What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,349
2
4,569
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
He is nowhere near Khamenei's level.

He is just as keen to continue to resist the empire, which is what this discussion was about.

If you think killing a nations most powerful general is not a clear case of failed deterrence, i will rest my case.

Given that this assassination changed nothing to the geopolitical equation, yes, there was no "breach" in deterrence.

Same as above. If you continue to believe that younger generation of clerics can be contributing to the establishment as the clerics of the 60 and 70's then you are free to believe. however,time is the best storyteller. And i hope we are all around and safe by then to discuss this again.

If you want to make a point, you need to substantiate it with hard facts. Mere statements can never cut it. What exactly you're basing yourself on to make such a claim about Iran's contemporary clergy is the question here. What study, what research paper, what evidence, etc.

Your love for one person can not make you blind to facts and situations before your eyes. Initially, i said this discussion will be futile, we will not reach anywhere since you are a diehard fan of IR and can not see its obvious mistakes.

Problem with this is that I merely stated facts and produced rational arguments. So I'm not the one whom this charge of being biased vis a vis the person of the Supreme Leader would apply to.

I think you are confused. What i meant is that the moment the IR crosses this red line and moves to make its first nuclear weapon there will be severe consequences and scenarios that i described earlier might unfold.

You keep saying I'm confused yet your argument is inherently self-contradicting.

So let me examine the latest variant of your evolving narrative: now you're saying the moment the IR decides to go for nukes, the Leader will be assassinated and massive bombing of the IRGC will ensue... This begs two questions:

1) Are you saying these bombardments will successfully prevent Iran from building the nukes? If yes, what exactly are you complaining about? Since you believe Iran cannot build nukes anyway, because the moment it tries, the US will bomb her so much as to prevent it from happening.

2) If you're saying that the US can assassinate the Supreme Leader and bomb the IRGC into oblivion, but can't prevent Iran from building nukes, then I'd suggest to reexamine your assertion under a somewhat more rational light. Because see, if the US had the means to do all which you suggest, it sure as hell would also have the means to militarily prevent Iran from completing the construction of nuclear weapons. If you're suggesting that one person - the Supreme Leader, cannot be safely protected from US bombings, but that the entire infrastructure needed to build nukes can, then you must be joking, honestly.

Hope you reckon that this right here is pristine, elementary logos. No bias, no propaganda, nothing of the sort.

High likely, considering what they have done to our most powerful General, they can also take out its commander in chief brazenly and without any consequences. After all What have they to fear?

They have to fear the same thing which prevents them from launching all military aggression against Iran.

Iran's conventional missile capacity will NOT destroy the Zionist military establishment in occupied Palestine. If you think otherwise you are misinformed about military matters. Only a credible, solid nuclear strike threat on Washington DC will be a guaranteed deterrent.

Re-read my quote. You're not addressing it properly. Iran's present capability DOES deter and HAS deterred both the zionists and their American shabbos goys from attacking Iran. Else they would have done it ages ago. They'd have done it before Iraq, they'd have done it before Libya, they'd have done it before Syria because Iran's their biggest target among all the mentioned countries.

Nukes will deter Iranian enemies without any doubt. But the moment IR opt for this the US will take action, because we do not have any game changing weapons.

Then what exactly are you lamenting about? If Iran cannot safely acquire nukes because the US will prevent her from doing so, as you now claim, why are you pretending its "fear" that's preventing Iran from taking that step, and not actual material impossibility, like you're now claiming? Please make up your mind.

If they knew better they would not go back to the negotiating table after two decades to discuss with the white man to install cameras in their own backyard. Make up your mind, you want to give nuclear concessions or keep your nuclear program totally intact?

You make up your mind: can Iran develop nukes or not? You just seemed to suggest she won't be able to, just one line above. Either that, or you're suggesting Iran can protect nuclear facilities from US bombing, but can't protect the Supreme Leader from the same. None of which would be accurate.

