Yemen Civil War News and Discussion.. an evolving situation

One can only wonder why it was only persians who felt the need to write traditions and none of the Arabs produced a single traditions book.
Persia was urbanized and had an intellectual tradition dating back to pre Islamic times, it's only logical that a disproportional number of Islamic intellectuals of all walks of life were Persian.

It was the same in the Roman Empire - a lot of Roman intellectuals were Greeks.
 
It has everything to do with your beliefs.

The issue is not the Uncles of ALLAH’s Prophets. The issue is the “Ismat” of ALLAH’s Prophets.

Who told you that Abu Talib did not listen to the Prophet pbuh ?
The father of Cats ?

إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

You believe Imam ul Anbiya was feeding & drinking off Mushrikeen ( Nauzu BILLAH ) for years. Yet a common Muslim like me & you who indulges in sin 24/7 doesn’t eat from a Mushrik restaurant in Ireland & England.

لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِٱللَّٰهِ

The very essence of Islam is Karbala. It is the Zibhin Azeem. Why remove it ? who’d like to remove it ?

The issue is about the family, who is family and who is not. So that we are clear I believe Umar, Osman, Ali, Hassan and Hussain all were target assassinated by persians.

This whole discussion started with @Falgrine mentioning that Yazeed attacked Makkah, and all I asked was a simple question, why did he not attack Hussain in Makkah and why he waited for Hussain to reach Karbala? It is the same Yazeed so what changed?

For Hussain to be in Karbala on 10th of Moharram he has to leave Makkah one day before Hajj. The whole premise of parallel religion is proving Karbala happened.

Do you believe Hussain was married to a persian princess?
 
Persia was urbanized and had an intellectual tradition dating back to pre Islamic times, it's only logical that a disproportional number of Islamic intellectuals of all walks of life were Persian.

It was the same in the Roman Empire - a lot of Roman intellectuals were Greeks.

After almost 250 years of Messenger's departure from this world? If it were the persians who could write books for Muslims (both shiite and sunnis) then what were the Muslims in between those 250 years doing then?
 
Tabab al-Qal'a area south of Marib has fallen to the Yemeni Armed forces - The Marib theater axis.



The Houthis lost also today several places in the Jawf theater

Army and Resistance forces were able to take control just moments ago of the strategic Al-Jawf Junction in Marib from the Houthis, with coalition airstrikes on the runways and Hanishat in Nehm northeast of Sana´a

 
The issue is about the family, who is family and who is not. So that we are clear I believe Umar, Osman, Ali, Hassan and Hussain all were target assassinated by persians.

This whole discussion started with @Falgrine mentioning that Yazeed attacked Makkah, and all I asked was a simple question, why did he not attack Hussain in Makkah and why he waited for Hussain to reach Karbala? It is the same Yazeed so what changed?

For Hussain to be in Karbala on 10th of Moharram he has to leave Makkah one day before Hajj. The whole premise of parallel religion is proving Karbala happened.

Do you believe Hussain was married to a persian princess?
Find another thread to disprove the tragedy of Karbala and satiate ur salafist tendencies.
 


Article 1

The “Parties” shall cooperate to ensure and safeguard one another’s independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of their internationally recognised borders. If the territorial integrity, sovereignty, or internationally recognised borders of any of the “Parties” are threatened or endangered, the “Parties” shall use all necessary means to eliminate such threat(s) or danger(s).

Article 2

An externally originating armed attack against any of the “Parties” shall be considered an attack against all the “Parties.” If one of the “Parties” is subjected to an armed attack or military aggression by another country or group of countries, the “Parties” shall immediately assist the attacked “Party,” making full use of all means of mutual assistance that they can provide to one another. For this purpose, to enable the exercise of the right of self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, the “Parties” shall determine the scope and nature of the support to be provided following an objective assessment of the assistance required, and shall cooperate within the limits of their available resources, including military means and capabilities.

Article 3

Pursuant to Article 2 of this Agreement, the “Parties” shall cooperate closely in the fields of defence, defence industry, and security; develop relations among their Armed Forces; and carry out agreed activities aimed at strengthening cooperation in defence.

Article 4

The “Parties” shall hold regular consultations on international security matters. They shall continuously and effectively assist one another and cooperate in developing individual and joint measures based on common assessments, in order to protect their vital interests and national security and eliminate threats and dangers to their national security.

