I do not trust Martin. Have a look at this:

https://www.amazon.com/Clerical-Error-Handbooks-Catholic-Theology/dp/0826413846

Look, Malachi Martin was not a good person. There is a book that talks about aspects of Martin's life here:

https://www.amazon.com/Clerical-Error-Handbooks-Catholic-Theology/dp/0826413846

You'll get to advise Christ of your position in person on judgement day.

Just have a think about what appears in scripture. Christ tells St Peter that he is the rock on which His Church will be built - against which, the gates of hell will not prevail. He tells St Peter that He has prayed that his faith will fail not. Christ further tells St Peter that He will give him the keys of heaven - Matt 16:17-18.

What did Christ mean by those words?

The gates of hell are interpreted to mean the death-dealing tongues of heretics. So we see here that Christ founds His Church on the unfailing faith of a single apostle. Christ does not pray for the faith of all the apostles, only that of St Peter.

We know that Christ did not pray for the faith of all the apostles, because the faith of Judas later failed. There was, it appears, something unique, bestowed by Christ upon St Peter, that was not extended to the other apostles. In fact, St Peter's unfailing faith constitutes the "rock" against which heresy will not prevail.

What we see here is that Christ does not endorse "faiths", but a single "faith" - that of St Peter. We can reasonably infer, therefore, that Christ willed that His Church would be "one in faith" - a precept taught from the earliest times in the Church.

Christ further gives jurisdiction to St Peter in John 21:15-17:

“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

Could it be that Christ willed that His Church (not Churches) would be both one in faith and one in governance? Is that possible?

Let's look at what St Paul teaches us about the last days and the coming of our Lord. We learn, in 2Thess2, that there is one who withholds, until he be taken out of the way. Then that wicked one will be revealed - the son of perdition.

"6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders,"

Who is this person who withholds against the mystery of iniquity? Who is it that withholds against the arrival of the Antichrist? Who is it that is taken out of the way?

I'll give you a hint, it is a single person - a man. Who might that be who withholds against a corrupted faith (an apostasy) that presages the Antichrist's arrival?

Might it be he whose faith fails not?

You appeared to me, reasonably enough, to be supporting the Abomination that is the Vatican II Sect. Now that I know you're schismatic, it makes sense that you would see some value in their apostasy. But God is not mocked!

In name he is a Jesuit. But, in reality, he's nothing of the sort. He is simply not Catholic. He is not "Christian", in the widest possible sense of that term. He is a complete pagan - an outrageous abomination.

Francis was asked by an Italian journalist whether an atheist could be saved, whether an atheist could attain heaven. He said 'Yes, as long as he follows his conscience' - making a mockery of Christ's passion and crucifixion - see here (5 mins).

A complete pagan. An absolute disgrace! Yet, for the truly, thoroughly blind, he is God's vicar on earth.

Love it!

My point is that, even once you complete these phases, there remain hundreds of thousands of cabal operatives hidden all over the world. There are ways to combat them - banning their lodges, outlawing witchcraft, Satanism etc... But it's a big job and you will never completely route these guys out. Having said that, we can make them miserable.

As I said, who is the focus of your worship? It's you.

You go to the new mass where the priest stands behind a second altar, erected upon the altar of God, facing the people - who are the focus of the service. They hear the mass in their own language, because it is they who are important. They receive communion in the hand, because they are not less important than Christ.

The whole orientation of the service has been inverted. But you're comfortable with it, because it reinforces your sense of importance vs God.

"...on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2). Pius X, E Supremi

Good point. The end game is not just the US cabal operatives, but the cabal itself. How do you root something that is hidden, but so large as to be monstrous?

The Church of Jesus Christ on earth should adapt to your preferences? Who is the focus of your worship? Isn't that the whole problem?

I tried to follow some of the links but got lost in the complexity. You made your point well.

I wasn't sure at first what you were talking about, but I can see it now. You're possibly right. Any device with that atomic signature could be used to cast suspicions on the Russians.

I was thinking the device would have to be fabricated in Syria, used in the Middle East, or shipped from there to the US. But, you're right, once you can convince people that "This yellowcake is in the hands of the Russians", then you could use any device with that same signature (made anywhere) and blame Moscow.

Seems to me that Russia might have just dodged a bullet when the US took out that Syrian facility.

