хм, и този ме „цитира“ на моменти, макар че аз никога не съм казвал, че
вървим по пътя към ядрена война.

този сега какъв е? руска подлога, национален предател, антиамериканист или
изкуфял старец като пол крейг робъртс?

материалът без спор го приемам, че е руска пропаганда.

нека обсебения да си спести забележките си за военния опит на казалия
долните неща, а да се замисли върху казаното от него. също и забележките
за сайта няма смисъл да се правят, така и така всичко за него е ясно 8-)

U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War

Well, let me begin, if I could, by telling our listeners that I’m very
patriotic: I volunteered to join the Marines and I volunteered to go to
Vietnam. I fought in the bloodiest Marine campaign of the entire war. And
I was a helicopter pilot who flew 269 combat missions. My aircraft was hit
by ground fire on four missions. I, then, fought on the ground with the
First Marine Division, and during one of the 70 combat patrols that I
made, my radioman were both killed, and I was wounded while we were
attacking and trying to rescue a surrounded Marine outpost.

So I’m very pro-American. I actually was a part of NATO and was prepared
to die in Germany, to defend against an attack by the Soviet Union.

But Russia is not the Soviet Union at all. People don’t understand that
because the media have not made it clear. But Russia is not a communist
state; the Soviet Union was a communist state.

…

започва малко отдалеч -- от сирия, но имайки предвид споровете тук за
алепи и онзи град, дума ли беше, мисля че няма да е излишно да се види
какво казва този човек за сирия.

What I do know, and I can tell you about Aleppo is that Russia was
extremely reluctant to get involved in combat in Syria. The war began in
2011, when the United States landed Central Intelligence operatives to
begin coordinating with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. And we had
been unwavering supporters of Al Qaeda, since before the war formally
began. We are supporters of Al Qaeda today, where they’re bottled up in
Idlib province. The CIA supplied them under secret Operation Timber
Sycamore. We gave them all of their anti-tank weapons, all of their anti
air- missiles. And Al Qaeda has always been our proxy force on the ground.
They, together with ISIS, have carried out the mission of the United
States, together with a great number of affiliates that really are kind of
interchangeable. You have the Free Syrian Army soldiers move from ISIS to
Al Qaeda to Free Syrian Army, rather fluidly. And so we started that war.

сега става забавно за някои жертви на пропагандата:

But the United States has a strategic policy of using proxies to engage in
war. And our objective was to overthrow the legitimate government of
Syria, and in order to do that, we employed proxy soldiers who were the
most vile of all terrorists. Something very similar is happening right now
in in Ukraine.

…

But going back to Aleppo, the Syrian army, together with Hezbollah, which
was very effective; there were some troops that were organized by Iran
also, but it was pretty much a Syrian show, certainly directed by Syrian
generals. And they had fought this bitter urban combat, very brutal, very
deadly. And they had fought it for four years, before Russia ever joined
the battle. So after four years, the city of Aleppo had enormous
destruction. And at that point, the Russians, at the invitation of the
legitimate government of Syria, entered the war. But unlike many of the
media reports, they did not enter the war as a ground force. Now, they
had some small ground forces. They had military police, they had a few
artillery units, a few special operations people, and quite a number of
advisers and that sort of thing. But they were not a significant ground
force.

…

But to blame the Russians for the massive destruction that took place
within Aleppo, it’s bizarre: Because they were not there, they were not
even present when this happened. So this is simply another part of the
propaganda narrative, which is which hasbeen very effective for the West,
demonizing Russia, and making claims that have no substance. But people
don’t remember the history of these things—they’re rather complex. So, no:
Russia was not in any respect responsible for the massive destruction of
the city of Aleppo.

…

Well, first of all, the American involvement, the United States war
against Syria is a war of aggression. We put a highly secretive CIA
special activities center—these are kind of the James Bond guys of the
Central Intelligence Agency, total Machiavellian; they will do anything,
there’s no it’s no holds barred with these guys. We sent them in and we
started the war in Syria. The war didn’t exist until we sent the CIA to
coordinate with Al Qaeda elements. So we began the war and we were not
invited into Syria.

