Jump to content

Aabiss_Shakari

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    5,918
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Aabiss_Shakari last won the day on September 27 2016

Aabiss_Shakari had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Aabiss_Shakari

  • Rank
    http://www.abubakr.org
  • Birthday 05/02/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.al-islam.org/

Profile Information

  • Location
    Shia Chat
  • Religion
    True Shia Twelver Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,072 profile views
  1. I do not know how effective this app is. But i recommend the members to check this out for learning a new language in fifteen minutes per day. LEARN NEW LANGUAGE BY GIVING 15 MINUTES A DAY
  2. Iranian Researchers Produce Green Chocolate to Prevent Cold, Treat Fat Liver Iranian researchers at the University of Applied Science and Technology produced a new type of green chocolate to prevent cold and treat fat liver. The new cocoa chocolate can also be used to boost memory and treat stress and anxiety. The Iranian scientists also produced a gummi which increases the level of vitamin D in the body, improves calcium absorption and prevents cavity in the tooth. It can also be used to prevent fatness, stress and depression. The researchers at the University of Applied Science and Technology in Iran also produced a new biscuit to treat anemia. The product creates a feeling of fullness in a person. The biscuit also contains iron, calcium and magnesium and improves blood circulation. Ehsan Varzdar and Farzin Dadbakhsh, two Iranian researchers, first used animal fat with high cholesterol to increase fat in 5 male and 5 female laboratory mice. They decreased the fat in the mice's liver and body by feeding them with fennel extract. Iran INVENTS CHOCOLATE
  3. Sorry for the language she used for the most idiot man on earth but yet i had to share the news Palestinian-American Congresswoman on Trump
  4. Christmas is a time of goodwill to all men. Or at least it should be. But while the West’s Middle East ‘bad guys’ Iran and Syria, showed the Yuletide spirit, its closest allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, failed to do so. Iran is demonized by Western neocons and we’re meant to see the country as an evil, ‘monster‘ regime of foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatics who hate everyone. So it goes against the dominant narrative somewhat that Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted a Christmas message and wished ‘peace and joy to all in 2019’, on Christmas Eve. Javad Zarif:- The angels said, "Mary, God gives you good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God. (QURAN 2:45) May the blessings of the birth of Jesus usher peace and joy to all in 2019. It also goes against the narrative, that Zarif, back in September, wished Jews, in Iran and across the world, “a very Happy New Year filled with peace and harmony.” We’re told repeatedly that the Iranian ‘regime’ is ‘anti-Semitic’, but do ‘anti-Semites’ wish Jews a happy ‘Rosh Hashanah’? If so, it's a rather strange definition. The Iranian Foreign Minister also tweeted on December 26 a message of goodwill to Iran’s Zoroastrian community. Contrast this consideration to people of different faiths from Tehran, with the lack of congratulations on other religious holidays from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A week before Iran’s Foreign Minister was tweeting positively about Jesus, the KSA’s Customs Authority was also on the social media platform, confirming that Christmas trees were banned from entering the Kingdom for the festive season. In fact, despite the large number of Christians from other countries who work in the country, including many Britons, the holding of any Christmas-related services or commemorations in Saudi Arabia is strictly banned. “The Christmas season – often a season where Christians around the world are most visible – is a tense time for Christians in Saudi Arabia, who have to celebrate the holiday in secret, risking arrest and deportation,” said Jeff King, President of the International Christian Concern, in 2016. Imagine being a Christian and not being able to openly celebrate the birth of Christ. It happens in Saudi Arabia, yet Western leaders, so keen to lecture others about ‘human rights’ and ‘religious freedom’ stay silent, preferring to pick on Iran – where Christmas can be openly celebrated. Syria is another country ‘monstered’ by the endless war lobby but where, against all the odds, the Christmas spirit is still maintained. Big seasonal celebrations were held this year in Aleppo and Damascus. Remember Aleppo? It was recaptured by the Syrian Arab Army from Islamist ‘rebels’ two years ago this month, and the neocon/’liberal interventionist’ commentariat, and most of the political class portrayed it as a most terrible thing. Ian Austin MP said that people in Aleppo faced ‘slaughter’. John Woodcock MP called the Morning Star newspaper ‘traitorous scum’ for referring to the recapture of Aleppo by Syrian forces of their own territory, as a ‘liberation’. But if you look at the pictures of Christians celebrating Christmas there once again, which they were forbidden to do under the western-backed head-chopping ’rebels’ you can see that the ‘L’ word was indeed appropriate. This year in Damascus though, the festive celebrations were defiled by another act of aggression against Syria from a Western-supported-country, one which incidentally Ian Austin and John Woodcock have been Parliamentary ‘Friends’ of. On the evening of December 25, loud explosions could be heard seven miles from the center of Damascus. Russia’s Defense Ministry said that Israel’s Christmas Day F-16 strikes endangered two civilian flights – as well as injuring three personnel at the logistics compound. Whatever your stance is on Middle Eastern affairs – and leaving aside the illegality of the operation whenever it took place – the question is: did Israel really have to bomb Syria on Christmas Day? Would Israel’s ’security’ have been lessened if the raid had taken place on December 28 and not the 25th? Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did tweet Christmas greetings out to ‘Christian friends’ in Israel and around the world on December 24, but why did his forces attack a country where Christians were celebrating one day later? Just imagine the enormous outcry if Russia had carried out air strikes on Ukrainian targets on the evening of 25th December. In fact, the US magazine Newsweek, doing its best to ratchet up East-West tensions still further, predicted such an event only last week. They published an article on Christmas Eve which began with the words “As people in Western Europe and the United States get comfortable for the holidays, the chances increase that Russia will take advantage of the distraction to launch attacks against its neighbor Ukraine, experts said.” And who are these ’experts’, I hear you ask. Well, guess what, they were all from the Atlantic Council. The ‘experts’, surprise surprise, were wrong. The ‘monster’ Russia did not launch attacks on Ukraine over Christmas. But Israel did attack Syria – and there was silence from those who would have screeched very loudly (and be calling for RT to be taken off the air immediately) if the Kremlin had ordered such a sacrilegious act. Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) were also busy bombing on Christmas Day. The genocidal group carried out suicide bomb attacks on Libya’s Foreign Ministry in Tripoli on Tuesday morning, killing three and leaving over half-a-dozen injured. One doesn’t expect IS to respect Christmas, but you would expect Western leaders – of predominantly Christian nations to regard the group as public enemy number one. Yet in Syria, the US and its allies welcomed the group’s growth precisely because it threatened the secular, Christian-protecting government of Bashar al-Assad. A declassified US intelligence report from August 2012 predicted the establishment of a “Salafist principality in Eastern Syria” and said that this is “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.” Furthermore, in a leaked tape recording the former Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the US allowed IS to expand its territory to threaten Damascus. At the same time, those fighting IS, and other al-Qaeda-linked death squads in Syria, namely the Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, have been ‘monstered’ by the West and its regional allies’ propaganda machines. Reflect on this: It wasn’t Syrian, Russia, Iranian or Hezbollah forces or followers who slaughtered British and other Western holiday-makers on the beach in Tunisia in 2015 – but an IS terrorist who is thought to have trained at a jihadist camp in neighboring Libya and whose government had been forcibly toppled by NATO powers four years earlier. Similarly, it wasn’t Syrian, Russian, Iranian or Hezbollah forces or followers who carried out murderous attacks against civilians in Paris, Nice, Brussels, and London, or at Christmas markets in Berlin and Strasbourg. Respecting Christmas and what it stands for is an important litmus test, as it tells us a lot about the actors involved, especially if they are not themselves Christians. The ‘monstering’ of those who do show the proper ‘Yuletide spirit’, and the turning of a blind eye to those that don’t, highlights the spectacular hypocrisy of those in power in the West who profess to support 'Christian values’ but in fact do everything possible to subvert them. If anyone needs an Ebenezer Scrooge-style epiphany this Christmas, it's the 'monster-slayers' themselves. Christmas 2018: Iran and Syria show respect, Israel and Saudi Arabia don't
  5. Syria, which saw large parts of its territory liberated from Islamists this year, is celebrating Christmas with pre-war fervor, hoping that the fighting is nearing its end as militant control dwindles and foreign actors leave. The bloodshed in Syria has affected everyone in the country, yet its religious minorities have undoubtedly seen the worst, having faced extreme persecution by the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists and other hardline Islamists regarding their beliefs. In areas under IS rule, celebrating Christmas was out of the question. Now, as peaceful life returns to the country, things are changing for the better. Recently, one of the country’s tallest Christmas trees was unveiled in the capital city of Damascus. A large crowd of people, many dressed in Christmas costumes, gathered to celebrate the occasion, dancing and singing. “This is a carnival parade … in order to light up the tallest tree in Damascus which is 30 meters tall, in addition to nativity grotto, with a lot of love and happiness for everyone,” one of the bystanders told RT’s video agency Ruptly, adding that it was a message “from the heart of Damascus to the entire world.” The tree itself is actually a large, half-transparent cone, which gives soft green glow at night. Over the year, the capital city was fully liberated as various jihadist militants were expelled from its suburbs. As normal life gets back on track, celebrations are becoming more and more colorful, almost as they were before the start of the war. One can simply compare this year’s festivities with those of 2015 when the capital was effectively under militant siege. While warlike officials and media have bemoaned the move, claiming it would lead to a resurgence of ISIS in the region, the Syrians appear to be more focused on celebrating Christmas. SYRIANS CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS (VIDEOS)
