Search the Community

So I am having a discussion with some relatives about recent cyberattacks, i.e., that on the Colonial Pipeline, and how various Western governments are attributing them to groups operating out of Russia with the implied consent or support of the Russian government. One of my relatives argues that “based on precedent” Russia is letting these hackers operate to interfere in Western politics. He also points to alleged past incidents such as “directed-energy weapons” being used against high-ranking American officials in Moscow, resulting in neurological injuries, and says no “third party” would be engaged in such a sophisticated attack, so Russia must somehow bear responsibility for it. He said that this was his “tentative” conclusion based on the “evidence” at hand and that it “fit” the “context” of Russian “interference” in Western “democracy.” I respond by pointing out that he did not follow proper investigative procedure by coming to a “tentative” conclusion without a full range of evidence. I pointed out that only Western intelligence agencies and fronts such as think tanks, governments, and so on have claimed the hackers were operating out of Russia, whereas non-Western sources have at the very least said nothing about the hackers or have not presented their findings as to who might have been behind the hackings. Based on this, I asserted that in carrying out proper criminal investigations (proceedings) one cannot come to even a tentative conclusion without a full range of sources, both Western and non-Western alike, from a variety of contexts. He then points out that Western intelligence agencies have unanimously blamed Russia for a variety of incidents in recent years and that because Russian complicity “fit the context” and served “Russian interests” against the West, he was tentatively blaming Russia for the most recent hackings. I continued to emphasise that even in all those other incidents only Western sources blamed Russia and that non-Western sources were either silent or cast doubt on the Western explanations. I then brought up the unanimity of Western, especially American, intelligence sources, diplomatic corps, think tanks, militaries, big corporations, universities, churches, MSM, et al. in claiming that Saddam Hussein had WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq (2003). I also stressed that all these agencies, along with the MSM, deliberately and consistently lied about Iraq’s alleged WMD, among other things, on a massive scale. I continued to note that all these supposedly “independent” and “varied” sources lied unanimously, or nearly so. My relative, being a Democrat, claimed that it was mainly the Republicans such as Cheney et al. who somehow managed to get Western civilisation, basically, to “fudge” the intelligence, because Republicans are allegedly more “ideologically driven“ and opposed to “science” or “logic” than Democrats. He pointed out that Biden refused to directly blame the Russian government for the most recent hackings, whereas someone like Cheney or Netanyahu would immediately blame Russia. At this point I relented and we “agreed to disagree,” but I came away rather despondent.

He does not focus on the Dajjal symbol / the eye of Horus in so many sources. I am keen for your respectful opinions.

