Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

📍 Podcast with Col Bashir (Special Operations) China gives us weapon systems which we usually deploy on Indian front, meanwhile Pakistan remains focused on acquiring US weapons for Counterterrorism. Col Bashir rightly pointed that China would empower us that would serve their purpose and strengthen our deterrence against India... show more

AM Raad

42,338 subscribers

29,929 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Comments

AM Raad1 month ago

Watch full Podcast:

Zeehan Niazi1 month ago

Does Mr Bashir knows that US is withholding our Z-10 Vipers and has refused to supply us ISR and combat drones meanwhile China has supplied us both. The only reason we're clinging to USA is because of some vested interests of political and military elite

Global Talks1 month ago

Pakistan is establishing his power in the region.

Zaigham Nasir1 month ago

Stop this agenda against china , they never learn from the past at least we are now able to counter india better with china than usa , why are we relient on others why don't we built our own industry to solve internal issues.

Rocket Khanam1 month ago

What about JF17 we made it

𝐃𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫1 month ago

The J-35 mention is interesting. If that materializes it would be a major leap for PAF deterrence

Neptune1 month ago

Well, I think the Chinese really just want to stabilize that situation but he’s definitely not wrong. China just doesn’t want chaos. At the same time he’s right though. He’s absolutely correct. No question he’s on the dot.

Rizwan Khan1 month ago

Apke shakal insan sa Nahe milthi julthi hai

The Pakistan Dossier1 month ago

Pakistan follows a pragmatic dual-sourcing strategy for military equipment from China and the United States, though it is now heavily skewed toward China.

Zaigham Nasir1 month ago

We will never become a big power like USA, china , russia we are just a middle power , our focus must be on being the strongest middle power don't fall in their trap

Related Videos

Tim Dillon: “There are psychopaths in our government that would like a war with China.” “Why?” “They would like a substantial reduction of the population on Earth.” “They would like a reset.” “They would like to wipe away a lot of America’s debt.” “And they do not mind a conflict with China that could turn nuclear.” “Palantir and all these people want a draft.” “We can’t even beat Iran.” “The country’s not built for war anymore.” “We’re built for TikTok.” “This idea that conflict between us and China is inevitable, not only is it not inevitable, but it will be the end of the world.” “Which some people want.” “They go … we owe $40 trillion, it goes up every year, we’re not gonna be able to get out of this, we’re gonna head towards hyperinflation, so we need a large war.” “We probably won’t win, by the way.” Tim Dillon

Tim Dillon: “There are psychopaths in our government that would like a war with China.” “Why?” “They would like a substantial reduction of the population on Earth.” “They would like a reset.” “They would like to wipe away a lot of America’s debt.” “And they do not mind a conflict with China that could turn nuclear.” “Palantir and all these people want a draft.” “We can’t even beat Iran.” “The country’s not built for war anymore.” “We’re built for TikTok.” “This idea that conflict between us and China is inevitable, not only is it not inevitable, but it will be the end of the world.” “Which some people want.” “They go … we owe $40 trillion, it goes up every year, we’re not gonna be able to get out of this, we’re gonna head towards hyperinflation, so we need a large war.” “We probably won’t win, by the way.” Tim Dillon

Holden Culotta

52,895 views • 4 months ago

During an interview at the Hoover Institution on 15 Nov 2023, Elbridge Colby and Dan Blumenthal explain why the United States has become obsessed with containing China and curtailing its economic development. In a nutshell, a prosperous China would deprive the US of its global economic control as well as the ability to rewrite rules and to rob other countries. For the US, it's a zero-sum game in which America's imperial empire mentality is projected onto China, and every other nation is subservient to America's national interests. This perspective essentially disregards the advantages of a collaborative and multipolar global order. According to Colby and Blumenthal, the US would be locked out of "economic arrangements" inside East Asia which have the potential to boom and to be the center of future global economic activity. The US military would be reduced to defending the North American Hemisphere and would be locked out of East Asia, but the US would really need access to East Asia to secure itself (economically), or else Americans would be poorer as a prosperous China would re-orient the world towards Asia. China would have the best Universities, its companies would be world's best, its treasury would be able to enforce sanctions against everyone else, its stock exchange would be the world's best, its currency would supplant the USD - which means we Americans will become a lot poorer. As America would be forced to play ball, in the same way that today many companies and other countries are forced to play ball with US sanctions even tough they don't want to. That would mean Americans will become lot poorer as our companies, institutions would be no longer the top ones, and then we become less free as America would loose its global economic control When asked if the US can accept that a great rich China dominates its own region vs dominating the planet, their conclusion is that the US can't live with either scenario because East Asia is just so fundamentally important to US national security