Also as I told you, the negotiations won't result in Iran making any incapacitating concessions. Rahbar has made sure of that. But they do provide Iran with a heavy hitting political argument. So our minds are perfectly set already. You just need to make the effort of trying to understand these intricacies. It's not Iran's fault if choose not to.

North Korea can not be compared to Iran. One is disciplined and has an honest anti-imperialist outlook while the other is worried what might happen tomorrow.

North Korea has pursued the exact same approach as Iran when it comes to this issue. I gave you exact reasons as to why, you're countering with slogans.

Nkorea tested its first nuke in 2006. IR is negotiating in 2021 to install cameras or not. You got to be kidding me. Clinton was North Korea's ''Obama''. So even if i do not dig deeper and explain more, you should get the explanation yourself. NKorea threw away the deal and went nuclear. Something Iran should have done in 2018 with Trump.

I perfectly explained it already: North Korea had no other means to ensure deterrence. Iran does. Had North Korea been enjoying the same deterrence assets as Iran, she would never have opted for nukes. Simple as that.

Btw, Rodong Sinmun can school Keyhan or other IR newspapers on anti US revolutionary zeal.

Even when Pyongyang was sitting at the negotiating table with Clinton and Trump? Rodong Sinmun blasting America during those same days was okay, but Keyhan blasting the US now isn't?

What if they reached some deal in the near future?

They won't. And any deal reached will neither deprive Iran of her latent nuclear break out capability, nor of the benefits of civilian nuclear science. That's all which matters. The rest is just empty talk.

LOL. Did we not try that once? What is the JCPOA fiasco then?

The Ahmadinejad administration negotiated too, and no "JCPOA fiasco" came out of it.

Unfortunately, it is you who keeps getting confused. I made my point clear that nukes will
a) deter any foreign invasion and even slight military agressions.

What are "slight military aggressions"? What's their relevance if they change nothing to the overall picture? Answer these questions, don't dodge them.

Also, you flip flopped your statement twice, no less. Going from "if Iran build nukes the US will attack" to "if Iran builds nukes the US will not be able to do anything, but the Iranian leadership is too dumb to realize that", to "the moment Iran tries to build nukes the US will attack" in your latest iteration. All three being baseless, obviously.

But most importantly, Iran's non-nuclear arsenal has successfully deterred the US from daring to launch military aggression against Iran. End of story.

Nope, impartial observers already realize this fact.

You don't even take the time to read what it is you're replying to it would seem. Re-read that part of the discussion.

And Khamenei is afraid of a direct war.

The US regime is afraid of direct war with Iran. Proof: it never dared initiate any, despite holding a far greater grudge against Iran than it ever did against Saddam, Gaddafi and so on.

I know, it's impossible to disprove the above logically and therefore it can only be countered through unsubstantiated claims over and over again. Not a problem with me, all this will achieve is to show readers who can back up their arguments with evidence and who can't.

I repeat, he will not cross this red line (making nukes).

He crossed all imperial red lines ever since he came to power. Nukes are subsidiary and insignificant in this regard. They are a means, not the be all end all. And so that's how we ought to appreciate things.

The moment he makes a step in that direction he will be eliminated. I know it is hard for you to accept this, but yes, the US dogs are that powerful. After nr.2 comes nr.1.

Right, the US can "eliminate" Iran's Supreme Leader but then it cannot eliminate the facilities Iran would use to build those nukes... So rather than going straight for these facilities, it would go for Iran's Leader.

Frankly, try some solid logic now.

But luckily, like @QWECXZ said, Khamenei does not travel outside Iran so he has less of a risk. But in a military campaign against Iranian mainland, he will be targetted, or you think the 52 targets Trump talked about is Takhte Jamshid instead of Beyte rahbari office, his house, insitutions etc? LOL

This is sub-par level argumentation. To suppose that Iran cannot protect her Supreme Leader in case of a war, but can shield facilities needed to produce nuclear weapons. Come on.