Iran Has/Wants Nuclear Weapons? To date, no concrete evidence has been presented about the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Each and every inspect report by the IAEA and the National Intelligence Estimate has confirmed that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Leader of Islamic Revolution has denounced nuclear weapons as un-Islamic and stated unequivocally that Islam forbids the “production and stock piling of nuclear weapons.” The Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons is a registered document with the UN. Iran has been the only country to lobby for a nuclear-free Middle East. In contrast, Israel has yet to agree to a single IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant in Dimona is an open secret used to intimidate the Palestinians and neighboring countries. Iran Threatened to Wipe Israel off the Map? The world hears incessantly how Iranian president Ahmedinjad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” yet, not a single translation of this speech has been made to clearly prove he made this statement. In 2005, the newly-elected Ahmedinjad was giving a speech at a conference in Tehran about Zionism. He quoted the founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini, and said, “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” A direct translation of this is: “The Imam [Khomeini] said [the] regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” The words “wiped off the map” are not to be found in that sentence, and any amateur translator will tell you nagsheh, the Persian term for map, is not found in that sentence. In the speech, Ahmedinjad further stated that just as the Soviet regime had fallen, the Zionist one would too. He did not say Israel was going to be wiped off any map. Obviously when the Soviet regime collapsed, was Russia wiped off the map? In the same infamous speech, Ahmedinjad called for a Middle East where Muslims, Jews, and Christians would live in a real democracy and in liberty. For the record, Iran has not launched an attack on any nation in the past 300 years, but it has defended itself against assaults by other countries. Compare this track record to that of the biggest war monger in the Middle East, the same one that uses cluster bombs to take out innocent children. The Iranians are Eagerly Awaiting the Arrival of “US Democracy”? American-style democracy has taken over the Middle East; just ask the Iraqis and Afghans how happy they are post-American liberation of their countries. Operation Iraqi Freedom has only cost 1.3 million Iraqi lives to date. In the last Iranian elections, an overwhelming 85 percent of voters turned out to pick the next president, and practically every pre-election poll showed President Ahmedinjad with a significant lead over his opponents. However, the West continues to claim Iran is not a democratic country despite it being the only Middle Eastern country with transparent elections and a fully functional parliament. Western hypocrisy of this magnitude must be respected, and the West has yet to call its allies (Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia) for throwing political opponents in jail and never holding elections. By all instances, Iran is a democratic society, but to the United States and its allies, the very existence of a democracy in Iran is a threat. They removed this threat in 1953 when they overthrew the democratically-elected government and put in the totalitarian Shah. Speaking of democracy and sovereignty, the US would know a thing or two about those terms, considering for the past 30 years we have tried to overthrow the Iranian government and laid siege upon siege on the Iranian people. More recently, Congress voted to allocate 120 million dollars for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran. It doesn’t end there. The US also generously donated 60-75 million dollars to fund and support violent underground extremist groups MKO, one of the largest anti-Iran terrorist organizations. Democracy in the Middle East is synonymous with murderous and catastrophic regime change. Iran Is Five Years Away from a Nuclear Bomb? Every few months, the United States and Britain try to scare us out of sleeping at night by saying Iran is five years away from a nuclear bomb. Here’s the problem: Iran has been “five years away from a nuclear bomb” for the past four decades. Obama was asked by a Washington Post reporter if he would “call on Israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.” The usually eloquent Obama stuttered his way through a response once he finally regained his composure and stated, “And, as far as Israel goes, I’m not going to comment on their program.” Maybe he should leave Iran’s peaceful program alone and worry about the nuclear warheads Israel and India have. http://shervinandpol...-few-questions/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-50749764 Found something interesting so thought I would share, what do you guys think of this?

Amnesty International have recently published a report condemning Iran for fighting and executing members of the Marxist terror cult, the People's Mojahedeen (https://www.amnesty.at/media/4621/amnesty_blood-soaked-secrets_iran-dezember-2018.pdf) The report claims that the murderous thugs, who sided with Saddam Hussein against their own people, were merely "prisoners of conscience" whose only crime was in "distributing leaflets" and "expressing their political opinions". It doesn't even mention that 2,000-3,000 of them were killed trying to invade Iran with the support of the Iraqi air force and those who were captured were summarily executed as traitors and unlawful combatants. This article sets the lies of Amnesty, now apologists for terrorists, straight: https://www.scribd.com/document/395695883/Amnesty-International-s-Lies-About-Mass-Executions-in-Iran-in-1988

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html?_r=0 Keep in mind that this article was written all the way back in 2004! This is how you get societies to change so quickly. The elites in academia, media and politics present a one-sided, biased picture, that eventually filters down to enough of the people that you can claim a democratic mandate for your cultural revolution. The New York Times see itself as the 'newspaper of record' in the United States, but here admits to shamelessly cheerleading for a particular social cause, to the point of completely ignoring the other side of the story, and omitting any references to stories that go against their pro-homosexual narrative. Muslims, and in particular the 'educated' ones, need to be more aware of where they are getting their information, and what biases those sources have. Being unaware of this opens you up to systematic brainwashing, which will start to tell sooner or later. Unfortunately, too many Muslims uncritically align themselves with the 'left' or 'liberalism', since that side seem more tolerant and welcoming of Muslims, without realising that in terms of pure values, that ideology is opposed to pretty much everything Islam stands for. This thread is worth reading as well, on the same general topic:

