The NY Times were apologists for the murderous anti-Semite Joseph Stalin, and the newspaper rallies for Chinese Communists. They never disappoint their allies. Today, we see them supporting the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
We no longer have to worry about the Revolutionary Guard’s websites, we have the NY Times.
Mr. Posobiec, an OANN reporter, makes the point that an article posted today is very different from the way President Trump and his supporters are treated.
The Times appears to prefer the Mullahs to U.S. conservatives and Libertarians. Actually, as Ronald Reagan pointed out, conservatives are basically Libertarians.
The entire article he is referencing below promotes Iran’s point of view. It is pure propaganda, and it is anti-Israel and anti-American.
I included some passages from the article to give you an idea of how they think. One has to wonder if the Times gets funds from Iran.
Compare how the NY Times treats President Trump and his supporters to how they treat the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism pic.twitter.com/iqZ5oMW12g
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 28, 2020
NY TIMES WORLD, PRO-IRAN TERRORISTS
Iranian officials, who have always maintained that their nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, not weapons, expressed fury and vowed revenge over the assassination, calling it an act of terrorism and warmongering that they quickly blamed on Israeli assassins and the United States.
The White House, C.I.A. and Israeli officials declined to comment. But Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s assassination — only 10 months after the United States killed the powerful spymaster at the head of Iran’s security machinery in a drone attack in Iraq — could greatly complicate President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s plans to reactivate the 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and six other nations, which curtailed Iran’s nuclear activities.
Mr. Biden’s transition team had no immediate comment on the assassination.
President Trump withdrew the United States from the nuclear accord in 2018, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and isolating the United States from Western allies who tried to keep the agreement intact. Since then, Iran has begun to increase its nuclear capacities once again, arguing that it is not bound by the nuclear accord because the United States reneged on its commitments.
The assassination of Mr. Fakhrizadeh had the hallmarks of a precisely timed operation. The Iranian state news media said that shooters waited along the road and attacked as his car was driving through the countryside town of Absard, an area known as a bucolic escape with majestic mountains about 40 miles east of Tehran.
…
Yet the twin assassinations may have poisoned the well. Hard-liners in Iran may win the argument that they cannot bend to outside pressure and should redouble their efforts to resist the West in memory of Mr. Fakhrizadeh, who they declared had been martyred.
John Brennan, who was the C.I.A. director under Mr. Obama, called the killing “a criminal act & highly reckless” in a tweet. “It risks lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict,’’ he wrote, urging Iran to “wait for the return of responsible American leadership” and resist temptations to strike back.
The Pentagon’s former top Middle East policy official, Michael P. Mulroy, said Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s death was “a setback to Iran’s nuclear program.” He noted that the scientist “was also a senior officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and that will magnify Iran’s desire to respond by force.”
See what I mean?
wpDiscuz
