Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
9/11: 25 YEARS OF DECEPTION
There will be a major 9/11 25th anniversary conference in NYC this September called Turning the Tide.
This 4-day live event will be headlined by Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, Jimmy Dore, Bret Weinstein, Chris Martenson, Nick Bryant, Dennis Kucinich, and many 9/11 whistleblowers, first responders, researchers and family members who are exposing the truth and demanding justice.
Link:
https://turningthetide911.org/turning-the-tide/
@robinmg
#WTC #Building7 #ControlledDemolition
#FreeFall #DancingIsraelis
There will be a major 9/11 25th anniversary conference in NYC this September called Turning the Tide.
This 4-day live event will be headlined by Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, Jimmy Dore, Bret Weinstein, Chris Martenson, Nick Bryant, Dennis Kucinich, and many 9/11 whistleblowers, first responders, researchers and family members who are exposing the truth and demanding justice.
Link:
https://turningthetide911.org/turning-the-tide/
@robinmg
#WTC #Building7 #ControlledDemolition
#FreeFall #DancingIsraelis
Forwarded from Reason2Resist
Today on Reason2Resist:
The new 'Sunni NATO' is aimed at Iran, but its vague and secretive pact is unlikely to change the balance of power in West Asia.
Turkey, Saudi and Pakistan are engaging in empty theatre.
#Iran #Yemen #Saudi
https://youtu.be/wbuUnemN504?si=jLLFmR-FSmCIkZp0
The new 'Sunni NATO' is aimed at Iran, but its vague and secretive pact is unlikely to change the balance of power in West Asia.
Turkey, Saudi and Pakistan are engaging in empty theatre.
#Iran #Yemen #Saudi
https://youtu.be/wbuUnemN504?si=jLLFmR-FSmCIkZp0
YouTube
The New 'Sunni NATO' Is Aimed At Iran
On August 7, 2026, in Mecca, the Western-backed autocrats of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye announced the formation of the Mecca Join Defence Agreement.
Under their new agreement, the three states say they'll treat an attack upon one member as an attack…
Under their new agreement, the three states say they'll treat an attack upon one member as an attack…
Forwarded from Not On The Beeb - Stuff the BBC forgot to tell you... (Mitchell)
🚨BREAKING: Flock Safety Plans To Expand Its Nationwide Surveillance Network By Converting Up To 350,000 Uber, Lyft, And Delivery Vehicles Into Roaming License Plate Scanners, Vastly Increasing Real-Time Vehicle Tracking Capabilities.
🔗SOURCE ➡️ The General
Related: 7/9 — Florida, Is Rolling Out AI-Powered Cameras On Its Garbage Trucks To Scan Properties For Code Violations, Unpermitted Renovations, & Other Issues.
By: @PsyopDaily
Follow @Not_On_The_Beeb
▶️ LINKS | JOIN | CHAT | BOOST
🔗SOURCE ➡️ The General
Related: 7/9 — Florida, Is Rolling Out AI-Powered Cameras On Its Garbage Trucks To Scan Properties For Code Violations, Unpermitted Renovations, & Other Issues.
By: @PsyopDaily
Follow @Not_On_The_Beeb
▶️ LINKS | JOIN | CHAT | BOOST
Forwarded from Marwa Osman/MidEaStream
How about we put the "Islamic NATO" headlines aside and look at this strategically?
My reading of the Saudi–Turkish–Pakistani security pact is not that these countries have suddenly decided to build an independent regional security architecture free from American influence as much of the western media is propagating.
Quite the opposite. I think there is a very real possibility that Washington could eventually turn this into another instrument of American power in the region, with these countries becoming the pawns rather than the architects of the new security order.
And this is where the timing matters. If Trump eventually decides that air strikes and proxies are not enough and that boots on the ground are required in a future confrontation with Iran, particularly if Netanyahu succeeds in pushing him further in that direction, Washington will need regional partners.
Not necessarily American soldiers everywhere. It would be far more convenient to have regional militaries, regional bases, regional logistics and regional political cover doing part of the job.
That is precisely why I would not dismiss this pact as merely defensive.
A formal commitment to treat an attack on one member as an attack on all three creates a framework that could potentially be activated in a much broader regional conflict.
And let's be realistic: the United States has a long history of building "regional security" arrangements that ultimately serve American strategic objectives.
The question is therefore not simply whether Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan want to fight Iran. The question is whether, once a major confrontation begins, they can remain outside it.