During an interview at the Hoover Institution on 15 Nov 2023, Elbridge Colby and Dan Blumenthal explain why the United States has become obsessed with containing China and curtailing its economic development. In a nutshell, a prosperous China would deprive the US of its global economic control as well as the ability to rewrite rules and to rob other countries. For the US, it's a zero-sum game in which America's imperial empire mentality is projected onto China, and every other nation is subservient to America's national interests. This perspective essentially disregards the advantages of a collaborative and multipolar global order. According to Colby and Blumenthal, the US would be locked out of "economic arrangements" inside East Asia which have the potential to boom and to be the center of future global economic activity. The US military would be reduced to defending the North American Hemisphere and would be locked out of East Asia, but the US would really need access to East Asia to secure itself (economically), or else Americans would be poorer as a prosperous China would re-orient the world towards Asia. China would have the best Universities, its companies would be world's best, its treasury would be able to enforce sanctions against everyone else, its stock exchange would be the world's best, its currency would supplant the USD - which means we Americans will become a lot poorer. As America would be forced to play ball, in the same way that today many companies and other countries are forced to play ball with US sanctions even tough they don't want to. That would mean Americans will become lot poorer as our companies, institutions would be no longer the top ones, and then we become less free as America would loose its global economic control When asked if the US can accept that a great rich China dominates its own region vs dominating the planet, their conclusion is that the US can't live with either scenario because East Asia is just so fundamentally important to US national security

StarBoySAR 🇭🇰 🇨🇳 🥭

94,788 views • 2 years ago

Kat Abughazaleh on Breaking Points says the US should codify providing aid to Taiwan in the case of an invasion from China "Any sort of military aid to Taiwan is an absolute last resort. We need to be reinvesting into diplomacy between Taiwan and China. If the Taiwanese people pass a referendum for reunification with China, I'm supportive of that. That is their choice. But invasion is where we draw the line." Ryan Grim clarifies, "does military aid mean shipping weapons or actively participating in and assisting in the defense?" "Shipping weapons. We should not have US troops deployed on Taiwanese soil."

Kat Abughazaleh on Breaking Points says the US should codify providing aid to Taiwan in the case of an invasion from China "Any sort of military aid to Taiwan is an absolute last resort. We need to be reinvesting into diplomacy between Taiwan and China. If the Taiwanese people pass a referendum for reunification with China, I'm supportive of that. That is their choice. But invasion is where we draw the line." Ryan Grim clarifies, "does military aid mean shipping weapons or actively participating in and assisting in the defense?" "Shipping weapons. We should not have US troops deployed on Taiwanese soil."

Popstonox

939,052 views • 6 months ago

VIDEO | When asked about the Trump administration moving closer to Pakistan, Former US NSA John Bolton says, “I think the US-India relationship is perhaps the most important strategic relationship we have in the 21st century. But dealing with Pakistan is not unimportant, and especially in my view, because of the efforts of the Chinese to gain a stronger position in Pakistan with the Pakistani military; that concerns me greatly, as it obviously concerns India. So I think our interest, and we have other interests with Pakistan against the Taliban in Afghanistan and others. So I think, if we can work with Pakistan and remind them of the threat that China poses to them as well as to India, that's a basis on which to proceed. I don't know that that's Trump's rationale, but if I were advising him, that's what I would tell him.” (Full video available on PTI Videos-