In fact, the United States has seized, two significant parts of Syria. One
is a very major part, the Euphrates River, carves off about a third of the
northern part of Syria: The United States invaded that portion. We
actually put troops on the ground, illegal—against any standard
international law of war—it was it was a just a seizure. And this was this
was something that was referred to by John Kerry, who was then the
Secretary of State, and he was frustrated at the tremendous victory by the
Syrian Armed Forces against Al Qaeda and ISIS. And he said, well, we
probably need to move to Plan B. He didn’t announce what Plan B was, but
it had it unfolded over time: Plan B was the American seizure of that
northern portion of Syria. The importance of taking that part of Syria is,
that it is the bread basket for all of the Syrian people. That is where
the wheat—Syria actually had a significant wheat surplus and the people
were very well fed in Syria, before the war. We wanted to take the wheat
away, to cause famine among the Syrian people.

The other thing we were able to do, is to seize the major part of the oil
and natural gas fields. Those also were produced in that northern portion
beyond the Euphrates River. And the idea was that, by stealing the oil and
then the gas, we would be able to shut down the transportation system, and
at the same time, during the Syrian winters, we could freeze to death the
Syrian civilian population, which in many cases were living in rubble,
where these terrorist armies, with mechanized divisions had attacked and
just totally destroyed these cities, and left people just living in little
pockets of rubble.

We wanted to starve and we wanted to freeze to death the people of Syria,
and that was Plan B.

…

We weren’t at war with Syria! And yet we had a naval blockade around the
country. We devalued their currency through the SWIFT system for
international payments, making it impossible for them to purchase
medications. So you had Syrian women who would contract breast cancer,
just like we have here in this country. But instead, where in this country
where breast cancer has become relatively treatable, we cut off the
medical supplies so that the women in Syria would die of breast cancer
because they could not get the medications, because we slam their dollars
through the SWIFT system.

One of the last things that we did and the evidence is vague on it, but
there was a mysterious explosion in the harbor in Lebanon, and it was a
massive explosion of a shipload of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. It killed
hundreds of Lebanese people. It wounded thousands and thousands, destroyed
the economy of Lebanon. And, most importantly, it destroyed the banking
system of Lebanon, which was one of the few lifelines remaining to Syria.
I don’t think that explosion was accidental. I think it was orchestrated,
and I suspect that the Central Intelligence Agency was aware of the nation
that carried out that action to destroy Beirut Harbor.

But throughout you see this this Machiavellian approach, where we use
unlimited force and violence. And at the same time, we control the global
media, to where we erase all discussions of what’s truly happening. So, to
the man or the woman in the street, they think things are fine. Everything
is being done for altruistic reasons, but it’s not.

има интересни неща за уахабитските обичаи, прилагани в сирия, но не от
руснаци, а от идилци, както и за санкциите срещу сирия, но тях ще трябва
да ги прочетете сами.

а навремето стефан николов се сърдеше, когато му беше казано за думите на
мадлийн олбрайт:

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 2:40:16 PM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
> хм, и този ме „цитира“ на моменти, макар че аз никога не съм казвал, че
> вървим по пътя към ядрена война.
>
> този сега какъв е? руска подлога, национален предател, антиамериканист или
> изкуфял старец като пол крейг робъртс?

"The Schiller Institute is a German based political and economic think tank founded by Helga Zepp- LaRouche, with stated members in 50 countries. It is among the principal organizations of the
_LaRouche movement_."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Върос в понижена трудност: Как пък все на такива попадаш?