I think you are daydreaming.

You are free to think that.

Wake up seyed, regime change is ongoing in Iran now. All the youth and masses that are getting brainwashed by the enemy is a slow but sure regime change. You just do not see the effects now. Wait in a decade or two.

It's you who needs to wake up. It's been 43 years that we're hearing this mantra and nothing of the sort ever happened. Aren't you getting tired of it?

Dared? I can immediately think of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bashar Al Assad etc. Or you meant something else than dare?

Exactly what part of "outside of a handful" don't you understand? So yes, seyyed Khamenei is one out of 5 or so. Five out of some 195 sovereign states on Earth.

Now you grasp the meaning of to dare.

Please do not be naive. The reason the US made Japan and Skorea its outpost is because of Russia and China. Both Japan and Skorea even border Russia and China.

The only naive one would be he who seeks to peddle the notion that south Korea and Japan matter more to the US and are wielding greater influence upon the American establishment than zionists.

Seyed, i am telling you, ballistic missiles are not an existential threat to the zionist regime. You can play resistance all you want but the facts are on the table for you.

I'm not a seyyed, so kindly don't call me that.

Secondly, why constantly dodge the points? I'm referring to the proven deterrent power of Iran's ballistic missiles, which, along with the other tools mentioned, have successfully deterred the enemy from striking Iran as a matter of simple fact. It's not that hard to realize.
 
Last edited:

Dariush the Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
2,802
-12
6,326
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
He is just as keen to continue to resist the empire, which is what this discussion was about.
Like i said, Seyed, not on the level of Khamenei. For sure not a person who can continue IR the way Khamenei did.



Given that this assassination changed nothing to the geopolitical equation, yes, there was no "breach" in deterrence.
Pick up a dictionary and search what deterrence means.


If you want to make a point, you need to substantiate it with hard facts. Mere statements can never cut it. What exactly you're basing yourself on to make such a claim about Iran's contemporary clergy is the question here. What study, what research paper, what evidence, etc.
Just use common sense, something that you are deprived of. It is a no brainer that the 60's and 70's clerics wielded much more power than nowadays.






You keep saying I'm confused yet your argument is inherently self-contradicting.
You are confused Seyed and you are repeating the same things over and over again. Which part don't you understand? I will explain it for you.

So let me examine the latest variant of your evolving narrative: now you're saying the moment the IR decides to go for nukes, the Leader will be assassinated and massive bombing of the IRGC will ensue... This begs two questions:
The confusion continues.

Israel and the US will not allow Khamenei to get nukes. Hence, reason why he never violates any of these red lines. The evidence is right before your eyes.



1) Are you saying these bombardments will successfully prevent Iran from building the nukes?
Yes, and no. Depends on the ''orze'' of the establishment. If they did indeed develop some alternative plans then no. If, what i suspect, they did not, then yes, unfortunately, the bombings will do that.


If yes, what exactly are you complaining about? Since you believe Iran cannot build nukes anyway, because the moment it tries, the US will bomb her so much as to prevent it from happening.
We go back to my point of you being confused. Because the core of the problem here is you getting confused over and over again over my points. This has all to do with Khameneis indecisiveness, the longer he prolongs, the worse and uncertain the outcome would be. But i don't think he is going after nukes because he issued a fatwa on this (extremely likely, even if his fatwa can not be found directly).





2) If you're saying that the US can assassinate the Supreme Leader and bomb the IRGC into oblivion, but can't prevent Iran from building nukes
You are getting confused here again, Seyed. The US has indeed the power to kill Khamenei, if you tell me no, then i will think you are a little child with 0 knowledge. Is your world that propagandish?



if the US had the means to do all which you suggest, it sure as hell would also have the means to militarily prevent Iran from completing the construction of nuclear weapons.
We go back to my statement where i said, Khamenei is respecting the red lines put in place by the US. He can not escalate more from a certain point. The escalation has to be proportionate and by the rules. He is a very good boy.