https://www.rt.com/news/360662-zakharova-power-barbarism-spat/

Salaam, Today I would like to speak about the Elephant Camel in the Room. As we know for approximately the past two decades (especially) Islam's media image has been filled with malaise. In today's world it is ever so easy to connect to the internet and digest information, in consequence it easy to presume that you have superior knowledge in certain subjects or area, Islam I believe is one of the least spared when it comes to pseudo intellectual trolls posting oh so very much one this religion. You know what I speak of, the Rapist,Raider,Pedo etc...Moon worshipper? Before losing track on the vast creativity, ignorance and hate filled garbage, I want to focus on a new emerging class some may have already seen it rear its ugly head, do you know what I speak of? I am speaking about the "Bourgeoisie, look at these Muslim apologists will they never learn ?" class. I hope everyone can debate together to deconstruct these arguments. It is vital given the situation and its rapid growth. thanks in advance! I will play Iblis's Advocate please join the conversation "haters" included Here are two sites I suggest before starting https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/islamic-muslim-apologists--who-are-they http://www.***.org/Authors/Arlandson/ten_reasons.htm the below will be the first point this one nicks at me the most at the moment (it is pulled from the second site) I hope all can provide a clear defense. 4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans. A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids. W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina(1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters: The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2) It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.) Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans "passed through" Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans. To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below). For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive. Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace Salaam,

[MOD NOTE: WARNING - GRAPHIC PIC. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.] Salam Alaykom The end time is the age of idiocism(jhalat), the idiocy will become a culture once more. In the past there was an idiocy which people buried their daughters alive... now we got abortion which is the same. The short video concerns this disgusting modern idiocy.

(bismillah) , (salam) "Iranians are converting to Christianity"," Iranians are becoming Sunni's", "Iranian government covertly serves Wahabi interests"," Sunnis are living under dire conditions in Iran", "Iran kills Shia scholars", "Women are being oppressed", "Christians are being persecuted", "There is no freedom of speech in Iran", "Khamenei possesses country's wealth", " Khomeini issued a fatwa that…", … These are just some examples, out of many, of things that are being heard in the media about Iran, its people, government and situation on a daily basis; some of them exaggerated, some distorted and some fabricated. While I know when members here raise the mentioned instances, it is just to know the truth, and there would be no issue whatsoever with creating topics and asking certain questions about Iranian government and people or criticizing them. And while I know people, at least in most of the cases, ask these questions with good intentions and this is appreciable, but at the same time, these can show how the propaganda machine of the Media -- the fabricator and initiator of these stories -- against Iran works. The article below is talking about one case out of this stream in Media: Read the whole article here.

