What's new

Featured IRANIAN NUCLEAR SCIENTIST ASSASSINATED: STATE TV NEWS

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
487
2
917
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
These arguments against nukes only go to show how strong ideology and dogma is and how it defeats logic at every turn.
Pointing to the fact that Iran's present deterrence assets have successfully averted military aggression is not dogmatic though.

doesn't that tell you al you need to know about nukes? the cost of production, the cost and security of storage, the cost of delivery and practicality. it wins wars and keeps nations safe.
They didn't prevent the USSR from collapsing and from being dismantled.

Why is Iran being humiliated and afraid to retaliate or do anything while North Korea is left totally alone? Because they have nukes and no one can touch them. They can in fact do whatever they like and no-one can do anything.
Yes, it would spare Iran some setbacks in the propaganda and psy-ops departments. But that's what these terror attacks / assassinations mostly boil down to: occasional psy-ops successes, not geostrategically game-changing events.

The north can fire 100 missiles into south korean capital and what can South Korea or America do? not a darn thing. They would sit there and take it. like Iran does now.
Iran has not been fired 100 missiles at, nor would Iran leave such an overt, all out aggression unanswered.

some here think Iran isa danger to someone because of these missiles. This is a joke. Iran is being picked apart and prepared for a syria scenario. And there is nothing it can do. the missiles have stopped a more robust approach, but they will not help Iran in the Long run. I don't think the west wants regime change, they just want to destroy he country and this regime can keep the rubble.
I don't see Iran being "picked apart" in any way.

The recent terrorist assassination is certainly neither proof nor an indication for such an assumption that a Syrian scenario is feasible in Iran.

if missiles were that scary, Iran would not be permitted to haven them. there would already be a war.
And I do believe that if Iran tries to make nukes it will automatically trigger an invasion, but the crucial thing is, the moment a nuke is tested, that invasion will simply stop.
The same could be argued with regards to nuclear weapons: there would be a war, Iran would not be allowed to have them etc. And if one believes that missile production can be prevented easily, then what reason is there to assume that nuclear weapons acquisition can't.

Also if Iran's missile force - in addition to Iran's network of regional allies as well as the vulnerability of global energy supplies to interdiction by Iran, weren't serious game-changers then in fact a war would already have taken place.

Iran will be invited to be a part of the club. Similar to Pakistan.
Their hostility is not going to cease if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. It didn't towards the USSR or towards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea when they armed themselves with them.

my goodness, Pakistan harboured Bin Laden, and when Afghanistan did it, they invaded the country and killed their people for 20 years, and when Pakistan harboured him, they just pretended like nothing happened, they even made excuses for Pakistan saying, maybe it was rogue elements that did it.
Pakistan is at the same time an official ally to the US but the Taleban weren't. Pakistan's nuclear arms couldn't prevent Washington from killing scores of Pakistani civilians in drone strikes, even Pakistani soldiers were killed on at least one occasion.

If Iran had nukes, it could fire a missile into the Saudi Mistry of defence and the US would be like, "oh come on, that's not a nice thing to do, there is no military solution tot his argument. lets have a negotiation."

If Iran does that now, it would be the end of Iran.
But nothing much would come out of such negotiations, as the North Korean example suggests.

Thus Pyongyang won't fire a missile at Japanese or south Korean ministry buildings, even if it could do so with impunity.
 
Last edited:

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
Pointing to the fact that Iran's present deterrence assets have successfully averted military aggression is not dogmatic though.
your military and industrial infrastructure is exploding if front of your eyes. Your civilians and generals are being killed on your soil and abroad and you say you have averted military aggression? hehehehehe

can you imagine if someone killed a Russian general sent to syria? what would happen? or someone assassinated a North Korean or Chinese scientist?

your ability for self delusion is very great.

They didn't prevent the USSR from collapsing and from being dismantled.
USSR dismantled itself. or more accurately after a few hundred years of expansion, the Russian empire decided to free some of its captured lands and free some of its captured people. This is a miracle.