>
> материалът без спор го приемам, че е руска пропаганда.
>
> нека обсебения да си спести забележките си за военния опит на казалия
> долните неща, а да се замисли върху казаното от него. също и забележките
> за сайта няма смисъл да се правят, така и така всичко за него е ясно 8-)
>
> U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War
>
> Well, let me begin, if I could, by telling our listeners that I’m very
> patriotic: I volunteered to join the Marines and I volunteered to go to
> Vietnam. I fought in the bloodiest Marine campaign of the entire war. And
> I was a helicopter pilot who flew 269 combat missions. My aircraft was hit
> by ground fire on four missions. I, then, fought on the ground with the
> First Marine Division, and during one of the 70 combat patrols that I
> made, my radioman were both killed, and I was wounded while we were
> attacking and trying to rescue a surrounded Marine outpost.
>
> So I’m very pro-American. I actually was a part of NATO and was prepared
> to die in Germany, to defend against an attack by the Soviet Union.
>
> But Russia is not the Soviet Union at all. People don’t understand that
> because the media have not made it clear. But Russia is not a communist
> state; the Soviet Union was a communist state.
>
> …
>
> започва малко отдалеч -- от сирия, но имайки предвид споровете тук за
> алепи и онзи град, дума ли беше, мисля че няма да е излишно да се види
> какво казва този човек за сирия.
>
> What I do know, and I can tell you about Aleppo is that Russia was
> extremely reluctant to get involved in combat in Syria. The war began in
> 2011, when the United States landed Central Intelligence operatives to
> begin coordinating with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. And we had
> been unwavering supporters of Al Qaeda, since before the war formally
> began. We are supporters of Al Qaeda today, where they’re bottled up in
> Idlib province. The CIA supplied them under secret Operation Timber
> Sycamore. We gave them all of their anti-tank weapons, all of their anti
> air- missiles. And Al Qaeda has always been our proxy force on the ground..
> They, together with ISIS, have carried out the mission of the United
> States, together with a great number of affiliates that really are kind of
> interchangeable. You have the Free Syrian Army soldiers move from ISIS to
> Al Qaeda to Free Syrian Army, rather fluidly. And so we started that war.
>
> сега става забавно за някои жертви на пропагандата:
>
> But the United States has a strategic policy of using proxies to engage in
> war. And our objective was to overthrow the legitimate government of
> Syria, and in order to do that, we employed proxy soldiers who were the
> most vile of all terrorists. Something very similar is happening right now
> in in Ukraine.
>
> …
>
> But going back to Aleppo, the Syrian army, together with Hezbollah, which
> was very effective; there were some troops that were organized by Iran
> also, but it was pretty much a Syrian show, certainly directed by Syrian
> generals. And they had fought this bitter urban combat, very brutal, very
> deadly. And they had fought it for four years, before Russia ever joined
> the battle. So after four years, the city of Aleppo had enormous
> destruction. And at that point, the Russians, at the invitation of the
> legitimate government of Syria, entered the war. But unlike many of the
> media reports, they did not enter the war as a ground force. Now, they
> had some small ground forces. They had military police, they had a few
> artillery units, a few special operations people, and quite a number of
> advisers and that sort of thing. But they were not a significant ground
> force.
>
> …
>
> But to blame the Russians for the massive destruction that took place
> within Aleppo, it’s bizarre: Because they were not there, they were not
> even present when this happened. So this is simply another part of the
> propaganda narrative, which is which hasbeen very effective for the West,
> demonizing Russia, and making claims that have no substance. But people
> don’t remember the history of these things—they’re rather complex. So, no:
> Russia was not in any respect responsible for the massive destruction of
> the city of Aleppo.
>
> …
>
> Well, first of all, the American involvement, the United States war
> against Syria is a war of aggression. We put a highly secretive CIA
> special activities center—these are kind of the James Bond guys of the
> Central Intelligence Agency, total Machiavellian; they will do anything,
> there’s no it’s no holds barred with these guys. We sent them in and we
> started the war in Syria. The war didn’t exist until we sent the CIA to
> coordinate with Al Qaeda elements. So we began the war and we were not
> invited into Syria.
>
> In fact, the United States has seized, two significant parts of Syria. One
> is a very major part, the Euphrates River, carves off about a third of the
> northern part of Syria: The United States invaded that portion. We
> actually put troops on the ground, illegal—against any standard
> international law of war—it was it was a just a seizure. And this was this
> was something that was referred to by John Kerry, who was then the
> Secretary of State, and he was frustrated at the tremendous victory by the
> Syrian Armed Forces against Al Qaeda and ISIS. And he said, well, we
