"All options on the table": This is among the Anglo-Saxons become the standard expression for a direct threat of aggression in reality.
There are some minor variations to:
"All options are quiet on the table", we hear not (yet) on to threaten war.
"It would be unwise not to keep all options on (take any option off) the table": We would be fools, we do not continue to threaten war.
"We must keep all options on the table": We must continue to threaten war.
In addition to "(keep, are) on the table", "not take off the table" nor does "not rule out any option," etc.
Basically, it is therefore always executed turns, as is everyone who does not want to threaten war or considers it wrong for whatever reason, cowardly, irresponsible or a fool. If not a traitor.
One understands the Tavistock Institute undoubtedly something of a black propaganda.
Not only that, so the constant threats of war as the top of the diplomatic Weistum and the liberal, enlightened, feiheitlich-democratic statecraft transfigured is: the formula is repeated so often that it has at least the mass itself skeptical politician (once even peace-of moving at all, see most Greens), and media people, even if they do not take themselves directly to the content matter of course, the guiding principle of rational action is statesmanship. The people, the mass used, in the meantime also in it. Logically, you can hear them now both more "right" as "central" as "left" regulars.
One verbrät the so with conviction, as if Syria or Iran or North Korea or the Sudan or Somalia, the same tomorrow, of course, with hundreds of thousands of land troops, after a thorough bombardment of the whole country three days within the same New York, LA, Seattle, Miami, also alongside London and Liverpool to take the coups were enticed negligently, unless they were not constantly threatened with invasion and destruction.
The problem is that even a hook, "a catch" First, blunt threats constantly emitted when threatened in their effect over time from.
Second, know those who are constantly threatened that they will bomb so the mood takes you into the Stone Age, when one considers the best for the option. Most likely with a Drohvorlauf (to their own populations to war as the only possible "option", hereby required to make tasty), but also without a doubt.
Especially since it is clear that the United States unpopular regime (if they do not enjoy unequivocal backing from Russia or China or both) can make as many concessions as they can, and it was never enough. (The Iranians could, of course, first scrap its weapons, then all the ayatollahs choose to commit suicide, and after that the issue of military and other political leadership on each other to the last man the coup de grace, of course not before the national oil and gas reserves of Exxon, Shell and BP - the latter company they stole their oil twice already - and bequeathed to have told the people that this was the best thus to be led by a then controlled by the American and British embassies in Satrapenregierung the blessings of liberty).
Whether you have thought at the Tavistock Institute and at this side of the coin?
Tags: State of Art , Tavistock Institute