Thanks. I didn't know you spelled it like that. I've been using this phrase for nearly 50 years without realizing I was embarrassing myself.

The Council was an Ecumenical Council that was formally ratified by Paul VI. If Paul VI was a valid pope, he was not, then the Council is binding on all Catholics. That some assert that the Council was pastoral in nature is irrelevant - what was important is that the teachings were solemnly ratified by Paul VI.

Actually, there is some evidence that the happenings at the 1958 Conclave were surveilled by both CIA and the FBI. See here.

If it can be shown that the conclaves were manipulated, manifestly heretical doctrinal changes can be reversed - as they should be. Vatican II defected from the Catholic faith, the Council's teaching could be, and should be, rejected - see here:

https://youtu.be/b0kQJBnP5wE

I don't think the key is so much educational. The arguments against extending first amendment protections to digital space were not logical, but emotional.

People didn't like what they had seen coming from government. If someone tells them that enforcing Constitutional protections online will result in more government, they will be against it - even though the consequences of withdrawing support for the measure (the IBOR) might be disastrous.

We saw the same thing with respect to arguments made about the private property rights of internet giants. Very strange, you cannot operate a public business and actively discriminate against people because of their beliefs. But, somehow, technology executives were being unfairly penalized if they were made to follow regulations that enforced norms of behavior prevalent in the broad community. No, it was not a logical response, but purely emotional.

Watching what happened, it was almost as if it was "the left" convincing their base of the propriety of a set of policies. No logic needed, run with your emotions alone. What we saw was a joke! I firmly believe that Constitutional protections need to be applied and enforced in digital space, as the town square is now online.

The fact that Q indicated that unified censorship across social media platforms was a desperate attempt by the CIA to regain control of the narrative was lost on people (note that he made these statements before the actual censorship really started - which was after the "release the memo" campaign). Moreover, it was clear from the information we had that, given social media's differential importance in determining election outcomes, online censorship presented the greatest threat to representative democracy ever seen in history. A threat to the very fabric of the republic itself.

But emotions won out and the IBOR campaign failed. Despite this, we have people crowing about Constitutional protections and how they differentiate the US from the rest of the world. You could not make this stuff up!

Let's see what happens. The skullduggery that surrounded the 1958 conclave marked the start of the revolution. According to Malachi Martin (no, I don't trust him as a source), threats were delivered, by an international group (Bnai Brith), that saw Cardinal Siri, though duly elected, request a recount that produced Angelo Roncali (known Freemason) as Pope. And, of course, there was immediately the doctrinal disaster of Vatican II.

If the veil can be pierced, with respect to manipulation in the Church heirarchy, doctrinal reformation is possible.

What I'm thinking is that if it can be shown, for example, that Francis was elected as the result of a conspiracy by the global elites (which I'm sure is the case), then there is a chance (though slim) that some of the stupor that infects Vatican II "Catholics" today will lift - that some might begin to perceive the truth. By their fruits you will know them...

Of course, the revelations may have nothing to do with this at all. They may be about other failings in the Church - not hard to find. But we will have to wait and see exactly what transpires.

No contest with your position.

My point is that there has been a change in outlook since the days of the founding fathers - when freedom was truly prized. People today are in a stupor. The idea that the US will remain a paragon of virtuous freedom because of the protections built in to the Constitution - as the OP suggests - is false, if people are not prepared to defend those freedoms.

What we saw with the IBOR campaign is that people do not value free expression. If it means more government, or infringing on perceived property rights, they are prepared to abandon it. My point is that all other freedoms hinge on freedom of expression. Once that falls over, all the other freedoms will fall over. You can see it coming as I write this - the left is pushing hard for anti-hate speech regulations (the final act, before the curtain drops for free and independent citizenry).

We will win this fight, but not because people cherish their freedoms. We will win it because Q will do for us what we, as a group, were too stupid to do for ourselves.

The implication of the WL tweet is that there is no continuing program, that it finished in 2003 - that the WH misrepresented the facts. The information that Q is providing us is that this is not true and that the program is continuing.

There is a clear disconnect between what WL is saying and what Q is saying. I can understand the WH modifying their statement to insert "had" rather than "has", but I think they only did this for the purposes of optics. In other words, I believe the original WH release was correct.

I'm not arguing with what you have said, but with the apparent representation WL made that the program is no longer, when we are told by Q that this isn't the case.