> probably need to move to Plan B. He didn’t announce what Plan B was, but
> it had it unfolded over time: Plan B was the American seizure of that
> northern portion of Syria. The importance of taking that part of Syria is,
> that it is the bread basket for all of the Syrian people. That is where
> the wheat—Syria actually had a significant wheat surplus and the people
> were very well fed in Syria, before the war. We wanted to take the wheat
> away, to cause famine among the Syrian people.
>
> The other thing we were able to do, is to seize the major part of the oil
> and natural gas fields. Those also were produced in that northern portion
> beyond the Euphrates River. And the idea was that, by stealing the oil and
> then the gas, we would be able to shut down the transportation system, and
> at the same time, during the Syrian winters, we could freeze to death the
> Syrian civilian population, which in many cases were living in rubble,
> where these terrorist armies, with mechanized divisions had attacked and
> just totally destroyed these cities, and left people just living in little
> pockets of rubble.
>
> We wanted to starve and we wanted to freeze to death the people of Syria,
> and that was Plan B.
>
> …
>
> We weren’t at war with Syria! And yet we had a naval blockade around the
> country. We devalued their currency through the SWIFT system for
> international payments, making it impossible for them to purchase
> medications. So you had Syrian women who would contract breast cancer,
> just like we have here in this country. But instead, where in this country
> where breast cancer has become relatively treatable, we cut off the
> medical supplies so that the women in Syria would die of breast cancer
> because they could not get the medications, because we slam their dollars
> through the SWIFT system.
>
> One of the last things that we did and the evidence is vague on it, but
> there was a mysterious explosion in the harbor in Lebanon, and it was a
> massive explosion of a shipload of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. It killed
> hundreds of Lebanese people. It wounded thousands and thousands, destroyed
> the economy of Lebanon. And, most importantly, it destroyed the banking
> system of Lebanon, which was one of the few lifelines remaining to Syria.
> I don’t think that explosion was accidental. I think it was orchestrated,
> and I suspect that the Central Intelligence Agency was aware of the nation
> that carried out that action to destroy Beirut Harbor.
>
> But throughout you see this this Machiavellian approach, where we use
> unlimited force and violence. And at the same time, we control the global
> media, to where we erase all discussions of what’s truly happening. So, to
> the man or the woman in the street, they think things are fine. Everything
> is being done for altruistic reasons, but it’s not.
>
> има интересни неща за уахабитските обичаи, прилагани в сирия, но не от
> руснаци, а от идилци, както и за санкциите срещу сирия, но тях ще трябва
> да ги прочетете сами.
>
> а навремето стефан николов се сърдеше, когато му беше казано за думите на
> мадлийн олбрайт:
>
> You know, Russia is, perhaps more blessed with natural resources than any
> other nation on Earth. They are a major producer of grain, of oil, of
> aluminum, of fertilizers, of an immense number of things that tie into the
> whole global economy. And no doubt there are people who look at this and
> say, “if we could somehow break up Russia itself, there will be fortunes
> made, to where trillionaires will be made by the dozens.” And there’s some
> attraction to that. Certainly you’ve seen some of this taking place
> already, with foreign interests taking over Ukraine, and taking their vast
> resources.
>
> а това е особено забавно:
>
> But, we began a drive towards Russia, almost immediately after the Soviet
> Union dissolved in 1991. The Soviet Union dissolved, the Warsaw Pact
> dissolved. _And unfortunately, one of the great tragedies of history is
> that we failed to dissolve NATO._ The sole purpose of NATO was to defend
> against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer existed. NATO went
> toe toe with the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact was gone; it no longer
> existed. There was no purpose in NATO’s continuing to exist. However, we
> retained it, and it could not exist unless it had an enemy. Russia was
> desperate to become part of the West.
>
> явно и тук вината не е на сащ и западна европа.
>
> това също е интересно да се прочете:
>
> I met with the head of Gazprom, the largest corporation in Russia, And
> this was shortly after the demise of the Soviet Union, and he described
> for me how they were struggling to have their media be as free as it was
> in the West. And they perceived us as being much more free and open than
> we were. And he said, you know, we’ve got this problem because we have
> this uprising in Chechnya, which is part of Russia. And he said the
> Chechnyan rebels send videos to Russian television and we play them on
> Russian television, because that’s the way freedom of speech works.
>
> And I said, “Are you kidding me?” I said, “You’re publishing the enemy
> propaganda films?” He said, “Yeah.” He said, “Isn’t that the way you do it
> in the United States?” I said, “No. In the Second World War, we took the
> head of the Associated Press and we put him in charge of wartime