If you're suggesting that one person - the Supreme Leader, cannot be safely protected from US bombings, but that the entire infrastructure needed to build nukes can, then you must be joking, honestly.
Are you serious? You are saying that killing one person is harder than wiping out a whole nuclear infrastructure? (some serious % being fortified, under mountains etc). Stop wasting time with such childish talks. Be serious.




Re-read my quote. You're not addressing it properly. Iran's present capability DOES deter and HAS deterred both the zionists and their American shabbos goys from attacking Iran.
Poor argument. You are all betting your arguments and your whole reputation on the fact that the US has not bombed the Iranian mainland yet! Extremely risky bet imo.


Else they would have done it ages ago. They'd have done it before Iraq, they'd have done it before Libya, they'd have done it before Syria because Iran's their biggest target among all the mentioned countries.
Continuous display of poor argument. ''Oh look, they bombed libya and iraq, but IR is not bombed yet, so IR must be some super duper entity''... ehm no. The real world does not work like that.


Then what exactly are you lamenting about? If Iran cannot safely acquire nukes because the US will prevent her from doing so, as you now claim, why are you pretending its "fear" that's preventing Iran from taking that step, and not actual material impossibility, like you're now claiming? Please make up your mind.
Already addressed.

You make up your mind: can Iran develop nukes or not? You just claimed she won't be able to, just one line above.
Under leadership of Khamenei? Hell no. That is what am telling you from the beginning, but your love for Khamenei is making you blind and deaf from even a little bit rational thinking.

Also as I told you, the negotiations won't result in Iran making any incapacitating concessions.
So it went from ''no concessions at all'' to ''any incapacitating concessions'' ?
right lol. btw the former statement by IR officials.

Rahbar has made sure of that. But they do provide Iran with a heavy hitting political argument. So our minds are perfectly made up already. You just need to make the effort of trying to understand these intricacies. It's not Iran's fault if choose not to do so.
Rahbar has made sure of what? Shipping all the enriched uranium away, pouring beton in arak,allowing camera installations, CIA&Mossad inspection and making deal with untrustworthy US?

North Korea has pursued the exact same approach as Iran when it comes to this issue. I gave you exact reasons as to why, you're countering with slogans.
I am afraid, you are the one being extremely emotional, over your love for one person.



I perfectly explained it already: North Korea had no other means to ensure deterrence. Iran does. Had North Korea been enjoying the same deterrence assets as Iran, she would never have opted for nukes. Simple as that.
I am sorry but i dont see North Korean nr.1 Generals getting killed even before they had no nukes. North Korea has a much higher deterrence than IR. Its a no brainer. Lay off the IR propaganda for a bit.

And North Korea has artilerry deterrence over Seoul. Widen your military knowledge please.


Even when Pyongyang was sitting at the negotiating table with Clinton and Trump? Funny how you're constantly contradicting yourself and not even realizing it.
Then what? They developed nukes. They are not like IR, endlessly begging at the negotiating table.





The Ahmadinejad administration negotiated too, and no "JCPOA fiasco" came out of it.
It is getting funnier.
You said " But politically, it is better for Iran to be able to say "see, we tried to negotiate but the US is refusing to uphold its own engagements"

Did IR not negotiate for several years and made a deal with the US? What happened after that? You need a second negotiation? What has Ahmadinejad to do with this? Please don't get too radical.






Also, you flip flopped your statement twice, no less. Going from "if Iran build nukes the US will attack" to "if Iran builds nukes the US will not be able to do anything, but the Iranian leadership is too dumb to realize that", to "the moment Iran tries to build nukes the US will attack" in your latest iteration. All three being baseless, obviously.
It is not my fault that you have a poor comprehension problem. Perhaps i need to dumb down my statements for you to understand. Because sometimes i leave out details, in the hope of you understanding them yourself, but alas.



