally noticed them, $150 billion. Imagine that.
To further destroy her own credibility, Emma Fiala wrote an article titled “Iranian Americans illegally detained and questioned at US border.” In her eyes, it’s completely alright to detain and question Americans, but, if they’re Iranian Americans, that’s illegal. Pishaw.
In this article, she writes:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations of Washington state (CAIR-WA) is reporting that more than 60 Iranians and Iranian-Americans were detained and questioned by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) at the Peace Arch Border Crossing in Blaine, Washington. Others were refused entry into the United States.
According to CAIR-WA, an Iranian pop concert took place just across the northern border with Canada in Vancouver, British Columbia. As a result, numerous Iranian-Americans have been attempting to return to their homes in the United States.
So, she’s quoting CAIR as an official source and outright unquestionable authority on the legality of detaining and questioning Iranian Americans? Way back on January 30, 2009, right after Hussien Obama was elevated, Foxnews reported that the FBI cut ties with CAIR after they got busted for financing terror. Look, CAIR is to Muslims and terrorists what the ACLU is to communists and queers – a posse of jackbooted Bible burners with expensive law degrees bolstered with non-profit funding from dark money sources like George Soros, the Nazi-collaborating-Jewish-puppet-master of the Democrat Party. To both these groups, Jesus will never be dead enough. And all the Christians say, "Duh."
The FBI is severing its once-close ties with the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas.
All local chapters of CAIR have been shunned in the wake of a 15-year FBI investigation that culminated with the conviction in December of Hamas fundraisers at a trial where CAIR itself was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.
To further express her love of the supposedly innocent Iran government, she spews Iran talking points in another article called “Iran Pulls Back from Nuclear Deal in response to US Assassination of Soleimani.” She writes:
According to reports, Iran said on Sunday that it would no longer fully abide by the limits of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal, and will instead “go on solely according to the country’s technical needs.”
Sunday’s announcement comes on the heals of the assassination of Iran’s second most powerful figure, General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq on Friday and is the most significant threat made by the country since U.S. President Donald Trump formally reneged on the Iran nuclear deal in May of 2018.
The announcement came after Iraq’s parliament voted to expel all American troops from the country. Those in attendance chanted “No, no, America” ahead of the vote.
Iran has been repeatedly certifiably compliant with the terms of the deal aimed at blocking Tehran from building an atomic weapon, despite the recklessness of the United States.
In addition to repeating her mantra that “Iran has been repeatedly certifiably compliant with the terms of the deal,” she seems to sympathize with Iran’s supposed decision to pull out of the deal.
What? There was no deal. Trump told them to go pound sand. The deal was crap from the beginning. It allowed Iran to slowly develop fissionable material to build a nuke for later. Does Iran saying they will no longer be a part of a deal that let them build nukes mean that Iran will no longer try to build nukes?
If that’s the case, President Trump’s the man Obama only wished he could have been. Oh wait, Obama never wished to be a man. He was a cheese eating surrender, oh I can’t say that. Hah, you thought I was going to say that which we’re only allowed to say about white liberals – sucker. Obama never even tried to get them to stop building a nuke. He funded their nuke program with pallets of cash stolen from the American taxpayer so they’d have the money to do it.
In fact, a lot of that money was then used to bribe Americans into supporting the Iran deal. It was just another Obama-money-laundering scheme to pay off his supporters in America. The Iranians admitted this in May of 2018, when Trump told the Iranians to go scrub rocks on the Obama deal. Iran retaliated by threatening to name politicians who took bribes to pass the nuclear deal. I say bring it on. Name them all. It’s no wonder whatsoever that liberals and the mockingbird media are so against any tension with Iran. They’ve been bought and paid for with money that Obama laundered through the Iranians. That’s the kind of treason that people get put to death for.
Nonetheless, if you weren’t convinced that Emma Fiala has no credibility in her efforts to cover up her complicity in the Obama administration’s helping to arm a terrorist state with nukes, she writes this beauty titled, “Soleimani Was in Iraq on Peace Mission When US Assassinated Him, Trump Lied About ‘Imminent Attacks.’” Knowing that generals in charge of bringing death to everyone aren't sent on peace missions, that’s good stuff, but I think she’s serious. Peace missions are for skirt-wearing potheads who like to have sex with children, like those in the State Department or the UN. Not Nazified generals in charge of torture and genocide.
Seriously though, I think she’s serious. The mind of a liberal can be crippled by hate, and that is what seems to have happened over at Emma Fiala’s The Mind Unleashed. Read this, and you’ll agree that she needs to put that mind back on a leash, otherwise she's gonna lose it. Heh.