> censorship, and it was very strict.”
>
> признавам, като набеден русофил и путинофил, аз не знаех за това, научих
> го от този човек.
>
> In any event, the United States has this long-standing strategy, this
> political-military strategy, of expanding the empire. We did it in the
> Middle East, where we attempted to create a massive neocolonial empire.
> It’s it became rather frayed. The people did not want it. And it seems to
> be doomed to extinction sometime—but it may go on for another 100 years.
> But in any event, we are trying to do something similar, as we roll to the
> East, right up virtually to the Russian border.
>
> …
>
> I think one thing that it will do is it will ensure that a tremendous
> number of innocent Ukrainian soldiers will die needlessly. A lot of
> Russian soldiers will die needlessly. These are kids. You know, kids go
> off to war. I went off to war as a kid. You think your country, right or
> wrong, everything they’re doing is fine. It just it breaks my heart, when
> I look at the faces of young Russian boys, who have been who have been
> gunned down—in some cases very criminally by Ukrainian forces. And
> likewise, I see Ukrainian young men, who are being slaughtered on the
> battlefield.
>
> обсебения дали има да каже нещо за тези военни престъпления на украинците.
> за руските знам, че може да говори много.
>
> We don’t care! The United States and NATO, we do not care how many
> Ukrainians die. Not civilians, not women, not children, not soldiers. We
> do not care. It’s become a great football game. You know, we’ve got our
> team. They’ve got their team, rah rah. We want to get the biggest score
> and run it up. And, you know, we don’t care how many how many of our
> players get crippled on the playing field, as long as we win.
>
> Now, we are shipping fantastic quantities of weapons, and it’s caused the
> stock of Raytheon, which creates missiles, and Northrop Grumman, which
> creates aircraft and missiles, all of these defense industries have become
> tremendously bloated with tax dollars. I don’t think it’s ultimately going
> to change the outcome. I think that Russia will prevail. The Ukrainians
> are in a very awkward strategic position in the East.
>
> а някой тук обясняваше, че украйна нямала толкова войска, колкото била
> разположена край донбас:
>
> But if you look at the way that this unfolded, President Putin made a
> desperate effort to stop the march towards war back in December of 2021.
> He went so far as to put specific written proposals on the table with
> NATO, peace proposals to defuse what was coming about. Because at this
> point, Ukraine was massing troops to attack the Donbas. And so, he was
> trying to head this off. He didn’t want war. And NATO just blew it off,
> just dismissed it; never took it seriously, never went into serious
> negotiations.
>
> а пък долното може да предизвика колики в някои хора, но мисля че няма
> нужда от коментар:
>
> At that point, Putin seeing that armed Ukrainians, with weapons to kill
> Russian troops were literally on their borders, decided he had to strike
> first. Now, you could see, that this was not this was not some preplanned
> attack. This was not like Hitler’s attack into Poland, where the standard
> rule of thumb, is that you always have a 3-to-1 advantage when you are the
> attacker. You have to mass three times as many tanks and artillery and
> planes and men, as the other side has. In fact, when Russia went in, they
> went in with what they had, what they could cobble together on short
> notice. And they were outnumbered by the Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainian
> forces had about 250,000. The Russians had perhaps 160,000. So instead of
> having three times as many, they actually had fewer troops than the
> Ukrainians. But they were forced to attack, to try to preempt the battle
> that was looming, where the Ukrainians had massed these forces against the
> Donbas.
>
> Now, the Donbas is adjacent to Russia. It is a portion of Ukraine that did
> not join with the revolutionary government that conducted the coup in 2014
> and overthrew the government of Ukraine. They refused to become a part of
> the new revolutionary government of Ukraine. And so they declared their
> independence. And Ukraine had massed this enormous army to attack against
> the Donbas. And so Russia was forced to go in to preempt that planned
> attack by Ukraine. And you could see that Russia very much hoped that they
> could conduct this special operation without unduly causing casualties for
> the Ukrainians, because they think of the Ukrainians, or at least they did
> think of the Ukrainians as brother Slavs; that they wanted to have good
> relations. But there is a famous picture with a Russian tank, that had
> been stopped by a gathering of maybe 40 civilians who just walked out in
> the road and blocked the road and the tank stopped. I can tell you, in
> Vietnam, if we had had a bunch of people who stood in the way of an
> American tank, going through, that tank would not have slowed down, in the
> slightest! It wouldn’t honk the horn, it wouldn’t have done anything;
> wouldn’t have fired a warning shot. It would have just gone on. And I
> think that’s more typical—I’m not I’m not criticizing the Americans. I was
> there and I was fighting, and I probably would have would have driven the
> tank straight through myself.