But most importantly, Iran's non-nuclear arsenal has successfully deterred the US from daring to launch military aggression against Iran. End of story.
All your argument hinges on the fact that they not openly declared war and bombed the Iranian mainland. Extremely poor argument and time wasting.
Intelligent readers would understand this point.


You don't even take the time to read what it is you're replying to it would seem. Re-read that part of the discussion.
Seyed, i am tired of having to explain to you. But it's ok. Depending on your ''por roo-ness'' I will stick around a little longer.


The US regime is afraid of direct war with Iran. Proof: it never dared initiate any, despite holding a far greater grudge against Iran than it ever did against Saddam, Gaddafi and so on..
Salami, is that you?


I know, it's impossible to disprove the above logically and therefore it can only be countered through unsubstantiated claims over and over again. Not a problem with me, all this will achieve is to show readers who can back up their arguments with evidence and who can't.
Readers know that you are a radical shia muslim. And they know you have a big love for Khamenei. I am pretty relaxed in my position. You are blinded by ideology. I am not.


He crossed all imperial red lines ever since he came to power. Nukes are subsidiary and insignificant in this regard. They are a means, not the be all end all. And so that's how we ought to appreciate things..
So you are repeating that eliminating one tiny person is harder than a vast nuclear infrastructure? LOL




Right, the US can "eliminate" Iran's Supreme Leader but then it cannot eliminate the facilities Iran would use to build those nukes... So rather than going straight for these facilities, it would go for Iran's Leader.
Same as above. You are making a joke of yourself. Honestly, i don't even know why i am wasting my time on this. It takes even less than 1KG of TNT to eliminate Khamenei (if planned properly). However with thousands of tons of bombs it is still not sufficient to take out the entire nuclear program.

Shall i talk more in baby language with you, Seyed?





This is sub-par level argumentation. To suppose that Iran cannot protect her Supreme Leader in case of a war, but can shield facilities needed to produce nuclear weapons. Hilarious!
Haha. To think that one person is harder to eliminate than a vast nuclear program. You are nuts :rofl:
I am not even joking now. You make me shocked.






What part of "outside of a handful" don't you understand? So yes, seyyed Khamenei is one out of 5 or so. Five out of some 195 sovereign states on Earth.
You wrote handful out of spite, Seyed. In reality you wanted to say that he is the only genuine and daring one. We both know this, and all readers know this.






Secondly, why are you dodging my points all the time? I'm referring to the proven deterrent power of Iran's ballistic missiles, which, along with the other tools mentioned, have successfully deterred the enemy from striking Iran as a matter of simple fact. It's not that hard to realize.
already addressed before. all your arguments depend on one fact : Iran's mainland not attacked yet. it is not a safe position to be in though. I suggest you to revise your argument.

Honestly, i knew from the beginning it would be a total waste of time to start a discussion with you on Khamenei,IR and so on but it's okay, let's have some fun while we are at it. Btw, no hard feelings discussing these issues. Might get heated sometimes. I am a big fan of your posts against those anti Iran trolls here :D
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,349
2
4,569
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Like i said, Seyed, not on the level of Khamenei. For sure not a person who can continue IR the way Khamenei did.

I'm not a seyyed. Are you like, dull or just holding a grudge against Islam for replacing Zoroastrianism and with the Islamic Republic for putting an end to monarchy in Iran?

Then, I politely asked you for evidence as to the crazy notion that Ebrahim Raisi "does not" intend to pursue Resistance against the zio-American empire "on the same level" as Supreme Leader Khamenei. But you consistently fail to provide any. Now you can repeat unsubstantiated claims as many times as you like, that won't make them any more credible nor accurate, I'm afraid.

Pick up a dictionary and search what deterrence means.

No need, Islamic Iran is showing us what it actually means.

Just use common sense, something that you are deprived of. It is a no brainer that the 60's and 70's clerics wielded much more power than nowadays.

So you gladly admit you have zero evidence. Zero argument. Nothing. Only claims. Which are plain worthless in a rational discussion.