VIDEO | When asked about the Trump administration moving closer to Pakistan, Former US NSA John Bolton says, “I think the US-India relationship is perhaps the most important strategic relationship we have in the 21st century. But dealing with Pakistan is not unimportant, and especially in my view, because of the efforts of the Chinese to gain a stronger position in Pakistan with the Pakistani military; that concerns me greatly, as it obviously concerns India. So I think our interest, and we have other interests with Pakistan against the Taliban in Afghanistan and others. So I think, if we can work with Pakistan and remind them of the threat that China poses to them as well as to India, that's a basis on which to proceed. I don't know that that's Trump's rationale, but if I were advising him, that's what I would tell him.” (Full video available on PTI Videos-

Press Trust of India

11,199 views • 8 months ago

$GME CEO Ryan Cohen unpacks "half cash, half stock": "We have the cash accounted for today, in terms of a highly confident letter from our bank for the $20 billion. Plus we've got $9 billion of cash." "What we're proposing is for existing shareholders to take half of their investment off the table. That would be us providing them with $28 billion, which is a 40% premium from when we started buying the stock." "And then they would be getting roughly — it ultimately depends on when the transaction closes — but they would be rolling the rest into the combined company of GameStop and eBay."

$GME CEO Ryan Cohen unpacks "half cash, half stock": "We have the cash accounted for today, in terms of a highly confident letter from our bank for the $20 billion. Plus we've got $9 billion of cash." "What we're proposing is for existing shareholders to take half of their investment off the table. That would be us providing them with $28 billion, which is a 40% premium from when we started buying the stock." "And then they would be getting roughly — it ultimately depends on when the transaction closes — but they would be rolling the rest into the combined company of GameStop and eBay."

TBPN

429,590 views • 4 months ago

How to quickly deter China from invading Taiwan — my interview with Ethan Thornton of Mach Industries Ethan is one of the brightest, most thoughtful people I've ever met. I believe his ideas on defending the US, including our interests in Taiwan, are urgently needed. Summary 👇 The US would likely lose a military conflict with China in Taiwan and other crucial areas in the Pacific—even though we spend far more money than China does. • We face a vastly underrated economic threat (not to mention human rights) if we cannot deter China from seizing Taiwan. • China has published plans to have military readiness for a Taiwan invasion by 2027. • We depend on Taiwan for almost all high-performance semi-conductors, which are at the base of all modern industry. • Taiwan had made clear as a deterrent that it’s prepared to destroy its semiconductor facilities in the event of an invasion, but China’s increasing semiconductor manufacturing makes the threat worse for the US than China. • It’s now an open secret that the US loses most or all of its wargames in a conflict with China over Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea. • How our Navy loses to China: If we can get our ships to the Pacific, we’ll quickly run out of ammo, but the more likely scenario is that our ships—including aircraft carriers—mostly don’t get there thanks to unmanned systems and hypersonics. • How our Air Force loses to China: The Air Force has limited planes and even more limited munitions, but the increasingly bigger problem is the planes won’t take off thanks to China’s hypersonic missiles and other unmanned systems that can destroy available runways in the Pacific. • How our Army loses to China: The Army is still planning to rely on tanks, rifles, and the fighting styles of the 2010s, even though Ukraine has shown ground wars depend on drones and other mobile, decentralized, difficult-to-target assets. Example: Ukraine is actually refusing to bring gifted M1 Abrams tanks to the front line as they would be quickly destroyed by drones. • The US’s failure to have an unequivocally superior military to China is not a funding issue, given that the US spends some 3 times on defense what China does. It’s an issue of how money is spent. US weapons procurement has been fundamentally stagnant for 30 years while war has rapidly evolved based on unmanned systems. • The US’s extreme military vulnerability to China is due to us mostly spending money on the wrong things given how war has evolved. We’re still basically procuring the same weapons we were 30 years ago. • The most important evolution in warfighting is unmanned systems, which are powerful but cheap and thus scalable and decentralizable. • Large numbers of unmanned weapons distributed widely make large, expensive, centralized assets increasingly vulnerable (non-survivable). • Large numbers of unmanned weapons distributed widely are hard to counter since just some of them need to survive in order to inflict huge damage. • Yet our trillion-dollar defense budget is largely spent on manned systems that are very unlikely to survive a real conflict. • Even insofar as the US is procuring unmanned systems, its rate of evolution is way too slow. Unmanned systems evolve like consumer electronics, yet we have long procurement cycles (more than 5 times slower than China’s). To address the China threat we need to take advantage of our innovativeness to create stockpile of superior, strategic unmanned weapons systems that will deter them. • We cannot win a protracted war against China, given their superiority in manufacturing, and we don’t want such a war. But we can and want to deter them from attacking Taiwan, which controls the high-performance semiconductors our economy depends on. • Our big advantage is over China that we are better at innovating than China due to our political system and culture. They can make things at much larger scales, but we are much better at inventing new things. • The US’s superior innovation ability means that we can make superior weapons with huge cost-performance asymmetry compared to China’s. • These weapons need to be Strategic: can cripple China’s ability to wage war. (Ethan elaborates) • Given the time it takes to make weapons systems and the speed at which wars now start and end, we need to create a large stockpile of unmanned weapons systems—think tends of thousands—to deter China. If government procures weapons using standards of cost-effectiveness this can be done very cheaply. Government weapons spending must move as quickly as possible toward the standards of cost-effectiveness, scalability, and survivability. • Big picture, US weapons spending and procurement needs explicit standards to decide what to invest in. • Fundamentally the standard of weapons procurement must be cost-effectiveness: How much does it cost to have a given amount of effect in the expected environment? • Part of cost-effectiveness is scalability: We need to be able to produce sufficient units now and in an ongoing conflict. • Part of cost-effectiveness is survivability: Our weapons systems need to be able to by pass or handle enemy interference, which most legacy systems can’t. • If government can start allocating even $10 billion by these standards we can afford to build the stockpile superior unmanned weapons systems that will deter China from invading Taiwan.