>
> But what I’m saying is that the rules of engagement for the Russians were
> very, very cautious. They didn’t want to create a great deal of hatred and
> animosity. The Russians did not go in—they did not bomb the electrical
> system, the media systems, the water systems, the bridges and so forth.
> They tried to retain the infrastructure of Ukraine in good shape because
> they wanted it to get back. They just wanted this to be over with and get
> back to normal. It didn’t work. The Ukrainians, the resistance was
> unexpectedly hard. The Ukrainian soldiers fought with great, great valor,
> great heroism. And. And so now the game has been upped and it’s become
> much more serious.
>
> But it is amazing to look and to see that Russia dominates the air. They
> haven’t knocked out the train systems. They haven’t knocked out power
> plants. They haven’t knocked out so many things. They’ve never bombed the
> buildings in the center of Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine; they haven’t
> bombed the buildings where the parliament meets. They’ve been incredibly
> reserved about these things, hoping against hope that peace could be
> achieved.
>
> But I don’t think I don’t think Ukraine has anything to do with the
> decision about peace or war. I think the decision about peace or war is
> made in Washington, D.C. As long as we want the war to continue, we will
> fight that war, using Ukrainians as proxies, and we will fight it to the
> last Ukrainian death.
>
> леле, някой в тази група питаше защо руснаците мълчат:
>
> We need to recognize the risk of playing these games of chicken. Where,
> for example, the Turkish media just published an article saying that at
> Mariupol, where there was a great siege, that the Russians ultimately won..
> The one area they haven’t taken over is this tremendous steel plant. There
> are a lot of Ukrainian soldiers who are holed up there. And now it has
> come to light that apparently there are 50 French senior officers, who are
> trapped in that steel plant along with the Ukrainians. The French soldiers
> have been on the ground fighting, directing the battle. And this was kept
> under wraps, ultra-secret, because of the French elections that just
> occurred. Had the French people known that there were a large number of
> French officers trapped and probably going to die in that steel plant, the
> elections would have gone the other way: Marine Le Pen would have won. And
> so it was very important that for the entire deep state, that it not come
> to light that these French officers were there.
>
> We know that there are NATO officers who are present on the ground in
> Ukraine as advisors and so forth. We run the risk. Now, my guess is—and
> this is this is a guess, I could be wrong—but the flagship of the Russian
> Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, was sunk as a result of being struck by anti-
> ship missiles. My guess is that those missiles, I think there’s a good
> chance they were fired by the French. Now, I could be wrong, but those
> missiles are so ultra-sensitive and so dangerous to our ships, that I
> don’t think that NATO would trust the missiles to Ukrainians, or to
> anybody else. I think I think they have to be maintained under NATO
> control and operation. So I think that it was probably NATO forces that
> actually sunk the Moskva.
>
> …
>
> и още нещо интересно -- излиза, че калинките са глобално явление, а не
> локално :)
>
> You know, there’s been a tremendous deterioration in the quality of flag
> officers, going back to, well, certainly the 1990s. We had very, very fine
> flag officers, during the time I was on active duty—I left in ‘94—just
> superior quality people. But what happened is, subsequently, we had
> President Clinton take over, later, we had Obama. We’ve got Biden now. And
> they apply a very strict political screen to their military officers. And
> we now have “yes men.” These are not people whose principal devotion is to
> the United States and its people. Their principal devotion is to their
> careers and their ability to network with other military officers upon
> retirement. There’s a very strong network that can place military generals
> into think tanks, where they promote war, into organizations like Raytheon
> and Northrop Grumman, and all of these defense operations, where they can
> get on boards and things like that. So there’s quite a personal price that
> you pay for saying, “Hey, stop. War is not in the interests of the
> American people.” If we had a better quality of individual, we would have
> people with the courage who would say, “I don’t care what it costs me
> personally.” But it is very difficult to get into the senior ranks, if you
> are an individual guided by principle, and patriotism, and devotion to the
> people of this nation. That’s just not how it works. And at some point, we
> need a President who will go in and shake the tree, and bring a lot of
> these people falling down from it, because they’re dangerous. They’re very
> dangerous to America.
>
> останалата част от интервюто може да прочетете там:
>
> https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/04/26/video-col-richard-black-u-s-
> leading-world-to-nuclear-war/
>
> за обсебените има и видео с интервюто -- да не се мъчат да четат с
> разбиране 8-)
>
> --
> «地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»