Article 5

The “Parties” shall strengthen existing cooperation and joint efforts, including at the operational level, in combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations that adversely affect regional and international stability and security.

Article 6

In wartime and peacetime, the “Parties” shall encourage reciprocal personnel exchanges among defence institutions, joint training programmes and exercises, and deployments and activities aimed at increasing the interoperability of the “Parties’” armed forces, in order to develop their defence capabilities.

Article 7

To strengthen their defence capabilities, the “Parties” shall, on the basis of mutual agreement, support technology sharing among defence-industry institutions, joint technology development, joint production, and cooperation among defence-industry organisations in the following areas:
a) Encouraging joint production in the field of defence;
b) Implementing defence innovation through joint research and development projects in technologies requiring specialised expertise;
c) Training personnel and supporting the military industry within the territories of the “Parties” through experts from any “Party”;
d) Sharing expertise and lessons learned in the fields of defence industry, defence research and development, and innovation;
e) Other areas of cooperation mutually agreed upon by the “Parties”.


Article 8
1. The “Core Parties” shall establish a “Strategic Political and Defence Committee”, comprising the Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers, and Chiefs of General Staff of the “Parties” to provide strategic direction for joint defence, develop defence and security cooperation among the “Parties” and address obstacles that may arise during the implementation of this Agreement. The Committee shall meet twice a year, with hosting rotating among the “Parties”. The leaders of the “Parties” may meet once a year if deemed necessary.

2. The “Strategic Political and Defence Committee” may establish subcommittees if it considers this necessary.

3. Agreements or protocols shall, where necessary, be negotiated among the “Parties” for the implementation of the areas of cooperation envisaged in this Agreement.

4. The “Strategic Political and Defence Committee” shall be authorised, by consensus of the “Core Parties”, to determine and approve the procedures and principles governing the accession of other “Parties” to this Agreement.

5. A Secretariat headquartered in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall be established to serve the “Strategic Political and Defence Committee”. The Secretariat shall conclude a headquarters agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The procedures and principles governing the Secretariat’s functioning, organisational structure, and establishment shall subsequently be determined by consensus of the “Core Parties”.

6. The Secretariat shall be headed by a Secretary-General appointed for a three-year term on a rotational basis among the “Core Parties”. The first Secretary-General shall be a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

7. The provisions of this Article shall not prejudice the work of existing military cooperation committees among the “Parties”.

Article 9
To deepen cooperation in intelligence and provide the necessary coordination in this regard, the “Parties” shall share intelligence through mutually agreed secure channels, while observing information security, data protection and confidentiality.

Article 10
Subject to the availability and compatibility of logistical support services, the “Parties” shall provide one another with logistical support in peacetime, wartime, and other emergencies, including weapons, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and other equipment.

Article 11

Without prejudice to international law and the relevant domestic laws of the “Parties”, the “Parties” shall accept this Agreement as the legal basis for implementing its provisions and shall propose additional legal measures where necessary.

Article 12

This Agreement shall not prejudice the rights and obligations of the “Parties” arising from international agreements they have previously concluded.

Article 13

1. The “Parties” shall respect the confidentiality of classified information and documents obtained under this Agreement and shall respect national legislation.

2. Classified information and documents shall not be shared with any state, company, or person outside the “Parties”.

3. Access to classified information and documents shall be provided on a “need-to-know” basis and only to persons holding the appropriate level of security clearance.

Article 14
Any dispute arising from the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement shall be settled amicably through consultations and discussions among the “Parties”.

Article 15

This Agreement may be amended through consultations and unanimous agreement among the “Core Parties”.

Article 16

1. This Agreement shall be ratified in accordance with the procedures applicable to each “Party” and shall enter into force on the date on which the final instrument of ratification is deposited with the Secretariat of the “Strategic Political and Defence Committee”.

2. This Agreement shall remain in force indefinitely.

3. Any “Party” may withdraw from this Agreement after 10 years have elapsed from its entry into force, by giving the other “Parties” written notification of its intention to withdraw through diplomatic channels at least three months in advance.

4. Termination of this Agreement or withdrawal from it shall not affect any ongoing activities or projects agreed upon by the “Parties” before the date of termination or withdrawal.