How to quickly deter China from invading Taiwan — my interview with Ethan Thornton of Mach Industries Ethan is one of the brightest, most thoughtful people I've ever met. I believe his ideas on defending the US, including our interests in Taiwan, are urgently needed. Summary 👇 The US would likely lose a military conflict with China in Taiwan and other crucial areas in the Pacific—even though we spend far more money than China does. • We face a vastly underrated economic threat (not to mention human rights) if we cannot deter China from seizing Taiwan. • China has published plans to have military readiness for a Taiwan invasion by 2027. • We depend on Taiwan for almost all high-performance semi-conductors, which are at the base of all modern industry. • Taiwan had made clear as a deterrent that it’s prepared to destroy its semiconductor facilities in the event of an invasion, but China’s increasing semiconductor manufacturing makes the threat worse for the US than China. • It’s now an open secret that the US loses most or all of its wargames in a conflict with China over Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea. • How our Navy loses to China: If we can get our ships to the Pacific, we’ll quickly run out of ammo, but the more likely scenario is that our ships—including aircraft carriers—mostly don’t get there thanks to unmanned systems and hypersonics. • How our Air Force loses to China: The Air Force has limited planes and even more limited munitions, but the increasingly bigger problem is the planes won’t take off thanks to China’s hypersonic missiles and other unmanned systems that can destroy available runways in the Pacific. • How our Army loses to China: The Army is still planning to rely on tanks, rifles, and the fighting styles of the 2010s, even though Ukraine has shown ground wars depend on drones and other mobile, decentralized, difficult-to-target assets. Example: Ukraine is actually refusing to bring gifted M1 Abrams tanks to the front line as they would be quickly destroyed by drones. • The US’s failure to have an unequivocally superior military to China is not a funding issue, given that the US spends some 3 times on defense what China does. It’s an issue of how money is spent. US weapons procurement has been fundamentally stagnant for 30 years while war has rapidly evolved based on unmanned systems. • The US’s extreme military vulnerability to China is due to us mostly spending money on the wrong things given how war has evolved. We’re still basically procuring the same weapons we were 30 years ago. • The most important evolution in warfighting is unmanned systems, which are powerful but cheap and thus scalable and decentralizable. • Large numbers of unmanned weapons distributed widely make large, expensive, centralized assets increasingly vulnerable (non-survivable). • Large numbers of unmanned weapons distributed widely are hard to counter since just some of them need to survive in order to inflict huge damage. • Yet our trillion-dollar defense budget is largely spent on manned systems that are very unlikely to survive a real conflict. • Even insofar as the US is procuring unmanned systems, its rate of evolution is way too slow. Unmanned systems evolve like consumer electronics, yet we have long procurement cycles (more than 5 times slower than China’s). To address the China threat we need to take advantage of our innovativeness to create stockpile of superior, strategic unmanned weapons systems that will deter them. • We cannot win a protracted war against China, given their superiority in manufacturing, and we don’t want such a war. But we can and want to deter them from attacking Taiwan, which controls the high-performance semiconductors our economy depends on. • Our big advantage is over China that we are better at innovating than China due to our political system and culture. They can make things at much larger scales, but we are much better at inventing new things. • The US’s superior innovation ability means that we can make superior weapons with huge cost-performance asymmetry compared to China’s. • These weapons need to be Strategic: can cripple China’s ability to wage war. (Ethan elaborates) • Given the time it takes to make weapons systems and the speed at which wars now start and end, we need to create a large stockpile of unmanned weapons systems—think tends of thousands—to deter China. If government procures weapons using standards of cost-effectiveness this can be done very cheaply. Government weapons spending must move as quickly as possible toward the standards of cost-effectiveness, scalability, and survivability. • Big picture, US weapons spending and procurement needs explicit standards to decide what to invest in. • Fundamentally the standard of weapons procurement must be cost-effectiveness: How much does it cost to have a given amount of effect in the expected environment? • Part of cost-effectiveness is scalability: We need to be able to produce sufficient units now and in an ongoing conflict. • Part of cost-effectiveness is survivability: Our weapons systems need to be able to by pass or handle enemy interference, which most legacy systems can’t. • If government can start allocating even $10 billion by these standards we can afford to build the stockpile superior unmanned weapons systems that will deter China from invading Taiwan.