On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:

> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 2:40:16 PM UTC-4, Nick wrote:

>> хм, и този ме „цитира“ на моменти, макар че аз никога не съм казвал, че
>> вървим по пътя към ядрена война.

>> този сега какъв е? руска подлога, национален предател, антиамериканист
>> или изкуфял старец като пол крейг робъртс?

> "The Schiller Institute is a German based political and economic think
> tank founded by Helga Zepp- LaRouche, with stated members in 50
> countries. It is among the principal organizations of the _LaRouche
> movement_."

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

> Върос в понижена трудност: Как пък все на такива попадаш?

ами лесно -- гледам какво е казал човекът, а не кой и къде го е казал.

аз нали (ти) казах да пропуснеш тези забележки, що не се постара?

the guardian какво казва за този?

можеш ли ти да отговориш на този въпрос с понижена трудност -- защо в
медии като споменатия няма подобни публикации? не че в интервюто няма
отговор, ама що да не те попитам теб? не че не е ясно какво ще отговориш,
русофиле извратен.

--
«地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 4:16:54 PM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 2:40:16 PM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
>
> >> хм, и този ме „цитира“ на моменти, макар че аз никога не съм казвал, че
> >> вървим по пътя към ядрена война.
>
> >> този сега какъв е? руска подлога, национален предател, антиамериканист
> >> или изкуфял старец като пол крейг робъртс?
>
> > "The Schiller Institute is a German based political and economic think
> > tank founded by Helga Zepp- LaRouche, with stated members in 50
> > countries. It is among the principal organizations of the _LaRouche
> > movement_."
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
>
> > Върос в понижена трудност: Как пък все на такива попадаш?
> ами лесно -- гледам какво е казал човекът, а не кой и къде го е казал.