You are confused Seyed and you are repeating the same things over and over again. Which part don't you understand? I will explain it for you.

Firstly, start by understanding that I'm not a seyyed. That'll make you come across as less grotesque.

Secondly, I'm simply dismantling gibberish I read, i.e. responding point by point. Blame it on yourself if it feels repetitive to you.

The confusion continues.

Israel and the US will not allow Khamenei to get nukes. Hence, reason why he never violates any of these red lines. The evidence is right before your eyes.

Figment of your colorful but uninformed imagination, which you repeatedly fail to substantiate with evidence. No wonder, because it's beyond baseless.

Iran doesn't require nukes because she doesn't need any to deter the enemy from military aggression and to pursue her strategic goals. Hence why Iran has not acquired nuclear weapons.

Yes, and no. Depends on the ''orze'' of the establishment. If they did indeed develop some alternative plans then no. If, what i suspect, they did not, then yes, unfortunately, the bombings will do that.

So you don't actually know. Nice admission. Next.

We go back to my point of you being confused. Because the core of the problem here is you getting confused over and over again over my points. This has all to do with Khameneis indecisiveness, the longer he prolongs, the worse and uncertain the outcome would be. But i don't think he is going after nukes because he issued a fatwa on this (extremely likely, even if his fatwa can not be found directly).

We are back at you desperately twisting and spinning your own narrative in hopes of falling back on your feet. But since you don't properly master dialectics, you fail even at that.

In short, you keep whining that the Supreme Leader hasn't ordered to build nuclear weapons. Then you say you're not even sure that if he did, Iran could succeed in doing so under the US radar. Confused loggorhoea at its worst. And all claims made without any evidence nor compelling justification, of course.

You are getting confused here again, Seyed. The US has indeed the power to kill Khamenei, if you tell me no, then i will think you are a little child with 0 knowledge. Is your world that propagandish?

Do give it another try: the question's whether you believe the US can assassinate Iran's Leader while at the same time asserting it can't annihilate the facilities Iran would use to build nukes with. You understand the nuance?

We go back to my statement where i said, Khamenei is respecting the red lines put in place by the US. He can not escalate more from a certain point. The escalation has to be proportionate and by the rules. He is a very good boy.

1) Are nukes the only means to deter the US? You say yes.
2) If they deter the US, why does the Leader not order Iran to acquire them? You say because in that case, he would get assassinated by the US the moment he issued the orders.
3) If Iran cannot keep its Leader safe from assassination, what makes you think she can keep entire nuclear installations safe from getting obliterated by the US? You say yes, the US is indeed very much capable of destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Conclusion: your narrative is delusional for suggesting that in order to ensure Iran will not get nukes, the US will prefer threatening Iran's Leader with assassination, rather than simply bombing Iran's nuclear installations and thereby guaranteeing with far greater certainty that Iran will be deprived of the means to do so.

Your narrative is delusional for implying that the US can bomb Iran's nuclear installations but didn't because they prefer some sort of an imaginary "tacit understanding" with Iran, whereby Iran would be allowed to maintain latent nuclear break out capability while continuing to defy the zio-Americans and to openly confront them!

Are you serious? You are saying that killing one person is harder than wiping out a whole nuclear infrastructure? (some serious % being fortified, under mountains etc). Stop wasting time with such childish talks. Be serious.

Because a person cannot be sheltered in fortified bases, of course. Because a well protected person at the level of Iran's Supreme Leader, can't be successfully dissimulated from the enemy. Stop watching Hollywood films, where heads of state get assassinated by some American harlequin as if it was child's play.

Poor argument. You are all betting your arguments and your whole reputation on the fact that the US has not bombed the Iranian mainland yet! Extremely risky bet imo.

It's an excellent, solid argument. Onto itself, it debunks your entire, self-contradicting story telling.