Still because of nukes, 30 years later, Russia can still invade sovereign countries and no-one can do anything about it. Russia takes parts of Ukraine, Georgia etc. there is only a letter protest. Russia could invade Estonia tomorrow, or Lithuania, a NATO member, nobody would do a thing. If Iran invaded Dubai, or Kuwaiti, it would be the end of Iran. can you figure out why?

I don't see Iran being "picked apart" in any way.

The recent terrorist assassination is certainly neither proof nor an indication for such an assumption that a Syrian scenario is feasible in Iran.
If you cant see it, the regime probably can't either, just showing that end end goal of destroying Iran will be achieved sooner.

Their hostility is not going to cease if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. It didn't towards the USSR or towards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea when they armed themselves with them.
It will cease to a large extent, you will be treated better so that you remain stable. nobody wants an unstable nuclear power. where as now, they want you unstable.

Pakistan is at the same time an official ally to the US but the Taleban weren't. Pakistan's nuclear arms couldn't prevent Washington from killing scores of Pakistani civilians in drone strikes, even Pakistani soldiers were killed on at least one occasion.
this is true, they did, But Pakistan just beat the Americans in Afghanistan. they are pulling out. Wasn't Pakistan behind the Amercian defeat there? And no-one says a bad word against Pakistan.

If Iran had nukes, it could arm and fund Hezbollah (or anyone) just as the Pakistanis do with Taliban and no-one would say a thing against Iran. but because you don't have nukes half of your armed forces are classified as terrorists.

As I said, amazing capacity for self delusion.
 

Dariush the Great

FULL MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
1,157
0
2,690
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
This argument that conventional missile deterrence only is enough to deter a conventional large scale enemy attack is ridiculous. According to this argument, the enemy can come and blow up buildings, kill high ranking officials, sanction the country to death and do anything they want except a classic massive military invasion. Mind you that the only people that are aggressively and mercilessly trying to keep Iran away from nukes are the very same people doing anything in their power to keep Iran weak and humiliated. The enemy is scared to death to see Iran armed with nuclear weapons.
 

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
This argument that conventional missile deterrence only is enough to deter a conventional large scale enemy attack is ridiculous. According to this argument, the enemy can come and blow up buildings, kill high ranking officials, sanction the country to death and do anything they want except a classic massive military invasion. Mind you that the only people that are aggressively and mercilessly trying to keep Iran away from nukes are the very same people doing anything in their power to keep Iran weak and humiliated. The enemy is scared to death to see Iran armed with nuclear weapons.
yes absolutely. everything except classic military invasion. But even syria without lots of missiles didn't have a classic military invasion. they have a sort of military invasion by about 6 foreign countries. We don't even know how many. Israel, USA, turkey, France, UK, perhaps a few more. Russia of course. It was invited and its never leaving. Is that an invasion? when they decide they will never leave?

Iran with nukes would mean the end of their word as they know it. They would have to live in peace, or at least humiliate and destroy another sucker.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
487
2
917
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
your military and industrial infrastructure is exploding if front of your eyes.
No, it isn't.

No incident occurred at a military site in 2020 except for the explosion of an ordinary gas tank, causing no damage whatsoever to any weapons systems nor to any military infrastructure. It may well have been an accident. If not, then the perpetrators were certainly amateurs because this did not harm Iran's defence industry in the slightest.

As for incidents affecting civilian infrastucture, other than the explosion at Natanz - which was the work of saboteurs, but hardly affects Iran's nuclear program and thus remains largely inconsequential, there are no other proven cases of sabotage.

In fact, a study showed that there were more such accidents in 2019 than in 2020, meaning there is nothing out of the ordinary with these events. In the US itself, similar industrial accidents are practically a daily occurrence. So one shouldn't take everything zionist-dominated media suggest at face value.