  6. CNN's Don Lemon said people need to realize that white men radicalized to the right are "the biggest terror threat" to the country on Monday night. Lemon lamented that a travel ban was put on Muslims because of terror fears but there is not a "white guy ban" for radicalized white males. The CNN host said we have to "stop demonizing people" and realize this is a real threat. "So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on -- you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban," he said. DON LEMON, CNN HOST: I keep trying to point out to people and not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity. But we keep thinking that the biggest terror threat is something else, someone people who are marching, you know, towards the border, like it's imminent. And the last time they did this, a couple hundred people came and they -- you know, most of them did get into the country, most of them tired-- you know, got tuckered out before they made it to the border. So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on -- you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban. So, what do we do about that? And first of all, let me just say this. Maurice Stallard is the name and Vicki Jones. And they have been lost in all of this. Two people who were killed on Wednesday that you talked about. They have been lost in this, and I know that people feel that this story has not gotten enough coverage, and we will honor them tonight in our program. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/30/don_lemon_the_biggest_terror_threat_in_this_country_is_white_men.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=mixi&utm_campaign=realclearpolitics
  7. Asslamoalaikum, I was just going through Putin's address to the science students. He categorically mentioned that "Future belongs to artificial intelligence". Out of curiosity i wonder how many Muslim countries are working on artificial intelligence. Is it very costly to develop in this field? https://www.rt.com/news/401731-ai-rule-world-putin/
  8. French President Emmanuel Macron has bemoaned the decision by his US counterpart to withdraw troops from Syria. Such a move is unbecoming of any "ally," since they should be "reliable" and "fight shoulder to shoulder," he said. "I very deeply regret the decision made on Syria," Macron said on Sunday, speaking at a news conference during his visit to Chad. Earlier this week, Donald Trump announced his move to withdraw US troops from the country, citing the "defeat" of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). While the US president had promised to do this previously, the actual decision apparently caught many by surprise. To be allies is to fight shoulder to shoulder. It's the most important thing for a head of state and head of the military," Macron stated. "An ally should be reliable." While berating Trump, the French president also praised the outgoing US Secretary of Defense James Mattis and his resignation letter, in which he wrote about the importance of allies. "I want here to pay tribute to General Mattis and the comments that accompanied his decision, for a year we have seen how he was a reliable partner," Macron said. Paris will continue its operations in Syria, the president stated, reaffirming French support for the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) militia. French troops, believed to be quite low in number, remain in Syria without any mandate – just like the American ones – and are effectively occupying territories of a sovereign state. 'France won't be able to hide behind US anymore' Macron's reaction to Trump's move was not unexpected, since Paris needs the US presence to remain in the region itself. It is trying to appear as an independent player, global affairs analyst and founder of the 21st Century Wire Patrick Henningsen believes. "On the one hand Macron is wanting to show France as an independent state actor with its own independent decision-making capabilities, especially with regards to security," Henningsen said. "But the reality here is he wants the US to stay on side with the so-called coalition effort in the Middle East." The US withdrawal from Syria leaves its minor partners exposed "not just militarily, but diplomatically," as it would become quite hard for them to explain to their domestic audiences what exactly they are doing in Syria. "What Macron is doing, is in fact, the covering for the clandestine operation that is many years down the road, I think six or seven years for France – the clandestine operation to destabilize Syria," Henningsen said, adding that the "regime change" in Syria has been on the agenda of a whole set of countries for years now. "If the coalition breaks up – in other words, if the US leaves Syria, then it leaves France exposed to more scrutiny. Before this, they've been able to hide by the wing of the United States, so has