Iranian Chill Thread

[Philosopher]

It's exactly the same photo, not identical.

How have you come to that conclusion? You only have two things to compare, the UAV and its background. In my picture there is a grey cloudy sky, whereas the other photo is non-cloudy. And the UV is not going to change much. Furthermore, the photo I have posted has been around for years and is from Iran, the other is apparently recent and from Libya.

 

[bsruzm]

How have you come to that conclusion? You only have two things to compare, the UAV and its background. In my picture there is a grey cloudy sky, whereas the other photo is non-cloudy. Furthermore, the photo I have posted has been around for years and is from Iran, the other is apparently from Libya.

It's not some miracle, man.

 

[Philosopher]

It's not some miracle, man.

It is certainly not the same photo. Whether it is a picture of an Iranian Ababil in Libya or not, that's another matter entirely. I'll reserve final judgement for now. If Iranian UAVs are in Libya, then we will see much more of them.

 

[bsruzm]

It is certainly not the same photo. Whether it is a picture of an Iranian Ababil in Libya or not, that's another matter entirely. I'll reserve final judgement for now. If Iranian UAVs are in Libya, then we will see much more of them.

That's true, we would see but that photo isn't true. They need to improve their editing skills. I don't want to call that a photoshop lol

 

[sha ah]

We already know that Iran is selling weapons to the LNA via UAE and then there's Sudan which Iran used to supply, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

That's true, we would see but that photo isn't true. They need to improve their editing skills. I don't want to call that a photoshop lol

 

[Hack-Hook]

We already know that Iran is selling weapons to the LNA via UAE and then there's Sudan which Iran used to supply, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

No we don't knew that . we knew iran gave those weapon to Syria and Sudan . we don't knew anything more.

 

[Philosopher]

A nice talk on the F-22 Raptor by one of its pilots.

 

[Shawnee]

We feel like our politicians can lie and get away with it. It looks like Israeli politicians cal also lie blatantly and easily.


وزیر دفاع اسرائیل در سخنرانی پایان کارش: ایران خروج از سوریه را آغاز کرده است


https://www.bbc.com/persian/iran-52718581

 

[skyshadow]

Iran Arrests Human Trafficking Ringleader in Malaysia

https://iranians.global/iran-arrest...utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=iran_diaspora

 

[Philosopher]

@Joe Shearer that original thread was taken off topic so I will reply to your comment here.

It is an artificial creation of Sykes-Picot, anyway, intended to reward a bunch of princelings with no tangible power other than the support of the British. However much it is politically correct to wring one's hands about Saudi Arabia, at least that leadership won their right to rule.

It is time that these bubble kingdoms were swept away.

From experience, artificial creations tend to have short expiry dates. In the time-scale of history, I find it hard to foresee a destiny other than transientness for countries whose borders were apparently influenced by the "hiccup" of the likes of Churchill.

"A map of Jordan with Saudi Arabia to the south-east; the large triangle of land in Saudi Arabia that points towards the Dead Sea is apocryphally known as "Winston's Hiccup".

It is said when drawing the above Saudi Jordan borders, Churchill developed a hiccup which which led to a tugging-pulling of his hand leading to the discontinuation in the above map. This is the extend of the artificialness we are dealing with here.

But in the end, throughout all these map drawings, wars, king-makings, usurping etc, it is only the ostensibly "powerless" everyday people that suffer, perish and get left out of memory. So yes, I have no doubt these created countries will eventually disappear, but the sad truth is, what replaces them is usually a different form of the same thing.

 

[925boy]

We already know that Iran is selling weapons to the LNA via UAE and then there's Sudan which Iran used to supply, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

I believe you mean to say :

We already know that Iran is selling weapons to the LNA via Syria and then there's Sudan which Iran used to supply, so it's not out of the realm of possibility

 

[Saddam Hussein]

@Joe Shearer that original thread was taken off topic so I will reply to your comment here.



From experience, artificial creations tend to have short expiry dates. In the time-scale of history, I find it hard to foresee a destiny other than transientness for countries whose borders were apparently influenced by the "hiccup" of the likes of Churchill.

"A map of Jordan with Saudi Arabia to the south-east; the large triangle of land in Saudi Arabia that points towards the Dead Sea is apocryphally known as "Winston's Hiccup".

It is said when drawing the above Saudi Jordan borders, Churchill developed a hiccup which which led to a tugging-pulling of his hand leading to the discontinuation in the above map. This is the extend of the artificialness we are dealing with here.

But in the end, throughout all these map drawings, wars, king-makings, usurping etc, it is only the ostensibly "powerless" everyday people that suffer, perish and get left out of memory. So yes, I have no doubt these created countries will eventually disappear, but the sad truth is, what replaces them is usually a different form of the same thing.

Arabs do not care much about the borders between other Arab states. The Arab revolt was never about Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia or the UAE. It was about the Arab revolt. The aim and expectation was a united Arab state, this is why pan-Arabism as an ideology grew strongly after the formation of all these states.

Jordan might just as well be part of Syria, or Iraq (which it was for 1 year) or Saudi Arabia. Iraq's borders with Syria make no sense as the people in Deir al Zour speak the Iraqi dialect and are the same people as the people in Anbar. The borders between Saudi Arabia and Iraq are artificial, they are drawn and agreed upon. That makes the border artificial, not the nation which remains Arab.

Arab regions all have their differences in dialect, people's looks and sub cultures, that doesn't take away the general culture and linguistic traits that bind them together as Arab peoples.

There never was a reason for 22 Arab states other than to ensure division, small countries that do not grow too powerful and it makes it easier to intervene. People here like to call the countries fake, as if we belong to non-Arab neighbors whilst we are Arabs.

An example is the Saudi-Iraq neutral zone dispute. Disputes between all these states were mainly about political ideologies, the people do not differ that much from one another from right across the border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian–Iraqi_neutral_zone

When people dispute the 'realness' of these countries, they always tend to suggest for division based on sectarian or ethnic lines which would not make the nation any more 'real'. They never suggest for unification based on the Arab identity as that is a very negative development for neighboring countries.

 

[Philosopher]

Arabs do not care much about the borders between other Arab states. The Arab revolt was never about Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia or the UAE. It was about the Arab revolt. The aim and expectation was a united Arab state, this is why pan-Arabism as an ideology grew strongly after the formation of all these states.

Jordan might just as well be part of Syria, or Iraq (which it was for 1 year) or Saudi Arabia. Iraq's borders with Syria make no sense as the people in Deir al Zour speak the Iraqi dialect and are the same people as the people in Anbar. The borders between Saudi Arabia and Iraq are artificial, they are drawn and agreed upon. That makes the border artificial, not the nation which remains Arab.

Arab regions all have their differences in dialect, people's looks and sub cultures, that doesn't take away the general culture and linguistic traits that bind them together as Arab peoples.

There never was a reason for 22 Arab states other than to ensure division, small countries that do not grow too powerful and it makes it easier to intervene. People here like to call the countries fake, as if we belong to non-Arab neighbors whilst we are Arabs.

An example is the Saudi-Iraq neutral zone dispute. Disputes between all these states were mainly about political ideologies, the people do not differ that much from one another from right across the border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian–Iraqi_neutral_zone

When people dispute the 'realness' of these countries, they always tend to suggest for division based on sectarian or ethnic lines which would not make the nation any more 'real'. They never suggest for unification based on the Arab identity as that is a very negative development for neighboring countries.

The problem here is you're relying too much on this notion of a unifying Arab identity which in practise does not really exist. You talk about Arabs being turned into states to ensure division however long before the British even got involved in that region, the highly tribalistic nature of these societies existed. The reason these so called "Arabs" are divided today stems from that inherently tribalistic nature, not because some forceful attempt to cause divide and rule by the outside. All one has to do is view a single so called Arab country today and see the division within. Minus a shared language, almost everything else is very different between the Arab people. If you think a shared language is unifying these people, then you have a very superficial view of the situation.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

The problem here is you're relying too much on this notion of a unifying Arab identity which in practise does not really exist. You talk about Arabs being turned into states to ensure division however long before the British even got involved in that region, the highly tribalistic nature of these societies existed. The reason these so called "Arabs" are divided today stems from that inherently tribalistic nature, not because some forceful attempt to cause divide and rule by the outside. All one has to do is view a single so called Arab country today and see the division within. Minus a shared language, almost everything else is very different between the Arab people. If you think a shared language is unifying these people, then you have a very superficial view of the situation.

The importance of tribal ancestry in the Arab world has declined and is largely practically irrelevant in the large populous Arab states, especially with today's new generations it phasing out quicker than ever. In Iraq, if you travel to Baghdad you'll find little care for what tribe someone is from. Damascus same story. I never heard of any tribe talk in my family.

In every country, each city/region has its own practices. The Arab world has several regions, of course the Maghreb region internally has its smaller set of differences, and larger differences when compared to a country in the Eastern part of the Arab world. No one said it is 1 homogeneous entity, but then again which country is? That is why larger countries are often federal states.

The point is that the Sykes-Picot agreements which determined the borders drawn between Arab states are not that important to us. Whether Mosul was to be part of Syria or Iraq does not matter, Iraq and Syria should've been one state instead.

For your info, a small country like the Netherlands has various different people's, with many different dialects and religious backgrounds whilst it is very small. Going by that argument I'm able to find hundreds of divisions inside Iran.

 

[Philosopher]

The importance of tribal ancestry in the Arab world has declined and is largely practically irrelevant in the large populous Arab states, especially with today's new generations it phasing out quicker than ever. In Iraq, if you travel to Baghdad you'll find little care for what tribe someone is from. Damascus same story. I never heard of any tribe talk in my family.

In every country, each city/region has its own practices. The Arab world has several regions, of course the Maghreb region internally has its smaller set of differences, and larger differences when compared to a country in the Eastern part of the Arab world. No one said it is 1 homogeneous entity, but then again which country is? That is why larger countries are often federal states.

The point is that the Sykes-Picot agreements which determined the borders drawn between Arab states are not that important to us. Whether Mosul was to be part of Syria or Iraq does not matter, Iraq and Syria should've been one state instead.

For your info, a small country like the Netherlands has various different people's, with many different dialects and religious backgrounds whilst it is very small. Going by that argument I'm able to find hundreds of divisions inside Iran.

Whether it is improving or not is another issue, the point was the existence of such an underlying divisive situation to begin with. I am not surprised, because if you just try to unite people on paper using their shared language and little else, then obviously the true nature will still play out in practise. You said Arabs do not care about borders and appeared to insinuate this current situation is due to outside agenda in creating divide and conquer. However like I explained, this is a misguided view of the situation. The Arabs identity is simply not real and cohesive enough for your view of it to ever come to reality.

As for Iran, yes there are issues but Iranians not only share a culture and history, but blood as well. Iran is in no shape or form comparable to these Arab countries.