SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
That's hardly relevant to the point I made by posting these videos. If you find anything ridiculous or funny about these clips, then by all means go ahead and address those aspects please. If not, then it is now unanimously established that predictions about the IR's "imminent downfall", with reference to the same old mantras claiming that "the people are on the brink of explosion", have consistently proven to be red herrings for the past four decades.
So for all I care, those eager to join that chorus and the list of characters chanting it, are welcome to keep repeating ten times per day how the IR's "downfall" is going to occur "very soon".
It'll be factual if and when it takes place, prior to that it's a more or less plausible prediction.
It's considerably more complex than that. Read Marx. Read the classics of sociology. People are far from being automatically destined to rebel against the state authority when their basic needs aren't met. Many other factors come into play.
Now this is not to say some riot will or will not take place here and there in Iran, I'm just refuting what is being presented as a general socio-economic rule.
I don't see any contradiction there. General Salami isn't the first one to have made such a remark; it seems you missed the interview with general Hajizadeh several months ago, where he said that killing a maximum number of US troops wasn't the goal of the operation.
However, that doesn't mean none were killed in effect. Saying "we did not particularly intend to kill simple soldiers" is not the same as saying "no soldier was killed in the attack".
My point stands, there's no proof that nobody was killed in the strikes. Statements from the US regime, whose officials resort to lying as part of their modus operandi and at times gladly admit to it, do not qualify as evidence.
Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew About Iraq 15 Years Ago and What He Told the U.N.
The evidence is irrefutable: Colin Powell consciously deceived the world in his 2003 presentation making the case for war with Iraq.
theintercept.com
Go on and show us what is "nonsensical", "fanatical" or "irrational" about what I've had to say.
And what exactly makes you think your views are unanimously shared by everyone?
As for Raefipour, he's one of the most popular speakers in Iran. Venues hosting his conferences are systematically full. If the points I make are in line with Raefipour's, it follows that a lot of Iranians won't be upset by them, quite the contrary.
Outlandish assessment. The fact that the intensity of Washington's "regime change" efforts against Iran - and by that I mean the entire scope of measures taken hitherto by the US, has gone into overdrive instead of abating, squarely disproves these far-fetched notions.
These facts you cite in support of your conclusion (be it US arms sales to the Saudis, or the freezing of Iranian assets) do not represent new developments, and none point to nor imply any qualitative reversal in the utterly hostile relationship between the US regime and Islamic Iran.
As for the US regime's (and it's zionist masters') ulterior motives, and why said motives absolutely necessitate the elimination not just of the Islamic Republic but of Iran as a functional, unified nation-state, I already explained these in my previous reply as well as in numerous aforegone comments.
To understand this, deeper consideration of the global oligarchy's nature and overarching thinking, of its long term project and goals is required, something you aren't paying sufficient attention to so far, limiting your view to conjunctural factors instead (and misinterpreting these when you conclude that Iranian and US interests are converging).
Game theory as a reading grid of international politics suffers many imperfections, but that's beside the point (especially since even the game theoretical approach won't automatically validate your perception).
You're free to dwell in that sort of persuasion, but facts speak for themselves.
To pretend that the entire recent history of confrontation between the US and Iran has merely amounted to some sort of a fallacious "show" intended to fool the masses, is preposterous beyond measure. To suggest that the US regime and its zionist masters are not bent on targeting every nation-state potentially capable of challenging the illegal settler state's stability, reveals geopolitical short sightedness. To remain oblivious to problematics such as globalism and the professed project for a one-world regime pursued by globalist elites, is representative of a limited outlook on world events.
As said, the very terrorist attack against Soleimani you integrate into your anti-IR rhetoric, defeats your above cited conclusion.
Last edited:
Hahaha.