Britain. So the US pulling out of Syria, out of an illegal occupation of northeastern Syria, does leave its other coalition partners exposed." The major part of the "so-called anti-ISIS coalition" members have contributed virtually nothing to the fight, while local forces – Iraqi and Syrian governments, alongside their allies – carried the main burden. The US pullout might ultimately spell the end to the whole coalition, Henningsen warned. "The so-called anti-ISIS coalition comprises [some] 70 countries. Very few of those countries have done anything to fight or defeat ISIS, other than symbolic gestures or flying sorties," he said. "The US has been the glue, holding this coalition together, and if it leaves, the coalition will effectively become fragmented and no longer tangible from an operational standpoint. https://www.rt.com/news/447265-macron-criticizes-syria-withdrawl/
  9. Mainstream media on Gaza: Israelis get killed, but Palestinians merely ‘die’ After a Twitter backlash, the Guardian was forced to amend a brazenly propagandized headline which sought to undermine the basic rights of Palestinians and elevate Israeli soldiers to levels previously thought unimaginable. “We remain editorially independent, our journalism free from commercial bias and our reporting open and accessible to all,” reads an advertisement on the Guardian UK’s online newspaper when you click on a recent story. “Imagine what we could continue to achieve with the support of many more of you. Together we can be a force for change.” The article in question that I clicked on is a recent story entitled “Eight dead in undercover Israeli operation in Gaza.” According to the opening paragraph of the report, Israeli forces killed seven Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in an “apparently botched undercover raid and ensuring firefight.” Sounds fairly straightforward, right? Just another day in Gaza, where Palestinians and Israelis alike find themselves in the line of fire, with the number of dead Palestinians outnumbering those on the Israeli side. However, this wasn’t the only title the Guardian had previously given this same story. The original title was a poorly crafted “Israeli officer killed during raid in which seven Palestinians died.” You see, prior to the title’s amendment, the Israeli officer was “killed” during the raid, yet the Palestinians (who were killed by the way) merely died. The Israeli officer was killed by the Palestinians, but the seven Palestinians died from some unknown cause. This is a clever yet obvious play on the English language, whereby the deaths of the seven Palestinians are brought about passively, whereas the Israeli officer is actively killed by his aggressor. In actuality, the perpetrator of the raid is the person bringing about the violence. The Palestinians who react in response are not, in any normal sense of the word, the perpetrators of the violence in question. Furthermore, the Israeli officer is the one that is highlighted by the title, whereas the lesser deaths of the Palestinians are brought about as a side note. The Guardian explains in the text of its report that seven Palestinians are dead, but the identities of those Palestinians are not highlighted. If they were militants, why not say so? If they are not militants, are they in fact civilians? If they are civilians, why is the Israeli officer highlighted first in the title, and not the tragedy of the seven civilian deaths? If they are militants, why are they given a lesser status than the Israeli officer? Well, as far as we know, two of those killed (I mean, died) were Hamas commanders. The rest of the deceased were aged between 19 and 25. Of course, the Guardian will no longer have to worry about answering those questions as it wasted no time in changing its headline in the wake of what can only be described as a viral Twitter frenzy. The UK-based Canary described it as the “Guardian headline on Palestine that’s shaming the entire field of journalism.” If they had been allowed to get away with this shoddy piece of journalism, one could still argue that it is just a title and we should not spend our time fussing and feuding over the intricate wording of titles. After all, what matters to a story and its journalistic integrity is its content, right? Anyone who knows and understands anything about modern journalism and propaganda know this to be complete nonsense. Firstly, a study by the Media Insight Project, an initiative of the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute found that over half of Americans surveyed were mere headline readers and nothing more. The effects of this painful reality go well beyond that of a resulting lazy populace. As explained by Maria Konnikova in the New Yorker: “Psychologists have long known that first impressions really do matter—what we see, hear, feel, or experience in our first encounter with something colors how we process the rest of it. Articles are no exception. And just as people can manage the impression that they make through their choice of attire, so, too, can the crafting of the headline subtly shift the perception of the text that follows. By drawing attention to certain details or facts, a headline can affect what existing knowledge is activated in your head. By its choice of phrasing, a headline can influence your mindset as you read so that you later recall details that coincide with what you were expecting.” In a series of studies, Ullrich Ecker, psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Western