For reference:

Part 2: Iran’s Fires and Explosions Are Not Unusual

By Tiziana Corda

Updated: August 4, 2020

Original: July 21, 2020

The fires and explosions in Iran in the summer of 2020 were not anomalies. Some were quite ordinary, especially in a country with a long record of neglected infrastructure and especially in summertime. Data retrieved from the archives of IRNA — used for consistency and because the news agency provides fairly consistent media coverage of such incidents–shows that these kinds of events occur frequently. In 2019, IRNA reported at least 97 fires or explosions — at power plants, factories, hospitals, research centers, vessels and arms depots — or more than one per day over 2.5 months. During the same period in 2020, Iran witnessed at least 83 incidents. In both years, the seriousness of the events varied significantly. (Neither year includes fires in green areas such as parks, forests and gardens.)

The only major difference between 2020 and 2019 was the number of explosions at military or nuclear facilities—notably at the Natanz nuclear facility on July 6 and the Khojir missile plant on June 26.

Related material with chronology of incidents: "Mysterious Explosions Rock Iran"

The following maps detail the site and type of fire or explosion assembled from IRNA data:


  • fires and explosions in military/nuclear sites noted in black (and only happened in 2020),
  • medical centers noted with a cross
  • factories, power plants, public places are noted in dark red,
  • and private residential units are in light red.



Therefore you are essentially evoking non-issues, since with the exception of only one or two cases, none of these are likely to have been the work of foreign agents. And, none of this has affected the continued development of Iran's civilian and military industries. In other words, there's nothing to write home about.

Your civilians and generals are being killed on your soil and abroad and you say you have averted military aggression? hehehehehe
What general was killed on Iranian soil? What civilians are being killed?

And yes, Iran has successfully averted outright military aggression. Token acts of terrorim or sabotage do not qualify as proper military aggression in anyone's book.

By the way, all nuclear powers except for North Korea have been subject to and have lost civilians to terrorist attacks committed on their territory. Be it the USA, the UK, France, Pakistan, India or the zionist entity. By your logic they too "failed to avert military aggression", despite their nuclear armament. In reality Iran has been one of the countries least affected by terrorism over the past couple of decades.

can you imagine if someone killed a Russian general sent to syria? what would happen?
I can imagine someone shooting down a Russian fighter jet over Syria, killing its pilots. Or someone pounding Russian private contractors in Deir ez-Zour, killing according to estimates more than a hundred in a go.

More significant yet, 241 US Marines and 38 French military personnel were killed in the 1983 Beirut barrack bombing carried out by pro-Iranian forces. 600+ US occupation troops in Iraq were killed by Iranian-armed and -trained resistance groups in the 2000's.

Retaliation-wise, in all of the above cases, nothing happened in military terms, despite the fact that the US and Russia are in possession of the world's two largest nuclear weapons arsenals.

or someone assassinated a North Korean or Chinese scientist?

your ability for self delusion is very great.
Do not shift goalposts and do not change the topic.

There is no "delusion" in the fact that Iran has successfully deterred military aggression. Because once again, token targeted assassinations do not qualify as proper military aggression.

It is also a fact that Iran would have been subjected to actual aggression if its defensive power was not deterring its enemies from launching such an aggression.


USSR dismantled itself. or more accurately after a few hundred years of expansion, the Russian empire decided to free some of its captured lands and free some of its captured people. This is a miracle.
In other words, nuclear weapons on their own do not keep nation-states safe, which is what I was responding to. They didn't in the case of the USSR, a state that no longer exists.

Still because of nukes, 30 years later, Russia can still invade sovereign countries and no-one can do anything about it. Russia takes parts of Ukraine, Georgia etc. there is only a letter protest. Russia could invade Estonia tomorrow, or Lithuania, a NATO member, nobody would do a thing. If Iran invaded Dubai, or Kuwaiti, it would be the end of Iran. can you figure out why?
Iran does not intend to invade anyone, so the contention is out of context.