Естествено, че си гледал какво е казал човека. Въпроса беше друг: Защо хората, които
цитираш, са все такива - свързани с бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни фундаменталисти, анти-американски конспиративни култисти и подобни? Какво ти говори това за
симпатизантите на Путин/Русия на Запад??

>
> аз нали (ти) казах да пропуснеш тези забележки, що не се постара?
>
> the guardian какво казва за този?
>
> можеш ли ти да отговориш на този въпрос с понижена трудност -- защо в
> медии като споменатия няма подобни публикации? не че в интервюто няма
> отговор, ама що да не те попитам теб? не че не е ясно какво ще отговориш,
> русофиле извратен.
> --
> «地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»

On Thu, 26 May 2022 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:

> Защо хората, които
> цитираш, са все такива - свързани с бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни
> фундаменталисти, анти-американски конспиративни култисти и подобни?
> Какво ти говори това за симпатизантите на Путин/Русия на Запад??

Вероятно че им "запушват устата".
Прочее ти наричаш симпатизанти на Путин също и хората които винят
НАТО и Запада за ролята им в предизвикването и раздухването на
конфликта, що така?

On Thu, 26 May 2022 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:

> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 4:16:54 PM UTC-4, Nick wrote:

>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:

>> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 2:40:16 PM UTC-4, Nick wrote:

>> >> хм, и този ме „цитира“ на моменти, макар че аз никога не съм казвал,
>> >> че вървим по пътя към ядрена война.

>> >> този сега какъв е? руска подлога, национален предател,
>> >> антиамериканист или изкуфял старец като пол крейг робъртс?

>> > "The Schiller Institute is a German based political and economic
>> > think tank founded by Helga Zepp- LaRouche, with stated members in 50
>> > countries. It is among the principal organizations of the _LaRouche
>> > movement_."

>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

>> > Върос в понижена трудност: Как пък все на такива попадаш?

>> ами лесно -- гледам какво е казал човекът, а не кой и къде го е казал.

> Естествено, че си гледал какво е казал човека. Въпроса беше друг: Защо
> хората, които цитираш, са все такива - свързани с бели расисти/фашисти,
> религиозни фундаменталисти, анти-американски конспиративни култисти и
> подобни? Какво ти говори това за симпатизантите на Путин/Русия на
> Запад??

както винаги, когато няма какво да кажеш по същество, се опитваш да
изместиш темата.

ако искаш да коментираш написаното, коментирай него, а не авторът, който
между другото в началото на интервюто заявява (явно за такива като теб)
какъв е.

--
«地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:53:32 PM UTC-7, chorbalan wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>
> > Защо хората, които
> > цитираш, са все такива - свързани с бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни
> > фундаменталисти, анти-американски конспиративни култисти и подобни?
> > Какво ти говори това за симпатизантите на Путин/Русия на Запад??
> Вероятно че им "запушват устата".
> Прочее ти наричаш симпатизанти на Путин също и хората които винят
> НАТО и Запада за ролята им в предизвикването и раздухването на
> конфликта, що така?

Като цяло двете групи се препокриват на 95%. Останалите са обиковени анти-
американисти (като Чомкси да речем). Не е ли така?

On Fri, 27 May 2022 04:06:24 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:

> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:53:32 PM UTC-7, chorbalan wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>>
>> > Защо хората, които
>> > цитираш, са все такива - свързани с бели расисти/фашисти, религиозни
>> > фундаменталисти, анти-американски конспиративни култисти и подобни?
>> > Какво ти говори това за симпатизантите на Путин/Русия на Запад??
>> Вероятно че им "запушват устата".
>> Прочее ти наричаш симпатизанти на Путин също и хората които винят
>> НАТО и Запада за ролята им в предизвикването и раздухването на
>> конфликта, що така?
>
> Като цяло двете групи се препокриват на 95%. Останалите са обиковени анти-
> американисти (като Чомкси да речем). Не е ли така?

Не ца 95%. Хората се крият понеже го е страх да не ги "канцелират".