Continuous display of poor argument. ''Oh look, they bombed libya and iraq, but IR is not bombed yet, so IR must be some super duper entity''... ehm no. The real world does not work like that.

That's not a reply. You don't have a counter-argument, have not furnished any alternate explanation as to the stark contrast in how Washington treated Iraq and Libya as compared to Iran. Hence the hollow one-liner again.

Already addressed.

No.

Under leadership of Khamenei? Hell no. That is what am telling you from the beginning, but your love for Khamenei is making you blind and deaf from even a little bit rational thinking.

You consistently fail to provide any valid reason for this assumption, trying to make it appear as a documented fact when it's nothing but a baseless assertion.

So it went from ''no concessions at all'' to ''any incapacitating concessions'' ?
right lol. btw the former statement by IR officials.

Where did I talk of "no concessions at all"? From the very beginning, I repeated that Iran will not forego two things:

1) Capability and know how to operate nuclear break out if required.
2) Civilian nuclear applications.

Which is all that matters.

Rahbar has made sure of what? Shipping all the enriched uranium away, pouring beton in arak,allowing camera installations, CIA&Mossad inspection and making deal with untrustworthy US?

1) Capability and know how to operate nuclear break out if required.
2) Civilian nuclear applications.

Which is all that matters.

I am afraid, you are the one being extremely emotional, over your love for one person.

You're resorting to slogans and unsubstantiated claims because you're driven by political bias.

I am sorry but i dont see North Korean nr.1 Generals getting killed even before they had no nukes. North Korea has a much higher deterrence than IR. Its a no brainer. Lay off the IR propaganda for a bit.

What did that assassination change to the geostrategic equation in the US-Iran confrontation? Better not try to reply to that one, eh? Keep dodging and I will keep reminding everyone of this little fact.

Besides, I was not speculating about who has "higher" deterrence. I was explaining what drove the DPRK to go for nukes; namely, her lack of sufficient alternate means of deterrence. The DPRK didn't build nuclear bombs to prevent her generals from being assassinated. She did so to deter against all out invasion.

And North Korea has artilerry deterrence over Seoul. Widen your military knowledge please.

1) The US will sacrifice Seoul, not Tel Aviv.
2) That's still not enough on its own. Iran is in possession of two to three additional key assets of deterrence.

Then what? They developed nukes. They are not like IR, endlessly begging at the negotiating table.

Missing the point again. You were trying to land a cheap jab against Keyhan for authoring opinion pieces against the US while Iran is holding negotiations. I highlighted your double standards, given that Korean papers were resorting to the exact same practice at the same time as Pyongyang was engaging in negotiations with Washington. So your point is moot, irrelevant, and motivated by political grudge.

Oh, and "begging"... sure. Iran's "begging" them right now. Stay under that delusion if it helps you sleep better.

It is getting funnier.
You said " But politically, it is better for Iran to be able to say "see, we tried to negotiate but the US is refusing to uphold its own engagements"

Did IR not negotiate for several years and made a deal with the US? What happened after that? You need a second negotiation? What has Ahmadinejad to do with this? Please don't get too radical.

What are you talking about? You suggested it makes no sense for Iran to partake in any negotiating process with the criminal US, even if at the end of the day Iran will refrain from making unacceptable concessions (and even if this should therefore result in a failure of the talks). I told you why it does makes sense even under these circumstances. Got it? The fact that you then felt compelled to bring up the JCPOA is indicative of either one of the following two possibilities: 1) You failed to understand the point, as often. 2) Tried to weasel your way around the argumentative predicament my explanation put you in, thinking I had forgotten about the successive steps of this discussion.

It is not my fault that you have a poor comprehension problem.

You're right, I have a "poor comprehension problem": I have issues with manifestations of poor comprehension indeed. And with those exhibiting it. It's just not my cup of tea.

Perhaps i need to dumb down my statements for you to understand. Because sometimes i leave out details, in the hope of you understanding them yourself, but alas..