Alex Epstein

175,218 views • 8 months ago

Tariq Ali: Trump’s campaign against Iran is part of the plan against China🇨🇳 ‘I think there’s a more serious plan which is to make it impossible for Iran as a sovereign state to negotiate and sell oil and gas directly to China.’ The US would like to be the power that determines to whom energy is sold and under what conditions. It’s part of their big plan to surround and lay siege to China… They are concerned and worried about the development of China as a major economic power and they want to control it. So in my opinion, the threats against Iran are more to do with that than anything else.’ —Tariq Ali speaking to us on Going Underground

Tariq Ali: Trump’s campaign against Iran is part of the plan against China🇨🇳 ‘I think there’s a more serious plan which is to make it impossible for Iran as a sovereign state to negotiate and sell oil and gas directly to China.’ The US would like to be the power that determines to whom energy is sold and under what conditions. It’s part of their big plan to surround and lay siege to China… They are concerned and worried about the development of China as a major economic power and they want to control it. So in my opinion, the threats against Iran are more to do with that than anything else.’ —Tariq Ali speaking to us on Going Underground

Afshin Rattansi

16,631 views • 2 months ago

.Rep. Justin Jones: "“We still have Democrats were acting like this is early 2000 politics. That world of normalcy is gone. This is a war for the future of our democracy. And the South is the front line in that battle… I would say to the governors and to the lawmakers in those [blue] states that this is a moment to put our morals above our manners. What is moral is to act, not just for us, but for generations who are counting on us, what we do in this moment. I think we're going to be judged not by what we do, but by what we don't do.”