5. The responsibilities of the “Parties” concerning the protection of classified information and documents and the prevention of their disclosure shall continue after termination of this Agreement or withdrawal from it.

Article 2 applies to Saudi/Houthi and it is not lost on me that the text was published on the same day that Munir has gone to Iran.
 
Sana'a Tribes Announce Split from the Houthis, First Break in the Fear Belt of Sana'a Announces the General Mobilization Against the Houthis

Sana'a Tribes Have Begun to Revolt; Hamdan Prepares as the Largest Tribes in Sana'a's Belt, and Bani Matar is One of the Strongest Tribes Due to Its Significant Weight Within the Capital

Greetings to the Republic of Yemen;

 
The issue is about the family, who is family and who is not. So that we are clear I believe Umar, Osman, Ali, Hassan and Hussain all were target assassinated by persians.

This whole discussion started with @Falgrine mentioning that Yazeed attacked Makkah, and all I asked was a simple question, why did he not attack Hussain in Makkah and why he waited for Hussain to reach Karbala? It is the same Yazeed so what changed?

For Hussain to be in Karbala on 10th of Moharram he has to leave Makkah one day before Hajj. The whole premise of parallel religion is proving Karbala happened.

Do you believe Hussain was married to a persian princess?

That’s a fallacy, the differences & later on the feud among sahaba did not require any intervention or instigation by the Persians.

The reason Yazeed did not attack Imam Hussain as in Makkah is because Imam Hussain chose not make the Kaaba a shield for Himself & moved out of Makkah deliberately to preserve the sanctity of Makkah.

Imam Hussain had multiple wives & among them was lady Shaharbano was one among them.
 
Do you know who Hormuzan was and where did he settle? Abu Lulu Firoz? Or Salman Farsi? After the fall of empire it was not very odd of persians to be in Arab territories and vice versa.

Shiites

Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni ... was a persian​

Ibn Babawayh ... of Persian descent​

Shaykh Tusi ... again a Persian​


Sunnis

Bukhari ... a persian
Muslim ibn al_Hajjaj ... persian
Al-Nasai ... from Khrosan

Abu Dawud al-Sijistani ... a persian of Arab descent​

Al - Tirmidhi .. again from Khorasan

Ibn Majah ... also from Persia​


One can only wonder why it was only persians who felt the need to write traditions and none of the Arabs produced a single traditions book.

​

I'm sure you've noticed by now that some Persians in this thread—including individuals whose ties to Iran are questionable—seem far more interested in pushing a pro-Iranian narrative than engaging honestly with evidence. The moment their claims are challenged, they shift the goalposts, contradict themselves, and manufacture convenient “facts” to prop up an argument that cannot withstand scrutiny. Baseless talking points are repeated ad nauseam, as though sheer repetition could somehow turn fiction into fact.

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground is deteriorating rapidly for their side. Their favorite political figure is edging closer to irrelevance, while back home, mass protests are dismissed as if they were nothing more than an inconvenient footnote. The hypocrisy is staggering, the denial is transparent, and the desperation to spin an increasingly unfavorable reality is becoming impossible to conceal.

If their arguments were as solid as they pretend, they wouldn't need to dodge questions, rewrite their own positions, and substitute propaganda for evidence.
 
thats all allowed of couse.. you will be responded with whataboutism. blaming Iran and Asad for all the ills.
the Truth is that GCC monarchs are all Zionist allies and very much part of the Zionist project.
It wasn’t always like that. At one point the House of Saud, along with Gaddafi and Bhutto and others dreamt of an actual ‘Muslim alliance’ with teeth.
 
It wasn’t always like that. At one point the House of Saud, along with Gaddafi and Bhutto and others dreamt of an actual ‘Muslim alliance’ with teeth.
Gaddafi = Same guy who wanted to re-write the Holy Quran? wanted "an actual Muslim alliance"? Oh ok.......
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Haz
I am not even understanding one bit of your confused statements.

You engage me, post a reference and try prove that iranian governments or shah was installed. Your rebuttal points to CIA's and MI6's involvement, but that was never my contention, I had said mosad was not part of it, it could not have been at that time.

Seriously, rebuttal or completing your correction?
Yours was a half truth, a partial statement... my side bias... obfuscation.
It wasn't Mossad but another agency.
It was not a rebuttal... it completed your post. However, since you assumed I'm coming over the top and clearly not onside to your point of view, you took it as such...