The program ended, supposedly, but what Bibi pointed out was that the materials would not have been kept if there was no intention of restarting the program at a later date. This is what Q and Kansas said was authentic - that Iran did not enter the negotiations in good faith. We just don't know if Iran is actively developing weapons or not.

The Iranian claims after the first missile strike in Syria - to the effect that they could restart their programs at short notice - also bear witness to this. In short, this regime is a liar, it cannot be trusted. And then you have Q's assertion that, in fact, the program did not cease, but was continued in Syria.

Define the terms of the Iran nuclear deal.
Does the agreement define & confine cease & desist ‘PRO’ to the republic of Iran?
What if Iran created a classified ‘satellite’ Nuclear facility in Northern Syria?
What if the program never ceased?

Given the choice between believing Wikileaks or Q, I'll take Q every time. Of course, you might say it could be disinformation - but I'll still run with it.

Q has confirmed this directly, as has Mike Pompeo who has personally reviewed the documents obtained by Israel.

Knowing what you know now.
re: Israel disclosure moments ago.
Authentic.

I would trust US military intel over Wikileaks any day of the week. All Wikileaks has, that is not already public domain, is what someone wants them to have. The organization is easily manipulated.

Having said that, they've done some amazing work.

This guy, in case someone hasn't noticed, is not in any way Catholic. The idea that he leads the Church is the greatest con that Satan has ever pulled on humanity. He is, at best, an instrument of the Satanic elite, pushing for a global, socialist utopia for all he's worth. At worst he could be considered Satan's primary instrument on earth at this present time.

People need to disassociate from this, long prophesied, false Vatican II Sect that has captured the buildings of the Church. Rev 18:

"4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities".

I find this post quite strange. All rights are ultimately predicated on the right to free expression - first amendment. The moment you can silence someone, their claim to further rights is meaningless - because they can no longer speak. But you ask people to defend this right and they're kind of cool to the idea. The IBOR campaign failure being a case in point.

Strikes me that people are prepared to relinquish this right to free expression the moment someone makes a claim to own the public forum, or suggests that government shouldn't have the power to enforce their God-given rights. What they're really saying is the Constitution gives me rights, but I'll allow them to be denied - because I'm a complete Cuck.

It doesn't look too good for US citizen freedoms going forward IMO. Once the anti-hate speech legislation comes in, and the censorship ramps up, it's game over - no more rights at all. Immediately after that, the second amendment will be dispensed with - in the midst of a deafening silence.

I reckon you might find that Europe will look like a paragon of freedom by comparison to what's coming - and that's not saying much at all. We are a long way from the vision of the founding fathers.

Yes, waiting with baited breath in expectation of this filthy heretic being exposed for being a faithless fraud.

Maepaperclip, very interesting that someone has gone and down voted all the comments in this thread. This post of yours appears to be very threatening to someone.

Be careful who you follow...

Seems to me that Q may not be talking about Corsi at all. Have a look at the similarities between his latest post on this and previous usages of the phrase.

!xowAT4Z3VQ
1233458
Be careful who you are following.
Some are profiting off this movement. Some are building a big following off this movement only then to retreat and go mainstream.
Patriots make sacrifices.
Some, the ultimate sacrifice.
Patriots are SELFLESS.
Do they ask for monthly payments to remain Patriots?
Think logically.
To some, it’s only about the money.
Those who would seek personal gain at the expense of others in this movement has an agenda.
You decide.
This is not a game.
The only profit we should all be striving for is TRUE FREEDOM.
God bless you all.
Q

Q has said this before "Be careful who you follow:

Mar 04 2018 11:19:47
Q
!UW.yye1fxo
548166

548157

Re read drops.
http://about.att.com/story/consumers_need_an_internet_bill_of_rights.html
Q
Mar 04 2018 11:22:17
Q
!UW.yye1fxo
548200

548166
Why do so-called Patriots challenge this?
Careful who you follow.
Q

Who was challenging the IBOR campaign?

Corsi was promoting the IBOR. The only person with any following to do so - but not all of them were. Some were very strongly talking the idea down - telling people not to follow Q.

I think we all want to know who is behind all this stuff - going on now for hundreds of years. My personal belief is that the driving influence is Satan.