Speaking of the Russian Federation, it had to confront armed uprising on its own territory over the course of two high intensity conflicts in Chechnya. It's nuclear armament couldn't prevent it. Nor was Russian victory in Chechnya due to Moscow's nuclear weapons. And, these weapons did not deter NATO and its regional vassals from backing the anti-Russian, separatist rebellion in the Caucasus.

end end goal of destroying Iran will be achieved sooner.
Anti-Iranian elements have been rehashing the same line for 40+ years and have kept being proven wrong by history. They should brace themselves for another 40 years of .

this is true, they did, But Pakistan just beat the Americans in Afghanistan. they are pulling out. Wasn't Pakistan behind the Amercian defeat there? And no-one says a bad word against Pakistan.

If Iran had nukes, it could arm and fund Hezbollah (or anyone) just as the Pakistanis do with Taliban and no-one would say a thing against Iran. but because you don't have nukes half of your armed forces are classified as terrorists.
The US regime's conflict with the Taleban is not of an existential nature and their enmity has always been reversible.

In fact it was the CIA whose support for specific factions of the Afghan mujahidin led to the creation and rise of the Taleban. US outreach to the Taleban is nothing new either, it follows a long tradition:


Pakistan's primary objective is to see a friendly government take over in Kabul. If Washington considers that such a government would continue to ensure US strategic interests in Afghanistan, then it will not oppose it. This is what the current trilateral negotiations on Afghanistan are all about.

When it comes to US pullout from Afghanistan, I will believe it when I see it. For now it is far from certain to come to pass.

Whereas the US regime's hostility against Hezbollah and Iran runs much deeper. Thus a grand bargain to solve mutual points of contention is immensely more difficult to conceive. Reason being the zionist entity, and America's complete subservience to that entity. America is subservient to Tel Aviv, not to the government it installed in Kabul.

If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Washington would not magically shelve its hostility nor acquiesce to Hezbollah's challenging of Isra"el"... The contrary would very much be the case. The US can envisage to sacrifice the current Afghan government in order to strike a deal with the Taleban and Pakistan; but it will never even think of jeopardizing let alone sacrificing the zionist entity's security or geostrategic standing in order to pursue a raprochment with the Axis of Resistance.

This is unrelated to nuclear weapons. It is flawed to perceive such multi-faceted geopolitical issues from the sole prism of nuclear armament, or to ascribe to the latter that much of an explanatory power.

By the way, I notice that the blog post I keep pointing to reply after reply is systematically being dodged. So long as the argumentation contained therein is not addressed, any dismissal of the opposed view as mere "self-delusion" cannot be taken seriously.

This right here is why there's nothing delusional about Iran's strategic thinking and its defence doctrine:



_____


This argument that conventional missile deterrence only is enough to deter a conventional large scale enemy attack is ridiculous. According to this argument, the enemy can come and blow up buildings, kill high ranking officials, sanction the country to death and do anything they want except a classic massive military invasion.
Please make sure to tell that to the author of the blog post below:

https://patarames.blogspot.com/2020/11/irans-path-to-second-strike-capability.html

This amply demonstrates the soundness and logic of Iran's conventional missile deterrence.

No, the enemy cannot do anything they want according to this argument.

First and foremost, according to this argument the enemy cannot reach its objective with regards to Iran. And that's what actually counts.

As for sanctioning the country to death, if Iran armed itself with nuclear weapons, sanctions will not be lifted either (see the example of North Korea).
 
Last edited:

IranDefence

FULL MEMBER
Aug 23, 2016
218
-1
1,004
Country
Austria
Location
Yemen
BodyGuard of Shahid Fakhrizade
He put himself on Fakhrizade Israeli terrorists shot him with 4 bullets but it was finished professor got martyred ... he has a World Judo Title and Alhamdulilah recovered from death



 

Philosopher

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 5, 2020
3,336
16
8,647
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
These MEK members and their leaders needs to start being eliminated one by one, this needs to become Iran's priority in terms of foreign based operations. These MEK are the core of these traitorous insiders in Iran that allow the likes of CIA and Mossad to get a foothold in Iran.