.Rep. Justin Jones: "“We still have Democrats were acting like this is early 2000 politics. That world of normalcy is gone. This is a war for the future of our democracy. And the South is the front line in that battle… I would say to the governors and to the lawmakers in those [blue] states that this is a moment to put our morals above our manners. What is moral is to act, not just for us, but for generations who are counting on us, what we do in this moment. I think we're going to be judged not by what we do, but by what we don't do.”

BTC Clips

114,246 views • 4 months ago

Trump is threatening Demark with a cost that Europe can absorb with .02% rounding error. Europe is calling Trumps bluff. America could take raw minerals from Greenland, but we lack the refining to make use of such minerals for at least a decade or more. If Europe makes deals with China they can lock the US out of refining entirely. Trump would control the mine, but he couldn’t do anything with it because he would have burned too many bridges with China. Europe has the ability to coordinate capital restrictions on America, which could force American corporations to have a liquidity crisis. Europe could then redirect their trade within the Union and with China that would cost the US billions upon billions. The EU could then punish US tech firms and pharmaceutical companies with punishing regulations. Drug companies, Social Media companies, and AI likely to take the biggest hit. Trump may threaten military force in Greenland and in return the EU will declare economic war and the US and they will win. Brains over brawn almost always does. I keep telling people a United World against the US means none of them need us. That might be Putin’s greatest trick. Instructing Trump what to do as the world turns against us.

Trump is threatening Demark with a cost that Europe can absorb with .02% rounding error. Europe is calling Trumps bluff. America could take raw minerals from Greenland, but we lack the refining to make use of such minerals for at least a decade or more. If Europe makes deals with China they can lock the US out of refining entirely. Trump would control the mine, but he couldn’t do anything with it because he would have burned too many bridges with China. Europe has the ability to coordinate capital restrictions on America, which could force American corporations to have a liquidity crisis. Europe could then redirect their trade within the Union and with China that would cost the US billions upon billions. The EU could then punish US tech firms and pharmaceutical companies with punishing regulations. Drug companies, Social Media companies, and AI likely to take the biggest hit. Trump may threaten military force in Greenland and in return the EU will declare economic war and the US and they will win. Brains over brawn almost always does. I keep telling people a United World against the US means none of them need us. That might be Putin’s greatest trick. Instructing Trump what to do as the world turns against us.

Prez

420,227 views • 8 months ago

Karl Popper on How We Gain Knowledge: ––Karl Popper: "People think, usually, that we acquire knowledge by opening our eyes and our ears and let the sensations stream into us, and they believe then that we record this like a camera. In my opinion, if we wish to get knowledge, we have to have a problem. It has to be knowledge of something. We have to find out something. We don't have to wait for information to stream into us, but we have to be inquisitive if we want to get knowledge. If we were passive, we would gain a confused mass of sensations or something like that, which we would hardly be able to understand and to convert into what one may call knowledge. Quite apart from that, perception is not really, in my opinion, the main source of our knowledge. The role of perception is to inform us about a momentary situation in our environment. But we couldn't really interpret our perceptions without knowing much more about our environment, namely, we know whether we are in a house or whether we are in a glacier. So we have two kinds of knowledge: this wider knowledge of a frame in which we orientate ourselves, and the momentary perception which gives us information about the situation at that particular moment. And it is only this situation in which we can use our perception. So we have theoretical knowledge and, if you like, the momentary practical challenge to our theoretical knowledge. And here comes perception in."

Karl Popper on How We Gain Knowledge: ––Karl Popper: "People think, usually, that we acquire knowledge by opening our eyes and our ears and let the sensations stream into us, and they believe then that we record this like a camera. In my opinion, if we wish to get knowledge, we have to have a problem. It has to be knowledge of something. We have to find out something. We don't have to wait for information to stream into us, but we have to be inquisitive if we want to get knowledge. If we were passive, we would gain a confused mass of sensations or something like that, which we would hardly be able to understand and to convert into what one may call knowledge. Quite apart from that, perception is not really, in my opinion, the main source of our knowledge. The role of perception is to inform us about a momentary situation in our environment. But we couldn't really interpret our perceptions without knowing much more about our environment, namely, we know whether we are in a house or whether we are in a glacier. So we have two kinds of knowledge: this wider knowledge of a frame in which we orientate ourselves, and the momentary perception which gives us information about the situation at that particular moment. And it is only this situation in which we can use our perception. So we have theoretical knowledge and, if you like, the momentary practical challenge to our theoretical knowledge. And here comes perception in."