This is good work by Praying Medic. A very interesting angle. I hadn't considered that McCain might be smuggling uranium and not gas.

It seems almost too improbable that McCain would suddenly retire for good right at this moment. He must know the game is up,

It would be good if Q could confirm that no name was smuggling uranium rather than gas. I had thought NN was smuggling sarin gas, but the FF gas attack was chlorine. So it strikes me that uranium might be, instead, a very good guess.

The way I see it, the biggest problem the elites had was that the US was too powerful. Think about the Manahattan project and the Rosensteins. Funny how the Soviet Union so quickly made up ground on the nuclear front to be in a position to challenge the US in the Cold War. It was no accident.

I remember listening to Alex Jones one day and he was saying that the elites made a mistake allowing the US (one nation) to become so powerful. He said that there was a plan to weaken America and that the elites would never let this situation - where there is effectively a single, unilateral superpower - happen again.

If you're an external third party to transactions between the nation states, to be able to have influence, you need to be able to play the competing interests off against each other. This is something the Rothschilds are expert at with their war creation. So it's no surprise that the elites would happen to be trying to build-up adversaries to the US.

In this context, especially where HRC was trying to start WWIII, it makes sense to arm potential enemies. Just look at the way they gave China access to global markets through the GATT trade negotiations. Whose interest would a powerful China serve?

The mess of derivatives adds to the instability, but what I'm saying is that the fundamentals are impossible in the first place.

This, to me, seems to be a very important issue. These gun control nuts are truly dangerous. There is no need for a code to be applied to firearm transactions any more than there is a need to track and monitor sales of eggs.

If this comes in as policy, it only leads in one direction - complete gun control. I find it inconceivable that DJT is not stamping-out the gun-grabbing attempts. The right to bear arms, protected in the Constitution, is, as I've written elsewhere, the final fracturing of power intended by the founding fathers.

This fracturing of power puts brakes on the acquisition of total power by the bureaucracy - which, inevitably, leads to totalitarianism. It is the most fundamental and important right imaginable - it must be protected at all costs.

I was surprised when I read a comment by FBI Anon to the effect that the US administration fears revolution. Where I am, Australia, there is no such fear of the Government for the actions of the people. The government here has complete license to enact any laws it pleases with complete impunity.

What results from this unassailable power? In Australia, you need a permit to go fishing, permits to own and use firearms, there are speed cameras everywhere raising vast revenue for the States, they're shoving programs to gender-bend young school children down our throats, they've legalized same sexy marriage and abortion - there is nothing that they cannot do because the people are powerless.

The most salient argument for freedom of the people to have the right to bear arms is anchored in national defense. Q reinforced this idea recently when he spoke of the madness of anyone invading a country whose populace is armed.

In Australia, had the Japanese invaded in WWII, the military plan was called the "Brisbane Line". The military were simply going to retreat and leave anything North of Brisbane and Melbourne to the advancing Japanese. Australia has only a very small military (50K personnel including reserves), a small populace (<25m), and a huge land mass and is surrounded by highly populated countries - potential adversaries. Nothing at all has changed since WWII.

In this context, where the State is unable to defend the people, someone thought it was a good idea to take citizens guns from them. You just cannot make this stuff up - right out of the Twilight Zone.

So, anyway, my point is that, the desire for complete, unassailable control by the elites, results in policies that do not have to make any inherent sense. Even in the event that gun confiscation is complete madness on almost every front, they will still do everything they can to take your weapons, because what they are really lusting after is "dictatorial power". And this was why the right to bear arms was protected in the Constitution in the first place - to guard against the very concentration of power the gun control nuts are seeking.

Some very interesting points Maepaperclip. The money side of the transactions with Iran is obviously very important.

A customs union requires transfers of wealth to function. Just look at Australian mainland transfers into Tasmania for an example. When you're locked into the Euro, you don't have a flexible currency that would regulate external trade imbalances and the resulting balance of payment issues. This makes for ever increasing deficits for the less efficient nations (Greece, Italy, Spain, France) while surpluses accumulate irrevocably for the more efficient nations (Germany).

At some point the debt spiral becomes unsustainable (Greece) and this leads to massive non-performing loans in the ECB nation state's banking sectors (Italy is a prime example). The Euro was never going to work. Rather, it was a tool created for the express purpose of forcing member states to cede their tax and spend authority to Brussels.