Some targets:

1607204434267.png


1607204464203.png


No mercy must be shown.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,112
-10
5,164
Country
United States
Location
United States
Apparently one of scientist sons said his security team told him to not go out of town the day of the assassination, that the risk was too high. But he went anyway.

So it tells me that Iran picked up chatter that there was an attempt on his life.
 

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
9,525
0
11,092
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Ex-CIA head Brennan wrong to call Iranian scientist killing ‘criminal,’ US also carried out such actions, ex-Mossad chief tells RT — RT World News

Ex-CIA head Brennan wrong to call Iranian scientist killing ‘criminal,’ US also carried out such actions, ex-Mossad chief tells RT
5 Dec, 2020 14:53 / Updated 10 hours ago
Get short URL
Ex-CIA head Brennan wrong to call Iranian scientist killing ‘criminal,’ US also carried out such actions, ex-Mossad chief tells RT

  • 75

  • 1



Follow RT onRT
Criticism of the killing of a senior Iranian military researcher voiced by the ex-head of the CIA seems misplaced considering that his chief Barack Obama ordered targeted assassinations himself, a former Mossad head believes.
Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was gunned down last week in what many, including top Iranian officials, believe to be a clandestine Israeli operation. RT’s Going Underground spoke to Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israeli secret service Mossad, to discuss the high-profile assassination, criticism of the move coming from some senior intelligence figures in the US, and what possible goals may have been behind it.
John Brennan, the head of the CIA under Barack Obama, reacted to the killing with remarkably harsh words calling it a “criminal act,”“highly reckless” and possibly an “act of state-sponsored terrorism” that would be “a flagrant violation of international law.”
ALSO ON RT.COM‘Criminal act’: Ex-CIA chief urges Iran to wait on ‘return of responsible US leaders’ before reacting to nuclear scientist killing
The characterization does not seem genuine coming from Brennan, Halevy said, considering that “American organizations and agencies in the past have carried out similar acts when they believed that an individual was endangering the national security of their country.”
I think that name-calling is not a very good idea in this kind of activity.
Brennan was the one official in the Obama administration to formally acknowledge for the first time that the CIA was running the highly controversial program of targeted drone assassinations. He insists that killing “terrorist leaders & operatives” is fundamentally different to what happened to Fakhrizadeh.
Halevy pointed out that Fakhrizadeh was not merely a scientist but also a high-ranking officer in the IRGC, Iran’s powerful military wing. He refused to assess whether targeting him was legitimate or not, saying such judgements don’t belong to retired officials. He also noted that as a political tool such killings were very limited.
“Targeted assassinations have the value of the moment and they are important as such,” he said. “But if you are looking for a strategic change as a result of such an operation you will not find it.”


RT also spoke about the situation with Sam Medhi Torabi, director of the Risalat Strategic Studies Institute in Iran, who said if Israel expected Iran to lash out after Fakhrizadeh’s murder and subject itself to retaliation, people in charge there don’t really know Iran.
The assassination “is not going to take Iran away from its strategic goal,” he said.
“Iran’s strategic goal is to drive out, expel the Americans from West Asia. It’s going to happen, the only issue is how it is going to happen,” he assured.
 

Xerxes22

FULL MEMBER
Jun 22, 2020
420
-6
606
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Ireland
A CIA operative reading this has just chocked on his doughnut from laughter. They will blame you for his death. Please.
not only a CIA operative. I myself choked on my Kebab and Biriyani after reading what he said. that wudnt even make sense to the commanders of afghan mechanised donkey corp.
 

Blue In Green

FULL MEMBER
Nov 30, 2016
1,508
0
2,724
Country
United States
Location
United States
not only a CIA operative. I myself choked on my Kebab and Biriyani after reading what he said. that wudnt (wouldn't) even make sense to the commanders of afghan mechanised (mechanized*) donkey corp.
Address me directly if you're going to poke fun at my objectively true argument, if you have something worthwhile to say then say it, don't pollute the thread with childish "jokes" no one cares about.
 