I am particularly skeptical of the idea that Pakistan would willingly enter a war against Iran. Pakistan has its own security calculations, its geographic realities and, most importantly, a nuclear deterrent. Turkey has its own interests and certainly does not need another disastrous regional war.
But alliances have a way of creating obligations that become difficult to escape once the shooting starts.
And Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia has the money, the infrastructure and the strategic geography but its vulnerability is also enormous. Its energy infrastructure remains one of the most obvious pressure points in any regional war. Just ask Yemen's Ansarullah about it.
That is why I don't see this as some neat military coalition preparing for an inevitable attack on Iran.
I see it as a potentially useful piece on the American chessboard.
If Washington eventually chooses escalation, these countries could provide the regional depth, bases, logistics, intelligence, political legitimacy and military manpower that an American campaign would require.
And that brings us to the second possibility.
The pact could eventually evolve into something genuinely regional and independent, perhaps even involving Iran and other states, and become part of a framework designed to prevent exactly the war Washington might want to wage.
But that would require these countries to exercise genuine strategic autonomy. And that is the part I am not convinced about.
Because if the ultimate purpose is simply to rearrange the pieces so that America can fight its next war with fewer American boots on the ground, then this isn't an 'Islamic NATO". It's something much more familiar: another regional security architecture in which the region supplies the soldiers, the bases, the money and ultimately the blood, while Washington supplies the strategy.
And if Trump is eventually persuaded that Iran must be dealt with militarily, I would be watching this pact very, very closely.
Because the most dangerous outcome is not necessarily that these countries want a war with Iran. It is that they could find themselves participating in one they never intended to start.
My reading of the Saudi–Turkish–Pakistani security pact is not that these countries have suddenly decided to build an independent regional security architecture free from American influence as much of the western media is propagating.
Quite the opposite. I think there is a very real possibility that Washington could eventually turn this into another instrument of American power in the region, with these countries becoming the pawns rather than the architects of the new security order.
And this is where the timing matters. If Trump eventually decides that air strikes and proxies are not enough and that boots on the ground are required in a future confrontation with Iran, particularly if Netanyahu succeeds in pushing him further in that direction, Washington will need regional partners.
Not necessarily American soldiers everywhere. It would be far more convenient to have regional militaries, regional bases, regional logistics and regional political cover doing part of the job.
That is precisely why I would not dismiss this pact as merely defensive.
A formal commitment to treat an attack on one member as an attack on all three creates a framework that could potentially be activated in a much broader regional conflict.
And let's be realistic: the United States has a long history of building "regional security" arrangements that ultimately serve American strategic objectives.
The question is therefore not simply whether Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan want to fight Iran. The question is whether, once a major confrontation begins, they can remain outside it.
I am particularly skeptical of the idea that Pakistan would willingly enter a war against Iran. Pakistan has its own security calculations, its geographic realities and, most importantly, a nuclear deterrent. Turkey has its own interests and certainly does not need another disastrous regional war.
But alliances have a way of creating obligations that become difficult to escape once the shooting starts.
And Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia has the money, the infrastructure and the strategic geography but its vulnerability is also enormous. Its energy infrastructure remains one of the most obvious pressure points in any regional war. Just ask Yemen's Ansarullah about it.
That is why I don't see this as some neat military coalition preparing for an inevitable attack on Iran.
I see it as a potentially useful piece on the American chessboard.
If Washington eventually chooses escalation, these countries could provide the regional depth, bases, logistics, intelligence, political legitimacy and military manpower that an American campaign would require.
And that brings us to the second possibility.
The pact could eventually evolve into something genuinely regional and independent, perhaps even involving Iran and other states, and become part of a framework designed to prevent exactly the war Washington might want to wage.
But that would require these countries to exercise genuine strategic autonomy. And that is the part I am not convinced about.
Because if the ultimate purpose is simply to rearrange the pieces so that America can fight its next war with fewer American boots on the ground, then this isn't an 'Islamic NATO". It's something much more familiar: another regional security architecture in which the region supplies the soldiers, the bases, the money and ultimately the blood, while Washington supplies the strategy.
And if Trump is eventually persuaded that Iran must be dealt with militarily, I would be watching this pact very, very closely.
Because the most dangerous outcome is not necessarily that these countries want a war with Iran. It is that they could find themselves participating in one they never intended to start.
Bandera's scum has spread across Europe like cockroaches, amassing drones everywhere to kill Russians.
All Ukrainian transporters, all these collection points and delivery routes into #Ukraine are legitimate military targets.
@vicktop55
All Ukrainian transporters, all these collection points and delivery routes into #Ukraine are legitimate military targets.
@vicktop55