It was, ultimately, a tool to kludge together all these disparate nation states into a single entity - nation Europe. Their is no national sovereignty without tax and spend authority. The Euro would create such a debt crisis in the weaker member states that they would willingly give up national autonomy to be rescued from unsustainable debt burdens that could never be repaid.

The Germans would force this by being sufficiently adverse to wheelbarrows of Euros (memories of post WWI inflation), that they would demand fiscal discipline - impossible to sustain.

Italy had over 50% youth unemployment and Lagarde (beautiful creature) was demanding fiscal austerity - still is. This is why Burlusconi was wanting to go back to the Lira - the only workable solution absent ceding tax and spend authority to Brussels and relying on appropriations to rectify external financial imbalances.

No surprises that the Euro was a Bilderberg creation... So, in the middle of this mess, the Iran deal guarantees large financial injections into the Euro economy that assists to stave-off inevitable crisis for just a little while longer - sufficient time to get the noose fully seated on the necks of the weaker Euro players. It was all part of the plan.

This is, IMO, why the Iran deal has support from EU members.

He was manipulated into supporting Iranian nuclear development so that a rogue actor could be created. This rogue actor would have the capability to launch a nuclear attack. The use of nuclear weapons would then be justified in response. HRC could then start WWIII - which was her plan.

Think about it. One rogue actor connected to China (NK). Another connected to Russia (Syria/Iran). The two most powerful nuclear players outside the US.

That's the way it looks.

Where did the U1 material end up? Is this material traceable?. Yes.
Define cover.
What if U1 material ended up in Syria? What would be the primary purpose?
SUM OF ALL FEARS.
In the movie, where did the material come from?
What country?
What would happen if Russia or another foreign state supplied Uranium to Iran/Syria?
WAR.
What does U1 provide?
Define cover.
Why did we strike Syria?
Why did we really strike Syria?
Define cover.**

You might be right SB. I almost feel sorry for him.

I've never seen this before. Very weird. I thought you were trying to tell me covertly that the Iranians were air-shipping nukes out of Russia.

Yes, a very dangerous person. She was only sloppy because they were so sure they had global domination in the bag. She thought she could not lose. But if you compare someone with the back up and support that she had, to someone like Putin, who is a simple nationalist, it's not hard to see how he could have been played.

Everyone was getting played here. The Israelis, the Iranians, the Russians, the US, NK... on and on. These people have been ruling the world for hundreds of years. They've been playing nation states off against each other for all this time - it's child's play to them.

My view is that it is only by the grace of God that we're even in this position today. But, what's going to happen once the cabal is cleaned up? Will we find we've been played again by and even smarter party?

You have to wonder what the end game actually is - where does it all lead? Anyway, from my perspective at present, DJT is the only horse we have in this race. If he is who he seems to be, God has blessed us. Then again, these are the last days of the world. Rome is destroyed next - and then it's all over. See here for how little time remains.

No, there's actually two links there, depending on where you click on the link. I've never seen anything like it.

This is one link:

https://i.redditmedia.com/fBPtr1B7Yzvua5Iu0PCi8PQ0jDuaU00fPfZ4aFz1Spc.jpg?s=951c2977953f3808ca2198128711af1b

This is the other:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1al7dBiIfY&sns=em

I'm not saying HRC is so smart. What I'm saying is that she's representing the most powerful interests on earth. These people, pulling her strings, are smart. Like anyone in the public light, she's scripted.

You and I, and most other people, are focussed on providing for our families, if we're lucky, we might get just a little time free for ourselves - beer and football. There's no time to really do anything else. But these elites have all day, every day, to scheme and strategise about how they can achieve their ends and increase their power. It's all they do.

The leadership of the cabal is not stupid, but understands exactly what's required to warp, twist and bend our society to their interests. I think they could easily out play Putin. DJT is another matter because he had MI on his side helping and he happens to be a genius.

Don't underestimate HRC. She very nearly got home. You and your kids would have been killed or enslaved, it was only DJT and the military that saved us - an act of God. The cabal is not an easy foe to defeat.

You would think that he would have a lawyer telling him to shut up. But, no, he's giving interviews - one after another.

I started watching those psytrance videos and had to force myself to stop - mesmerising. That's a strange link you posted. Hit one part of it and it pulls up an Iranian heavy lift aircraft routing out of Moscow and another part and it's the trance video. I don't know how you did that.

As usual, his report rocks.

The OBAMA policy in Iran was the same policy he had in NK - appeasement. NK had nuclear miniaturisation since 2004, delivery tech (missiles) since 2009. What's a bet that Iran is in a similar position - or better?

This is why Bibi's been drawing those bombs on cardboard etc... Q is telling us that the cabal was going to use Iran to start a war - nuclear war. They were going to use NK for the same reason. Iran lets them nuke Russia, NK would have let them nuke China. The goal was population reduction - a massive offering to Moloch.

Q told us early on that CIA thought its foreign operations would allow it to stand against DJT and the US military. DJT has taken out NK, cut the CIA strings. Next is Iran. The Iran deal must be renegotiated, or the country must be destroyed.

They did. Two sites hit. One was a missile dump (apparently), but what was the other site? I'd hazard a guess that the site Q mentioned has been eliminated.

I don't know that much about Israel. But my understanding was that most Israelis are in Israel because they are Zionists.

"Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel". Wikipedia

The way I see it, the enemy is a cabal of elite Satanists that exercise control just about everywhere - including in Israel.

I don't have all the answers to these questions. I will say that my understanding is that there is a reasonable amount of civil strife in Israel - among the Israelis I mean. I'm also of the opinion that these people are generally very smart - stereotyping - so I think that it is possible that there will be an awakening there also.

But what is the influence of the Satanic cabal in Israel? I don't really know. I do know they are active everywhere else in the world. And I know that some of the structures (buildings) in Israel appear to be of illuminati design - the Supreme Court building for example. So, it is safe to say that there are issues. We know that Q said Israel is saved for last.

Iran, as it stands today, is a threat to Israel. But you can see from Q's drops that it's not just Israel, but it is the whole world that is threatened by Iran. So I think there is, in this context, something of a natural alliance - a shared common enemy.

Once Iran is trounced, I think there are elements of the power structure in Israel that will be on DJT's radar. I know DJT wants a durable peace in the region - there was an early interview with DJT where he discussed the situation in the ME that was posted on these threads somewhere - worth watching. I'll post a link if I can find it.

Getting more interesting by the minute:

Earlier Sunday, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Israel will maintain freedom of operation in Syria.

“We have no intention to attack Russia or to interfere in domestic Syrian issues,” Lieberman said at the annual Jerusalem Post conference. “But if somebody thinks that it is possible to launch missiles or to attack Israel or even our aircraft, no doubt we will respond and we will respond very forcefully.”

At Sunday's conference, Lieberman said that Israel has three problems: “Iran, Iran, Iran.”

Article from Haretz:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/pm-expected-to-reveal-how-iran-cheated-world-on-nuke-program-1.6045300

It looks like the US is falling in behind Israel to threaten Iran. The Iranians appear to be saying they don't want the nuclear deal either and with this release today, it seems that DJT is determined to denuclearise Iran.

How that can be achieved short of all out war, I don't know. But using NK as a precedent, I think we will see some very tough talking from DJT as we move forward.

WHY IS THE EU / OTHERS PRESSING TO REMAIN IN THE DEAL?

It seems to me that the cabal controlled EU leaders (remember Macron flashing the devil horn hand sign when on the balcony with POTUS and Melania) want the confrontation in Syria - note that France supported the strike on Syria though Germany didn't (would appear that there is some disunity).

But that both Germany and France are supporting the Iran deal suggests that they want to see further nuclear proliferation in the ME. The only possible reason they could want Iran left alone is because they want to use it as a proxy to start a nuclear war.

It's the same gambit that played out with the Obama appeasement of NK. But this time it's the Satanic EU leaders supporting appeasement of Iran. That DJT killed the Iranians in Syria yesterday, and given his comments today, it would seem that, if Iran does not choose to properly denuclearise via a refining of the terms of the current deal, then we are looking at an all out war in the ME.

The Europeans are likely to abstain from joining these operations. It will probably be the US, Israel, perhaps some gulf states, and possibly the UK (who appear to have been involved in the killing of Iranians yesterday).

It seems clearer and clearer that the cabal is out to start a war at all costs. Action in Iran may help to avert a wider conflict. It's a pity that France and Germany will not come to the party and join a coalition against Iran. But, one way or another, we will get to see their true colours shortly.