Abdul-Mahdi was scheduled to meet with Soleimani on Friday, the same day he and six others were killed at the Baghdad airport.
According to the Iraqi Prime Minister, U.S. President Donald Trump was aware of and supported the idea of Iraq facilitating the transfer of information—with the goal of easing tensions in the region—between the Saudis and Iran in Iraq during a phone conversation with Abdul-Mahdi days prior to Soleimani’s assassination.
The revelation from Abdul-Mahdi is leading some to accuse the U.S. government of setting a trap for Soleimani that resulted in his assassination. In fact, months ago U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pitched the idea of murdering Soleimani to Trump months ago.
Trump chose to strike back in what became a tit-for-tat series of attacks but, as a result, angry Iraqis stormed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in protest against those deadly air strikes. According to the Times, Trump “became increasingly angry” and then “stunned” officials when he chose the option of killing Soleimani. Pentagon officials were left “flabbergasted” and “alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region.”
Trump said on Friday that Soleimani was plotting “imminent and sinister attacks” on Americans, including diplomats and military personnel. According to Trump, the U.S. “took action to stop a war.” However, that narrative is quickly falling apart as new details emerge from Iraq.
On Saturday, tens of thousands of people in the United States rallied against U.S. troop presence in Iraq and aggression on Iran.
On Sunday and Monday, hundreds of thousands of people filled Iran’s streets, mourning Soleimani’s death.
This is the last thing I’ll say on it. First, the people of Iran, the normal ones anyway, are not mourning the death of this guy who has killed many of his own people and who is the Iranian leader’s main ear whisperer. The man is evil, and, if he was in Iraq, which he was because that’s where he was barbequed, he was there in order to take over Iraq for the benefit of Iran and against the will of all the Sunni’s. The vote in the Iraq to get rid of the Americans so the Iranians can take over was a vote of the minority over the will of the majority.
Furthermore, if President Trump actually did lure him into Iraq in order to whack him, that’s brilliant. All these supposed anti-war people always complain about wars, but when it comes time to cease getting paid kickbacks from the Deep-State military industrial complex, none of them are in favor of Trump’s desire to bring our troops home. They talk a good game, but they support the war continuing. So, instead of risking huge amounts of blood and treasure to kill the people of these leaders, Trump whacked the leader. That’s the way you do it. Get to the point. What good does killing innocent people do for us when these devil-worshipping leaders care so little about their own people that they kill them for fun?
I’m totally cool with killing their leaders. That’s where the problem is. I know the liberals will argue that if we do that, then they'll try to kill our leaders. Well duh. The supposedly innocent leaders of Iran have already put an $80 million price on the head of President Trump, to be paid for with by the funds Obama took from American taxpayers. Lucky for the Mullahs, the Democrat Party's own George Lopez agreed to do it for half that. And not one liberal said boo - neither about the Mullahs nor about Lopez offering to save the Mullahs money because he's apparently more concerned about the Iranian budget than that of America. Yeah, right. They really only care about the lives of America's enemies. Granted, if it were President Obama's head, they'd be flabbergasted and get the vapors, but that's because Obama is one of America's enemies. QED
Bottom line, kill their leaders. If what the peace nicks say about the people - that they just want a peaceful life - is true, then kill their leaders and make these people prove that’s what they want. Problem solved. If peace isn’t what they want, send nukes, not troops, and I don’t mean the way Obama would send them nukes. I mean the way Truman sent nukes to Japan. If you can’t live in peace, get vaporized.
I used to think we didn’t do that because we didn’t want to ruin the oil fields. Boy was I naïve. We didn’t even try to get the oil. What a crapshow. We fight a war for oil and then let them keep the oil. On top of that, now liberals like Emma Fiala and all the liberal members of the Mockingbird media are trying to let Iran have the spoils of the Iraq war. We blow 8 trillion on a war for oil so the Iranians can get the oil? - Forget that, but if that's the case, then send nukes. I'm done with all of them.
So Chaplain Ayesha, my conclusion is that Emma Fiala is a fake-news mouthpiece of the Mullahs whose nonsense is more noxious than the methane coming from my butt after a heavily protein-packed meal of deer meat. Except that my methane will burn much cleaner than the oil from Iraq and the fires around Soleimani in hell. Methane gas - it's what comes after dinner. That's my definition of toxic masculinity, and it clears the room even better than, "Get me a beer woman."
I agree with Trump. We’ll leave when we get paid.