Yes, clearly... you were not understanding.

Then you go on into how US was okay with installing iranian mullahs rather than having Soviet influence in middle east. Which indirectly supports my assertion that iranian ayatullahs are a C team of zion and are in power because they have been blessed by US and play their part to benefit and support their causes. Plenty of evidence for that for the ones who haven't taken ayatullah's bayt.
Again a half truth... just a convenient half baked dump.

The first coup to remove Mossadegh and second to remove Shah... both had foreign meddling. The difference Mossadegh was popular and his aims were populist. Clearly Brits didn't like him nationalize oil. Second time around Shah was deeply unpopular and people revolted on their own unlike the previous instigated bout.

BOTH TIMES, western fears were a communist takeover. First that Mossadegh may take Iran into Soviet camp and second time, the revolution may install a communist regime.

In both instances, shah rule and subsequent Clerical rule, were assumed better alternatives to communism. An isolated perch.

However, all didn't go as planned. The earlier attempts to appropriate the regime sent mixed signals. Making Iranians apprehensive of US. Fearing another regime change attempt... which later US meddling cemented... having Iran build redundancies... eventhough attempts were made by both sides to come closer... that in spite of the fact that Iraq was used to hollow out or collapse or carve Iran... later sanctions regime made life even tougher and oil sales harder... assets frozen... scientists murdered, stuxnet, sabotage and finally now overt conflict.

In all that, the US bases and overt presence has been across the Gulf in the statlets to implement mideast policy. The regime changes and maritime regimes... financial and technological setup was and is all there...

All of these statelets though very recent have enjoyed unparalleled patronage... by all means... it hasn't been Iran the staging ground for all attacks across mideast.

You are trying to prove that somehow iran is fighting a holy war against zion.
How?
It is your inherent bias that blindsides you... because your faith kicks in...
It was why... trolls are using slang and pejoratives.
Because, they want to be onside to their beliefs first.

Tell me if Iran was communist and not clerical would you still support any fight it mounts against the empire?

To which I gave you real life examples of countries and the state they are in, only because zion felt they were a threat to them. If iran was fighting a holy war against zion it would have been destroyed by now.
Exactly!!!
You're waiting for the nukes to drop.
You don't believe enough has been done and US is holding back because it is just not possible for Iran to survive.
You wouldn't believe your lying eyes and listening ears to the contrary.
Ask anyone if the missiles that dropped on US bases were real or fake? Or was US using fake munitions.
Another thing if it were a religious conflict you'd still be on the wrong...
Just like Saudi clan was onside to British Empire working for the collapse Ottomans... remain the b team to collapse Iran and the rest of Mideast.
There is nothing in vacuum...
From all the fires they've stoked for the rise of zion.
Their house seeks only to them for continued rule.

iranians should be grateful and remain so for many coming decades that Pakistanis and Saudi with Turks showed some maturity and prevented the total destruction of iran. Saudis showed significant restraint and patience in not retaliating to iran's shameless provocations.
This is the funniest thing you said so far...

Quite the opposite in fact.
It is the Iranian restraint keeping things from collapsing. You'll see your lying eyes in coming days what I mean...
If Iranian critical civilian and commercial infrastructure was attacked they would have taken out the Gulfs. The hounds of hell are only watching from a distance because a solution doesn't exist.

Just for example, when zion attacked Iranian South Pars Gas field... your own zion did it to check if in fact Iran will retaliate... they took out Qatar’s gas field the next day
The Qatari fields will remain off line for years to come.

Here's the thing ask Saudis to join in, enough of the restraint... let loose.
I dare them!

You have no answers and wisdom just your misguided loyalty to iran, why because it has successfully fooled you into believing the utter nonsense that they are saviors of Islamic world and champions of the helpless Muslims.
I have no loyalty to Iran, nor am I Shi'i... your whole argument is one based on madkhali faith that Saudis invested hard to foment masses of drones.

PS: I am not one bit frustrated. I am clear in my understanding of persian aims, their intrigues. Unlike you, I do question why would persians want to support a region that was first conquered by a Caliph, whom they curse, hate and abuse the most.
And that is the crux of your argument. Which is not geopolitical at all...
It doesn't understand real world implications ... why zion needs or wants the collapse of Iran...
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top