Karl Popper Quotes

115,337 views • 4 months ago

This is a video from Bangladesh where thousands of young Bangladeshis are chanting hardcore anti India slogans. Bangladesh has turned even more anti India than Pakistan ever was. Huge achievement by BJP Govt. We now have every tiny winy nation around us hating us and cussing us 🤬 This is not only a precarious situation for India but also for every Indian in Bangladeshi land. It’s unnerving to think of their present situation. Let’s not forget what Rahul Gandhi had said on the floors of the parliament, that our Govt is playing with fire by getting Pakistan, China and Bangladesh together against us. May good sense, peace and harmony prevail! #ModiHaiTohMumkinHai

This is a video from Bangladesh where thousands of young Bangladeshis are chanting hardcore anti India slogans. Bangladesh has turned even more anti India than Pakistan ever was. Huge achievement by BJP Govt. We now have every tiny winy nation around us hating us and cussing us 🤬 This is not only a precarious situation for India but also for every Indian in Bangladeshi land. It’s unnerving to think of their present situation. Let’s not forget what Rahul Gandhi had said on the floors of the parliament, that our Govt is playing with fire by getting Pakistan, China and Bangladesh together against us. May good sense, peace and harmony prevail! #ModiHaiTohMumkinHai

Pragnya Gupta

168,031 views • 8 months ago

jungeun and jeemin our head blinks 😭 🐆: since we’re both blinks, while we were practicing the choreo there were a lot of moments where we talked about things only blinks would know like for our outfits we would go like “oh this outfit is similar to something blackpink wore during a music show” and we’d have these conversations that only we understood 🐱: and the two of us already knew the entire choreography so when we started learning it we were already familiar with all the moves which made it a lot easier for us and it also helped the other members to learn it more easily

jungeun and jeemin our head blinks 😭 🐆: since we’re both blinks, while we were practicing the choreo there were a lot of moments where we talked about things only blinks would know like for our outfits we would go like “oh this outfit is similar to something blackpink wore during a music show” and we’d have these conversations that only we understood 🐱: and the two of us already knew the entire choreography so when we started learning it we were already familiar with all the moves which made it a lot easier for us and it also helped the other members to learn it more easily

ؘ

97,037 views • 1 month ago

TARIQ ALI: TRUMP’S THREATS AGAINST IRAN🇮🇷 ARE PART OF THE PLAN AGAINST CHINA🇨🇳 ‘The main purpose for destabilising Iran is to get concessions from them. And the concessions are not simply on nuclear reactors. I think there’s a more serious plan to which is to make it impossible for Iran as a sovereign state to negotiate and sell oil and gas directly to China.’ ‘The US would like to be the power that determines to whom energy is sold and under what conditions. It’s part of their big plan to surround and lay siege to China…they are concerned and worried about the development of China as a major economic power and they want to control it. So in my opinion, the threats against Iran are more to do with that than anything else.’ -Tariq Ali on the potential coming US-Israeli war on Iran

TARIQ ALI: TRUMP’S THREATS AGAINST IRAN🇮🇷 ARE PART OF THE PLAN AGAINST CHINA🇨🇳 ‘The main purpose for destabilising Iran is to get concessions from them. And the concessions are not simply on nuclear reactors. I think there’s a more serious plan to which is to make it impossible for Iran as a sovereign state to negotiate and sell oil and gas directly to China.’ ‘The US would like to be the power that determines to whom energy is sold and under what conditions. It’s part of their big plan to surround and lay siege to China…they are concerned and worried about the development of China as a major economic power and they want to control it. So in my opinion, the threats against Iran are more to do with that than anything else.’ -Tariq Ali on the potential coming US-Israeli war on Iran

Afshin Rattansi

302,540 views • 1 year ago