This is your response to my accurate observation? How convincing!

All your argument hinges on the fact that they not openly declared war and bombed the Iranian mainland. Extremely poor argument and time wasting.
Intelligent readers would understand this point.

No, not at all. I made a considerable quantity of points. Besides, you declaring it's a "poor argument" does not make it so. That's just your attempt at trying to dodge it, because you've no counter-argument to present.

Seyed, i am tired of having to explain to you. But it's ok. Depending of your ''por roo-ness'' I will stick around a little longer.

What brilliant, striking demonstration. Absolutely persuasive. "Dariush the Great" at their shocking best.

Readers know that you are a radical shia muslim. And they know you have a big love for Khamenei. I am pretty relaxed in my position. You are blinded by ideology. I am not.

The fact that you must allude to my political orientation and even to my religious beliefs when none of the points I made is based on either religious or ideological considerations just proves that you are failing to address them on a rational level.

Your constant referring to me as "seyyed" furthermore shows how you're attempting to appeal to certain prejudices shared by secular nationalist Iranians as well as those with some grudge against Islam. Rest assured though, no such antics will lend your rant any validity.

So you are repeating that eliminating one tiny person is harder than a vast nuclear infrastructure? LOL
Same as above. You are making a joke of yourself. Honestly, i don't even know why i am wasting my time on this. It takes even less than 1KG of TNT to eliminate Khamenei (if planned properly). However with thousands of tons of bombs it is still not sufficient to take out the entire nuclear program.
Haha. To think that one person is harder to eliminate than a vast nuclear program. You are nuts :rofl:
I am not even joking now. You make me shocked.

Keep trying to suggest it's an ordinary person we're talking about, or that a facility capable of successfully shielding machinery from US strikes will not also allow to keeping a person secure. Keep issuing outlandish claims such as that Iran doesn't possess the ability to dissimulate her Leader from enemy operatives.

In reality you wanted to say that he is the only genuine and daring one. We both know this, and all readers know this.

I'd be worried about my psychological balance if I were you, for randomly attributing fictitious intentions to people.

But again that's beside the point, because this single fact is amply sufficient to debunk your rant. Yes, one in merely 5 or so heads of state, out of a staggering 195, to dare confront the zio-American empire. And this subject is trying to portray him as particularly insecure and submissive vis a vis US power. What a complete and utter joke.

already addressed before. all your arguments depend on one fact : Iran's mainland not attacked yet. it is not a safe position to be in though. I suggest you to revise your argument.

Iran's in a perfectly safe position. Does that fact annoy you this much? Hahaha.

Last but not least, I'm surely not the only one to have noticed how you like to take on non-Iranians when they post comments identical to yours about Iran being weak for not deterring the terrorist killing of shahid Soleimani, about Iran "not daring" to go for nukes (a favorite among local Pakistani users who dislike Iran), and so on, but then you come here and repeat these same talking points. Consistency definitely doesn't seem to be your forte now, does it.
 
Last edited:

Stryker1982

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
3,062
-2
4,952
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
FYI, for the friends on this forum.

Their is a NOTAM in place from Jan 18-20 in Semnan, where rocket firing will take place.

Decently likelihood a SAT launch will take place. Perhaps with the new Raafe engine. We shall see what happens in the next few days.
 

jauk

FULL MEMBER
Jul 8, 2016
376
0
591
Country
Anguilla
Location
Anguilla

Stryker1982

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
3,062
-2
4,952
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
The Houthis are claiming that they used 5 ballistic missiles and multiple drones. So their missiles and drones traveled 2000 KM ? That's a huge step up in capability. The Saudi/Emirati coalition are in big trouble.

US didn't seem to mention anything about missiles, and only said "drones".

Although, highly likely cruise missiles were used to travel very long distances. Could be a hoveyzeh
 

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
3,265
-3
7,319
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
FJU8qfKXMA0rx40
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 5, Members: 0, Guests: 5)


Top Bottom