Australia, more or less confirmed this sad state of affairs. One of Ecker’s studies found that when matching headlines to photographs, if the headline diverged from the photo, the victim was rated more negatively by the respondents when the headline had been about the criminal; and the criminal was rated more positively when the headline had been about the victim. Starting to sound a little bit familiar? According to Konnikova, Ecker’s findings show that misinformation causes more damage when it’s subtle than when it is blatant. Say what you like about Fox News, but its blatant approach to lying makes it less of a threat in my mind than papers like the Guardian who advertise themselves as “editorially independent” and “free from commercial bias” as it deploys more subtle techniques to not only toe the establishment line, but to provide free public relations for states such as Israel, who regularly contravene international law in a variety of ways. Make no mistake, the Guardian editors knew what they were doing when they released this headline. It was not done by accident. This is a tried and true strategy in which Western media will paint the aggressors in a conflict as being passive players with little fault as possible – so long as those players are the US, UK or its close allies. For example, a March 2017 attack by US-led forces in Mosul, Iraq massacred over 200 civilians in a single bombardment. The reason this attack took place is primarily because Donald Trump relaxed the so-called Obama-era restrictions on air strikes, meaning that even Iraqi commanders could call in air strikes on the battlefield with little to no oversight. The result of this policy was of course, outright death and destruction, with over 9,000 civilians killed in Mosul alone. However, the US bombardment in March was framed by the establishment media in the kindest way possible for the US and its allies. As noted by FAIR’s (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) Ben Norton, ABC News went with the headline “US Reviewing Airstrike That Corresponds to Site Where 200 Iraqi Civilians Allegedly Died.” The LA Times ran with “US Acknowledges Airstrike in Mosul, Where More Than 200 Iraqi Civilians Died.” France 24 settled for “US-Led Coalition Confirms Strike on Mosul Site Where Civilians Died.” The best, of course, was the New York Times, which managed to concoct the following headline: “US Concedes It Played a Role in Iraqi Deaths.” Remember, this is the same US who “played a role” in over one million “Iraqi deaths,” but that is a topic for another story. Conversely, if the alleged perpetrator of violence is in the handful of countries deemed to be enemies of Western society by the mainstream media (think Iran, Syria, Russia, or North Korea), they are portrayed as menacingly evil and bloodthirsty with no logic or context to their actions. These countries “pound” their victims, for example. Even when the alleged acts cannot be proven at all, such as highly questionable chemical weapons attacks that are immediately pinned on the Syrian government with little to no evidence of Syrian government involvement, Syria’s president is condemned by all forms of Western media in the strongest terms imaginable. You see, the victims of attacks carried out by the US, UK, and its allies and lackey states such as Israel aren’t killed, they merely die at the scene. If anything, they were in the way of the magical freedom bombs that we and our allies have been trying to spread around the Middle East for years. But those victims who are purportedly killed by countries who have been targeted for regime change, they were tragically murdered by brutal forces. The jihadists fighting against these forces with known ties to al-Qaeda are mere rebels fighting for their freedom, but militants fighting against government forces in Gaza or in Yemen are terrorists who kill noble Israeli soldiers while dying in the crossfire by accident. While we are on the topic, an honourable mention of course has to go to the New York Times, who once felt that it was justified to describe the plight of a young Yemeni girl who had her entire family wiped out in a Saudi-led airstrike with the headline: “Young Yemeni Girl Is Sole Survivor After Airstrike Topples Her Home.” Thank God – at least it only toppled her home, as air strikes are known to do much worse if they belong to an adversarial state. This is shameful propaganda, plain and simple. The Guardian was once heralded as a beacon of journalistic integrity, but it has long given up that status and decided it will go out of its way to perpetuate establishment narratives that benefit, for example, even the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Despite this, the fact the Guardian amended its headline and deleted its original tweet can still be seen as somewhat of a partial victory. While I don’t expect many of us who spoke out to continue to keep our Twitter privileges for much longer, the end result was totally worth it and I hope more people can continue to speak out as we fight back against warmongering establishment narratives. YELLOW JOURNALISM
  10. “There has been an attempt to reformat the region, to impose an outside model on it, either through regime change, or outright use of force. Instead of fighting extremism, instead of imitating such a fight, some of our peers want chaos to become a permanent state of affairs.” (Vladmir Putin) Valdai Discussion Club, October 2017
  11. Aabiss_Shakari

    Why does everyone hate me?