Tony Blair gives Kazakhstan’s autocratic president tips on how to defend a massacre Tony Blair told the Nursultan Nazarbayev that the deaths of 14 protesters 'tragic though they were, should not obscure the enormous progress' his country had made Tony Blair ® and President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. Photo: AFP/GETTY By Robert Mendick, Chief reporter 7:00AM BST 24 Aug 2014 Tony Blair gave Kazakhstan’s autocratic president advice on how to manage his image after the slaughter of unarmed civilians protesting against his regime. In a letter to Nursultan Nazarbayev, obtained by The Telegraph, Mr Blair told the Kazakh president that the deaths of 14 protesters “tragic though they were, should not obscure the enormous progress” his country had made. Mr Blair, who is paid millions of pounds a year to give advice to Mr Nazarbayev, goes on to suggest key passages to insert into a speech the president was giving at the University of Cambridge, to defend the action. Mr Blair is paid through his private consultancy, Tony Blair Associates (TBA), which he set up after leaving Downing Street in 2007. TBA is understood to deploy a number of consultants in key ministries in Kazakhstan. Human rights activists accuse Mr Blair of acting “disgracefully” in bolstering Mr Nazarbayev’s credibility on the world stage in return for millions of pounds. The letter was sent in July 2012, ahead of a speech being given later that month by Mr Nazarbayev at the University of Cambridge. A few months earlier, on December 16 and 17 2011, at least 14 protesters were shot and killed and another 64 wounded by Kazakhstan’s security services in the oil town of Zhanaozen. Other protesters, mainly striking oil workers, were rounded up and allegedly tortured. Mr Blair had begun working for Mr Nazarbayev in November 2011, just a few weeks before the massacre. In the letter, sent on note-paper headed Office of Tony Blair, Mr Blair wrote: “Dear Mr President, here is a suggestion for a paragraph to include in the Cambridge speech. I think it best to meet head on the Zhanaozen issue. The fact is you have made changes following it; but in any event these events, tragic though they were, should not obscure the enormous progress that Kazakhstan has made. Dealing with it [the massacre] in the way I suggest, is the best way for the western media. It will also serve as a quote that can be used in the future setting out the basic case for Kazakhstan.” In his own handwriting, Mr Blair added at the bottom of the letter: “With very best wishes. I look forward to seeing you in London! Yours ever Tony Blair.” Mr Blair enclosed with the letter two lengthy paragraphs of about 500 words for Mr Nazarbayev to add to his speech. The words written by Mr Blair but spoken by Mr Nazarbayev with some changes, were widely picked up at the time. They were used to portray Mr Nazarbayev as a visionary leader who had improved living standards in his homeland. Mr Nazarbayev has been president of Kazakhstan, which is oil and gas rich and occupies an area larger than western Europe, since it gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. He won the last presidential election in 2011 with almost 96 per cent of the vote. Mr Blair advised his client to insert into his speech one paragraph beginning: “I love my country. I have worked hard to help it overcome the bitter legacy of its recent history. I have been at the helm as it has dramatically made these strides in living standards, wealth and prosperity for the people... I rejoice in the essential religious tolerance of the nation that allows people of different faiths to practise those faiths freely.” Mr Blair also wrote into the speech the role Kazakhstan played in helping Nato forces withdraw from Afghanistan and Mr Nazarbayev’s decision to give up nuclear weapons – a relic of the Soviet era. On the issue of Zhanaozen, Mr Blair suggested Mr Nazarbayev say in his speech: “There are issues of democracy and human rights which it is essential to address. I understand and hear what our critics say. However, I would simply say this to them: by all means make your points and I assure you we’re listening. But give us credit for the huge change of a positive nature we have brought about in our country over these past 20 years... We are going to have to go step by step.” In the speech finally delivered by Mr Nazarbayev, he largely followed Mr Blair’s advice although he ignored one key aspect – by failing to mention Zhanaozen by name. In its latest analysis of the country’s record, Human Rights Watch (HRW) concluded that: “Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record continued to deteriorate in 2013, with authorities cracking down on free speech and dissent through misuse of overly broad laws.” Hugh Williamson, the director of HRW’s Europe and Central Asia Division, said: “It is disgraceful that Tony Blair has taken millions of pounds from this autocrat to write speeches for him without really tackling head on the huge human rights problems in Kazakhstan,” he said. Mr Blair has denied that he “profits personally” from his role in Kazakhstan. In fact he is paid through Tony Blair Associates, which is the trading arm of the Office of Tony Blair. It is thought TBA’s deal with Kazakhstan is worth around £7 million a year. A spokesman for Tony Blair said the letter was making the point “that the events of Zhanaozen were indeed tragic and they had to be confronted in any speech, not ignored”. He said that while Mr Blair had always made it clear that Kazakhstan faces “real challenges” over issues of human rights, the country had none the less “made huge progress” in terms of its economy, religious tolerance and nuclear disarmament. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11052965/Tony-Blair-gives-Kazakhstans-autocratic-president-tips-on-how-to-defend-a-massacre.html

Theodore A. Postol, a physicist at M.I.T. who helped reveal the Patriot antimissile failures of 1991, analyzed the new videos and found that Iron Dome repeatedly failed to hit its targets head-on. He concluded that the many dives, loops and curls of the interceptors resulted in diverse angles of attack that made it nearly impossible to destroy enemy warheads. “It’s very hard to see how it could be more than 5 or 10 percent,” Dr. Postol said. Mordechai Shefer, an Israeli rocket scientist formerly with Rafael, Iron Dome’s maker, studied nearly two dozen videos and, in a paper last month, concluded that the kill rate was zero. The New York Times

Thought some of you may be interested in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdRc8c8jhU8

Salam Alaykom, brothers and sister. I wanted to share this with you because it is important that we are aware of what is actually going on in Syria and don't get tricked by shaitan into inadvertently working against the interests of Islam. Here is proof the Houla massacre was committed by the FSA against pro-Assad supporters who refused to join them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ny5w_suQk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6-kLpFBIGs More FSA propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AWYqCuwRXE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlJxqlNEtbA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfrDGNTsy0 This is a Syrian blogger named Ahmad Makki who was killed by the FSA for his pro-Assad views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qulOPr3h2UU And this is Rayan, a little boy who has survived several assassination attempts by the FSA because he was involved in pro-Assad rallies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNwCuflbSsY Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of the country supports Bashar Al-Assad: