Well I suggest look again what happen here is in a two lane road a lorry made an illegal and wreckless overtake and the car that come from front for preventing accident hastily go to shoulder and half the car is in shoulder and half outside road. That is what you meant.? Was that your acuratu intubation.
Stop passing speculation off as fact, none of the documents you shared contain proof that it's a two-lane road.
Only If your understanding of excellent road is as your understanding of situation in previous picture. *
No. As a matter of fact.
Don't look at the camels who care about them leek at the quality of the asphalt. Wonder why in photos you don't see what is important and go and focus on useless details.
The minuscule, low quality picture says nothing about the quality of the asphalt on that road. No matter how hard it may be for some to digest, this is and will remain an excellent road.
Sadly it's not the case at all.
It's totally the case, denials won't be backed by anything but nonsense.
You can see the difference in Tehran mashad rail road which is a two lane one with the rest but as you are not in Iran and don't use them you just argue for the sake of arguing.
It's you who is arguing for the sake of it, the overarching goal being to push a political agenda.
Tehran-Mashhad is the route with the highest demand in Iran, by a huge margin. As far as other lines are concerned, traffic on them can be raised by adding carriages if required. The Islamic Republic did an astonishing job at developing the railway network considering funds available.
Sadly not the overall but the section.
It's the overall travel time.
And I said why in some situation roads will be harder.
Railways are harder to construct than roads, including in Iran and no amount of diversion will impact the fact. End of story.
And please go and count the number of people who do it outside arbaeen. You made a comical suggestion and I pointed to you how comical it is and you now try to change the discussion.
The only comical suggestion(s) came from none other the user I'm quoting: namely, the notion that traveling hundreds of kilometers on foot is somehow to be regarded as "more comfortable" than doing so aboard a vehicle.
Also the quoted user is the only one throwing red herring after red herring, in a failed attempt to distract from the drivel they've kept producing from the outset.
It seems reading problem is on your side
The quoted user has had comprehension issues, it's very evident.
as you suggested that not me and I only show how comical your suggestion is.
Incorrect, it stems from the absurd talk I've had to address.
No they aren't.
aseman only have 20 old aircraft and I dare you find ticket for half the cities on that map and provide the link here.
Or maybe, just maybe it's be an older map.
That page is aseman official website and what you exactly arguing here aseman is also somehow private airline
Are you again arguing for the sake of arguing?
Projecting again.
I undeniably proved there are blatant mistakes in the information provided by that website. Which in turn compromises its trustworthiness as a source. In short, it's worthless.
Sadly for you I like you to show me how Iran Air our not so private airline provide service to these small towns
Iran Air being the country's flag carrier, its primary mission consists in serving international destinations, followed by major domestic ones.
Also the assumption upon which you're operating runs counter to micro-economic logic. There's no need to tergiversate endlessly.
And then we talk about what is own goal.
No we won't, your foregoing post is amply enough.
By the way these airlines were private from start, no privatization happened here.
This is in fact untrue. Ownership of Iran Aseman was transferred to the Retirement Organization, a public state institution.
If these days small facts and details called that.
Excuses are called excuses.
In fact that's 1351 to 1357
If you want Christian date that is 1972
1950 to 1979 is almost forty years.
And let me tell you why those cities get those airfields it was not like it was out of good heart of government. It was army who wanted them. You recall there was an argument how to protect our airforce asset in case of war and how to make them operational during war. Well here come the not so useful suggestion of building 4-5 underground bases well army choose the more logical solution of having 90+ airfield and building more. That's why those cities have airport to begin with.
This is not the reason at all. Dozens of airports with all the required facilities for civilian flights were constructed in order to integrate less populated provincial cities into the national infrastructure, and thereby democratize means of transportation. In contrast to the policy of the pro-zionist and western subservient shah regime.
And prebamly way way way less capable of buying cars.
I was talking about businesses
The access of Iranians to inter-city transportation has drastically improved since the victory of the Islamic Revolution. There's no comparison to the conditions they had to put up with under the toppled pro-zionist, western client regime you don't miss an opportunity to disingenuously try and whitewash against established facts, by resorting to figures of speech and rhetoric fallacies.
As I recall there is different level of hardship
Irrelevant to the point, another red herring.
For you who is on mission to justify the shortcomings maybe
I'm not on any mission, but kind of enjoy debunking anti-IRI propaganda, i.e. the same disinformation spread by foreign-based Persian language media you regularly seek to defend, and whose narratives you echo.
Bottom line: trying to dismiss the reality, some of which is reflected in figures like these:
...by invoking side aspects and details which count for nothing in regards to the above, is but a joke. Anyone resorting to such hogwash disqualifies themself instantly and thoroughly.
The zionist and western client regime of the Pahlavis you hold in esteem - a trait characteristic of people who wish to see Iran return into the imperial periphery, did close to zilch to develop infrastructures in Iran. The Islamic Republic however has offered Iran the great majority of infrastructures she's equipped with today, in a shorter period of time and in the face of much larger adversity. And there's much more under construction.
Cope, because irregardless of whatever hair splitting and semantic sophistry you come up with, this is the simple and plain truth. And it certainly isn't lost on you either.