    "Trust and expect only from Allah and none else"
  12. Allying against Iran: US is creating Arab NATO While the US envisages a new military alliance as a tool to counter potential threats from Iran towards the Gulf monarchies and the Middle East, there are a number of obstacles in the way of creating an Arab military bloc. According to Defense News, an Arab NATO would consist of six Gulf states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, plus Egypt and Jordan. The commander of the Royal Bahraini Air Force, Maj. Gen. al-Khalifah, said that this is an American idea which was approved by the Arab Gulf countries, "but didn't take shape yet." He expects this alliance to be successful, although "we are still at the beginning." Back in October, the Bahraini foreign minister said that the Gulf security alliance could be formed by next year. Defense News sees at least one sign of progress there, as the Gulf countries are already involved in the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen that fights against Houthi rebels, mainly by carrying out airstrikes. "We have been sharing information between coalition fighters all along the operations [in Yemen], and we have been training alongside with the Gulf countries through joint exercises, and this enhances our capabilities," al-Khalifah said. Incompatible with Iran On the other hand, there are clear and tangible challenges on the way to creating this new military alliance, not least of them being the issues of interoperability. All the potential members operate different types of weapons and military equipment: the Egyptian Air Force operates the Russian MIG and the American F-16, while the Saudi Air Force has the American F-15SA and the European Eurofighter Typhoon, and the UAE is equipped with the F-16 and the French Mirage. But the issue of interoperability is not the only impediment for creating an Arab NATO as the relations between Qatar and other Gulf countries have not been fully restored since 2017 when Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain cut ties with Qatar. All eight potential members of the new military alliance have concerns related to Iran and Iranian-backed armed groups operating in numerous countries across the Middle East. "Iran continues to cause risks to other nations and act as a destabilizing agent across this region. They aim to disrupt the balance of power and place at risk the livelihood of citizens," Commander of the US Air Forces Central Command Lt. General Joseph Guastella said during the 2nd Manama Airpower Symposium. According to Guastella, the experience of setting up and operating NATO itself could prove useful in establishing an Arab version of the alliance: "There is value in looking at what NATO has been able to do and the successes of an alliance that has guaranteed essentially stability for the region there for decades." Adding America and Israel into the mix "People have been talking about an Arab NATO for several years now," said Vladimir Sazhin, Senior Researcher at the Middle East Department of the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. According to him, there are plans to get Israel to participate in the alliance that would bring together six monarchies of the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and Jordan. However, instead of becoming a full-fledged member of the Arab NATO, Israel would supply intelligence to the alliance. The US is expected to participate in a similar manner, providing all the necessary resources without officially joining the organization. "The idea to call it an 'Arab NATO' is something journalists came up with. In all of the relevant areas, this potential new alliance will be very much inferior to NATO. I don't believe that it will ever reach the level of NATO," said Sazhin. According to him, even if the bloc is ever established, it is unlikely to resemble NATO at all. There may be some formal organizational structures established, but there are serious doubts regarding their effectiveness and efficiency. Ultimately, all we see is propaganda and media noise, and not much actual progress, Sazhin said. Just how capable the Gulf monarchies are in terms of setting up a united front against Iran remains to be seen. "I very much doubt they would go through with this without the support of other countries. There is a very broad range of attitudes towards Iran among the Gulf states," Sazhin stressed. On one end of the spectrum, there is Saudi Arabia, on the other – countries like Qatar and Oman. The last two are not particularly anti-Iran. As for economic relations, the United Arab Emirates have very close ties with Iran. Tehran's relationship with Abu Dhabi provides it an opportunity to evade US financial and economic sanctions, the expert stated "I think that if there were an Arab military organization then it would most likely be lacking in efficiency and decision-making, but would be very active publicity-wise," Vladimir Sazhin said. "A summit with US President Donald Trump and monarchs of the Gulf countries was expected to take place back in autumn this year in the United States. It was believed that the main topic on the agenda would be the creation of a strategic Middle East alliance that experts already call an Arab NATO for the sake of simplicity," Elena Suponina, adviser to the director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, said. That summit was postponed until the first half of 2019. One of the reasons was the scandal around the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi political analyst. It created an atmosphere that compelled the US to refrain from any discussions regarding strategic cooperation. According to Suponina, that is not the only obstacle that stands in the way of creating such an organization. Firstly, relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar are somewhat clouded; secondly, there is still too much turbulence in the region. The plans are in place, but it would be very difficult for the Americans to make them come true, Suponina believes. Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that the US is not giving up on these plans since in the upcoming years the main goal of the US in the region will be to contain Iran. This is exactly why America pursues the creation of, if not a full-fledged military organization, then at least something very close to it. Even that kind of alliance would be very useful for the US, the expert thinks. "Donald Trump's idea is to form an Arab NATO that would include Arabian monarchies and – by a long stretch of the imagination – Israel. This idea may sound benevolent, but so do many other plans that are not meant to happen," Evgeny Satanovsky, president of the Institute for Middle East Studies, said. Satanovsky believes that the new military alliance is meant to zero in on Iran. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia wants to establish that alliance. However, it is very unlikely that the US will succeed in convincing Israel to join the club. Israeli society will never accept that offer. There is zero chance that an Arab NATO will become a reality, he said, adding that Israel doesn't really need any military help from the Arab countries to fight Iran. The Arab armies do not constitute any significant military power nor they are organized enough to be a force others can rely on if it comes to that. For the Arab countries, it is absolutely out of the question to be part of the same military alliance with Israel due to the kind of narrative that permeates their societies. The State Department and the White House – unsurprisingly – do not understand this, Satanovsky claims. It is absolutely clear that Saudi Arabia seeks to create an Arab or Islamic military alliance and to be at the helm. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has already damaged relations with Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, cut relations with Qatar, and raised tensions between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – all in pursuit of this goal. ARAB NATO
  13. Israeli defense minister met with Syrian rebels, former IDF commander reveals in a first In a bombshell admission, a former senior Israeli commander has said that former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon personally met with Syrian rebels at the height of the Syrian war. Maj. Gen. Gershon Hacohen was speaking at an Israeli Democracy Institute conference when he made a stunning claim – Ya'alon, who was Israel's chief of defense from 2013 to May 2016, held a meeting with a group of Syrian rebels during his tenure. Hacohen, who was Israeli Defence Forces Staff Corps Commander before retiring in September 2014, said that he was also present at the never-before-reported meet-up. Hacohen refused to specify when the meeting took place and or the subject matter of the discussions. He, however, offered a brief portrayal of his three Syrian 'counterparts,' saying that Ya'alon asked one if he was a Salafist because the minister "wanted to understand who they were." The rebel Ya'alon addressed was apparently somewhat perturbed by the prospect of cooperation with Israel. "He [Ya'alon] asked one of them, 'Tell me, are you a Salafist?' And he said, 'I really don't know what a Salafist is. If it means that I pray more, then yes. Once I would pray once a week, on Fridays, now I pray five times a day. On the other hand, a Salafist isn't meant to cooperate with the Zionists," Haaretz reported, citing Hacohen's recollection of the meeting. Following Hacohen's revelation, the Jerusalem Post reported, citing its own sources, that the meeting did indeed take place and that the main topic on the agenda was “humanitarian assistance.” The JP's sources said the outcome of the talks was an agreement on humanitarian aid deliveries to the residents of the Syrian part of the Golan Heights. The effort, which reportedly started as a one-time goodwill gesture, expanded to become Operation Good Neighbor, which formally inaugurated its headquarters in June 2016. Since then, Israel has been openly assisting the rebels, but insists that its assistance is strictly humanitarian and includes treating wounded militants and their families, supplying them with fuel, medicine, food, clothing and other essential products. The operation was reportedly wrapped up this week after Syrian forces retook control over the Golan Heights from the rebels. However, numerous reports have suggested that Israel's support of the rebels is not as benign as Tel Aviv seeks to portray. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that the alleged humanitarian assistance, that had begun as early as 2013, included cash payments to rebel commanders who, in turn, used the money to pay militants' salaries and buy weapons and equipment. It was reported that one group received a monthly allowance of some $5,000 from the Israeli military. The handouts were conditional upon the rebels' ability to keep Hezbollah, which Israel sees as Iran's proxies, away from the border. Earlier this year, the Jerusalem Post was forced to hastily remove an explosive report on the IDF’s admission that it provided Syrian rebels with light weapons. The managing editor of the newspaper told RT in September that the story was taken down for "for security reasons evidently," while the IDF declined to comment on the issue. ISRAEL DEFENSE MINISTER MET SYRIAN REBELS
  14. Just read a good article. Thought to share with you. US directs Iran to act like a ‘normal’ country. What is a normal country? After reimposing crippling sanctions on Iran this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened that Iran should “act like a normal country, or see its economy crumble.” But, how exactly does a ‘normal’ country act? Since the dictat was issued from Washington DC, it seems only fair to start there. Is the United States itself a ‘normal’ country? What makes a ‘normal’ country as opposed to an ‘abnormal’ one? Foreign Policy If the US is indeed a 'normal' country, there is a lot we can glean from that, including that a militaristic and bullying foreign policy, which regularly features bombings, invasions and the sponsorship of regime change operations around the world, is normal behavior. If this is normal, is Mike Pompeo suggesting that Iran should start invading its neighbors and engineering foreign coups? The ideology of ‘American exceptionalism’, the belief that the US is inherently good and unique among nations, is so pervasive in American society and media, that any politician who does not strictly adhere to it will find themselves labeled as un-American or unpatriotic. American exceptionalism also makes it ‘normal’, celebrated even, for the US government to spend more than $650 billion on the military every year - more than the next seven countries combined. Pompeo himself is a strict adherent to this ideology, recently discussing the “essential rightness” of the US in global affairs. But hey, one man’s normal is another man’s imperialist militarism. Crime The US regularly issues travel advisories to citizens traveling to other countries, warning them about crime rates, instances of political violence etc., but what ratings the US get if other countries were dishing them out as frequently? There have been over 300 mass shootings in the US in 2018 alone. That’s nearly one mass shooting every day so far this year (we’re on day 311). These shootings have become so ‘normal’ that there’s a website which does nothing but track them as they happen. There were 11,000 gun-related deaths in 2016 and statistics show that Americans are twice as likely to die from gun violence than they are to die while riding inside a car, truck, or van, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Police brutality Police in the US shot dead 987 people last year. By contrast, German police shot dead 14 people in the same year. Germany’s population is four times smaller, but if it matched that of the US, only 56 people would have been killed at this rate. In the US, statistics also show that black men are shot at disproportionately high rates compared to the rest of the population. In fact, black men (armed and unarmed) made up 22 percent of the total number of people killed by police in 2017 - but they make up just six percent of the population. Harrowing videos have shown police shoot unarmed black men in the back as they attempted to run away or choking them to death for selling untaxed cigarettes. Yet, rarely do police face trial for these shootings - and fewer still are convicted. Maybe that’s what Pompeo means by ‘normal’? Healthcare Americans spent roughly $3.4 trillion on health care in 2017, which would work out at about $10,350 per person if you divided it equally. That number is twice what any other developed country spends - and yet, the system is so inefficient and broken that there are still about 30 million Americans without health insurance. Some of them are forced to choose between buying food or buying medication because the costs of prescription drugs are so high. It’s estimated that 45,000 Americans die every year simply because they can’t afford health cover. Is that how things work in a ‘normal’ country? It is also the only developed country that does not provide maternity leave. Education Receiving a good college education in the US can be an expensive affair. So expensive in fact, that students often end up saddled with debt for decades. Americans currently owe $1.5 trillion in student loan debt. Meanwhile, public education is so underfunded in the US that some schools are falling apart. One study found that 94 percent of US public school teachers use their own paychecks to buy essential supplies for their classrooms due to underfunding. In April, Oklahoma teachers went on a nine-day strike complaining that their low wages won’t allow them to make ends meet. During the walkout, pictures of falling-apart textbooks were posted online, prompting one student to admit she “didn’t realize that people had textbooks with covers on them.” Anything can become normal when you get used to it. USA DIRECTS IRAN TO ACT LIKE A "NORMAL" COUNTRY
  15. Aabiss_Shakari

    Suggest Boy name. Born on 1st of Muharram

    Muhammad Wali Abbas
×