Xerxes22

FULL MEMBER
Jun 22, 2020
420
-6
606
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Ireland
These arguments against nukes only go to show how strong ideology and dogma is and how it defeats logic at every turn.

Think about it this way. USA was bombing Japan into rubble in the closing days of WW2. Fire bombing cities and dropping everything on them killing hundreds of thousands of people per city.

They could have kept this up and killed 5 or 10 or even 20 million Japanese and I can tell you the Japanese would not have surrendered.

Soviets lost 40 million and did not surrender. So the Japanese would not surrender because of bombing, death and destruction.

What made the Japanese surrender, unconditionally? two atom bombs. just two little atom bombs, one that killed less than were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo.

doesn't that tell you al you need to know about nukes? the cost of production, the cost and security of storage, the cost of delivery and practicality. it wins wars and keeps nations safe.

no messy sabotage, no need to retaliate, because everyone leaves you well alone. Why is Iran being humiliated and afraid to retaliate or do anything while North Korea is left totally alone? Because they have nukes and no one can touch them. They can in fact do whatever they like and no-one can do anything.

In fact they can destroy quite a few American cities. and totally wipe out South Korea. and South Korea is not allowed to have nukes. The north can fire 100 missiles into south korean capital and what can South Korea or America do? not a darn thing. They would sit there and take it. like Iran does now.

you think America would come to the aid of South Korea if it risked losing a LA or San Francisco? let me tell you not a chance. you think South Korea would ever invade the north under any circumstances? it would never. simply because of nukes.

some here think Iran isa danger to someone because of these missiles. This is a joke. Iran is being picked apart and prepared for a syria scenario. And there is nothing it can do. the missiles have stopped a more robust approach, but they will not help Iran in the Long run. I don't think the west wants regime change, they just want to destroy he country and this regime can keep the rubble.

Anyway, you can delude yourself, but its pretty clear what weapons can save a country and what weapons cant. if missiles were that scary, Iran would not be permitted to haven them. there would already be a war.

And I do believe that if Iran tries to make nukes it will automatically trigger an invasion, but the crucial thing is, the moment a nuke is tested, that invasion will simply stop. Iran will be invited to be a part of the club. Similar to Pakistan.

my goodness, Pakistan harboured Bin Laden, and when Afghanistan did it, they invaded the country and killed their people for 20 years, and when Pakistan harboured him, they just pretended like nothing happened, they even made excuses for Pakistan saying, maybe it was rogue elements that did it.

If Iran had nukes, it could fire a missile into the Saudi Mistry of defence and the US would be like, "oh come on, that's not a nice thing to do, there is no military solution tot his argument. lets have a negotiation."

If Iran does that now, it would be the end of Iran.
Iran can get out of this hole by only one way. MUSCLE AND AGGRESSION. They only need to do two things. Two simple steps.

1. Acquire Nuclear Weapons
2. After going nuclear Block the strait of hormuz. No Passage of oil. Nothing passes through the strait. Sink a few ships and give the west an Ultimatum.

If this is done, the west will hurry to negotiate and give Iran whatever they want. they will stop trying to changing the equation through external means(war, invasion) and turn all their resources to toppling the government from internal unrest. Which they will fail in.

This is the best and easiest way Iran can save itself. HORMUZ IS A BIG WEAPON FOR IRAN.
But they need the nukes to pull it off.
 

Mirzah

FULL MEMBER
Mar 12, 2014
432
-3
949
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
These MEK members and their leaders needs to start being eliminated one by one, this needs to become Iran's priority in terms of foreign based operations. These MEK are the core of these traitorous insiders in Iran that allow the likes of CIA and Mossad to get a foothold in Iran.

Some targets:

View attachment 693532



No mercy must be shown.
This guy looks like he's from south india :lol:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom