What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

Interesting concept—seems the West has learned a thing or two from Iran regarding cheap highly lethal drones.
Yes, quite disastrous news I might add. If they were more concerned about cost-reduction, rather than constant feature addons that improve marginally It would be a big problem if THAAD were cheap.
 
. .
These guns are simply amazing. It seems Iranian artillery only goes up 155m shells.

Artillery rocket’s reach 300mm with the Falq system. Seems Iran doctrine relies more on artillery rocket (falq, zelzal, etc) than large artillery shells.
Iran used the 170 mm M-1978 against Iraq in the 80s which had similar range to the Pion but it seems like they are no longer in service. It doesn't seem like the Army cares too much for SPGs in general, I don't think Read 1/2 were produced in significant numbers either.
 
.
Iran used the 170 mm M-1978 against Iraq in the 80s which had similar range to the Pion but it seems like they are no longer in service. It doesn't seem like the Army cares too much for SPGs in general, I don't think Read 1/2 were produced in significant numbers either.

170mm are also devastating and Iran’s artillery really helped Iran in the war. It’s shame it doesn’t get more attention.

There is still use for artillery shells in war fare as this conflict has shown us both sides cause most of their damage via artillery.

Artillery rockets are great and can be more precise, but they don’t have the same rate of fire as shells. Not to mention inventory logistics. Russia and Ukraine are going thru thousands of shells a week each. Cant expect that level of inventory from artillery rockets. Shells have easier mass production logistics, storage, and transportation to front lines.
 
.

"From the long term, something far more serious is going on — and that is what's going on in Russia," the founder of The Energy Word told Yahoo Finance Live.

'And not only the bans that are likely coming from Europe that they seem to have a very long-term interest in making stick. The energy companies — Exxon, Total, BP — leaving Russia, stranding assets in Russia," he said.

Dicker noted that energy infrastructure in Russia has been dependent on Western energy companies getting the oil out of the ground, and it is now missing that extraction.

"That's going to be a long-term, systemic problem with production in Russia, which may ultimately lead to three million barrels a day of oil coming off the market, from the Russian markets. That's a very, very, very big deal for long-term prices," he said.

The goal has always been regime change in Moscow. Putin simply kicked the can till he finally ran into a brick wall.

It is the fight for Russia’s survival at this point as a bi-polar power against the West. These are not “short term” measures ment to entice a ceasefire or pease deal.

Russia is now in the same spot Iran was in circa 2009 as energy companies began to leave and Iranian oil became blackballed around the world.

Remember more than half of Russia‘s income comes from energy. Much much worse position than Iran was. And 2/3rds of Russian exports are oil/gas and energy by products.

If this is not full on economic warfare....what is?
 
.



The goal has always been regime change in Moscow. Putin simply kicked the can till he finally ran into a brick wall.

It is the fight for Russia’s survival at this point as a bi-polar power against the West. These are not “short term” measures ment to entice a ceasefire or pease deal.

Russia is now in the same spot Iran was in circa 2009 as energy companies began to leave and Iranian oil became blackballed around the world.

Remember more than half of Russia‘s income comes from energy. Much much worse position than Iran was. And 2/3rds of Russian exports are oil/gas and energy by products.

If this is not full on economic warfare....what is?
Kinda feels like 1980 to me but Russia's situation now is much better than what we were in in 1980, with practically no supporting military industry and global support for Iraq/Ukraine.
 
.
Kinda feels like 1980 to me but Russia's situation now is much better than what we were in in 1980, with practically no supporting military industry and global support for Iraq/Ukraine.

1980’s was a combination of a Revolution + massive war + loss of key personnel in oil sector —rather than sanctions led effort by the West. The west was still highly dependent on middle eastern oil and couldn’t ween itself off like it can today.

1651640400032.png
 
. . .
Useless for what reason? Because it's focusing on the actual threat rather than on the mirage of Arabization, a mirage that is being constructed to deflect the actual issue at hand? Or maybe because it's not presided over by a reformist?
have you seen the words they spew out , have you seen any program , plan , ....... anything from them ?
they just sit and make nonsense world for example چشمه به جای چاه توالت
آخه نباید طرف را گرفت یک بلایی سرش آورد یا مثلا جای فانتزی آورده غیر معمول غیر ضرور یا دورسخنی به جای ویدیو کنفرانس . بعدش میاد با کمال پر رویی میگه هدف ما حل مشکل مردم بود نا جایگزینی کلمه ای که دیگه رواج ندارد.
من اگر بفهمم بابت هر افتضاح چقدر به اینها میدهند
Visit a busy restaurant in the business district of any major European economic hub, you'll notice a large chunk of employees hail from East Asia, India, other EU states, America, you name it. And they're not long term immigrants, they spend a couple of years here on a mission, then off to the next standardized global city in some other corner of the world.

Forget about white collars, people doing simple low-wage jobs in the service sector increasingly have no mastery of the native language of the European country they reside and work in.

Go to a university, exchange students will soon surpass locals in numbers.

In Tehran some freaks may be deriving satisfaction from artificially aping these conditions, but it's the appeal of globalism first and foremost, and it's confined to certain areas of the Iranian capital and to a token number of companies. Not a generalized phenomenon like here. Integrate Iran into the global markets, and it'll only boost the issue to western levels.
all these irrelevant to discussion and by the way spewing word and say use them won't solve anything . it need long term planning and programs which academy of Iran language failed to provide any and we see no result from its work
 
.
Iran used the 170 mm M-1978 against Iraq in the 80s which had similar range to the Pion but it seems like they are no longer in service. It doesn't seem like the Army cares too much for SPGs in general, I don't think Read 1/2 were produced in significant numbers either.
The last appearance was in a parade back in 2014.
730514-460.jpg

The`re probably still around tho`,its just that they were never acquired in great numbers,perhaps as few as 10 examples.
Theres an interesting story about one of the iranian guns here
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/north-korean-m1978-koksan-gun-iranian-angle-rick-francona

I wish iran had also acquired the modernised version of the koksan,the m1989,as this looks to be a more practical weapon.I also wouldnt be surprised if the redesign had been inspired by the russian 2s7m
170mm_M1989_Koksan_-_North_Korea_Victory_Day-2013_01.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
The last appearance was in a parade back in 2014.
730514-460.jpg

The`re probably still around tho`,its just that they were never acquired in great numbers,perhaps as few as 10 examples.
Theres an interesting story about one of the iranian guns here
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/north-korean-m1978-koksan-gun-iranian-angle-rick-francona

That’s a lot of firepower. Sure it’s not sexy or modern, but damn can it lay some serious smack on opposing forces.

A future automated artillery tank that loads itself and fires could be deadly.

For Iran, land invasion and trench warfare with its neighbors seems highly unlikely, unlike Russia. The only land war I could see would be Azeribajian if tensions really spike for Iran.
 
.

Wonderful, keep them coming. Iran-Russia economic cooperation can only increase from now on.

_____

Yes, quite disastrous news I might add. If they were more concerned about cost-reduction, rather than constant feature addons that improve marginally It would be a big problem if THAAD were cheap.

A military doctrine cannot change overnight. These sorts of processes take decades. Another key factor is the privatized nature of US defence industries and the fact that capitalist defence corporations value money and profit over nationalism. Cheaper and more low-tech solutions, which generally present smaller value added, is something these corporations will resist. And knowing the influence they exert on US political decision-makers through the power of their lobbies, they're usually guaranteed to have their way. So, no worries here.
 
.
How do you think these people are formed? Are you saying that these people have appeared out of the blue? I don't think a society chooses a certain path without a reason. When sociologists explain why our culture is going down the toilet, they are ignored in the media and are often labeled or dissed as educated by Western ideas. Didn't the IR go as far as trying to "cleanse" social sciences and humanities from Western ideas and philosophy? LOL

As for trade with foreign countries, I can ensure you that in none of these companies that I have mentioned, there's any trade with any foreign entity. Not even Afghanistan or Iraq. It's just a sociological phenomenon. Look at giant tech companies in Iran like Snapp, Digikala or Alibaba. Have they succeeded in expanding their business into neighboring countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Qatar, UAE, etc.? Then look at giant tech companies in the US and see how they have entered literally every hub in the global economy. The amount of trade between Iranian companies and foreign countries is minimal now but requiring English proficiency for "Oghdeh" is at its peak and growing faster than ever.

There's another reason certain types of companies want employees to understand English, and that's the fact that the documentation they consult can be of foreign origin, and is then most often in English. This is especially true in the high tech sector. Most of the scientific literature worldwide happens to be in English.

So my main points remain:

1) Iran's trade with the outside world amounts to around 150 billion USD and directly implicates hundreds if not thousands of companies. Also, technical documents, and articles composed in English need to be studied in certain lines of work. To a wide extent, this explains why companies request English skills from employees, and up to that point, it's unfortunately inevitable.

Companies that have strictly no use of English but will nonetheless condition employment upon mastery of that language, let alone those where internal communication is conducted in English, do not represent a large percentage of economic actors. Most businesses in Iran (every day services, stores, small businesses outside the high-tech sector and more) are staffed by people who practically speak not a word of English.

2) The Islamic Republic's policy of self-sufficiency represents a formidable barrier against proliferation of English in the professional world. Under a "normalized" type of government, which would fully integrate Iran into the western-dominated, globalized economy, use of English by workers and employees would definitely increase several fold compared to current levels.

Europe has received about 4-5 million refugees since the beginning of the Arab spring (civil war in Syria and Libya) and they are bitching about it all the time to the point that their nice "human rights" and "anti-racism" facade is unmasked. We are being flooded with Afghan refugees and already host over 4 million Afghan refugees and you say we don't have an open border policy? Are our borders in the east closed now? Turkey has started creating a wall in our border. That's how a country defends its borders. The IR has globalist policies motivated by religious ideas. It's different from what Anglo-Saxon countries try to enforce on the world in practice, but in theory, it's the same phenomenon. The only difference is that instead of a liberal culture, they want the whole region (and if they can, the whole world) to pursue a culture enforced on them by their religious values.

You can read works and statements by western elites themselves. Whilst large chunks of their populations have an issue with mass immigration, the dominant oligarchy doesn't. On the contrary, they have devised and implemented a deliberate policy of mass immigration, which they try to legitimize with economic, demographic and humanitarian considerations. At the core of this process lies an ideological pursuit of interbreeding and the desire to create a cultural melting pot, as well as their belief that the nation-state must be transcended so as to make way for a universal republic with a nationally undifferentiated citizenry.

This is worlds apart from the policy and ideology of the Islamic Republic, as well as from societal reality in Iran. Why limit ourselves to the millions who have entered Europe since the so-called Arab spring? Many millions more settled here during previous decades. The fact is that in western European countries, the percentage of residents with immigrant roots stands at around 25% on average. In Germany, their number reached 19,3 million people out of some 82,6 million in 2017, today their proportion is even superior.


More importantly, there's simply a huge difference between immigration from one single neighboring country that shares a lot with the host nation on the one hand, and wild hodgepodge mass immigration from every imaginable corner of the world on the other hand. These two phenomena are simply incomparable. In the latter case, it is followed by instutionalized multi-culturalism and cultural hybridation and dilution. In the former, it is not. Europe is now a multi-cultural society (in the broadest sense possible), Iran is not.

The respective impact of these contrasting models on society is clearly visible in every day life. In Iranian cities, there's no equivalent to the nation-specific / "ethno"-specific immigrant neighborhoods characteristic of European agglomerations. When riding a metro train in Tehran, one will not get the impression that locals have been superseded by people of foreign origins, nor that the national character of the population has been lost to the benefit of a multi-cultural global mix. Iran and Europe in this regard are really like apples and oranges.

Next difference is Iran's much stricter legislation in terms of granting residence permits and citizenship to immigrants (less than 25% of immigrants have managed to obtain a residence permit in Iran, versus some 80% in Germany).

Nor is the Islamic Republic seeking to dissolve the national specificities of Muslim countries into the Islamic Umma. In the thinking of Iranian Islamic revolutionaries, there's no contempt for national specificity. Sure, nation is not placed above Islam, but loss of national authenticity is not the goal either. In this sense, the ideology of the IR differs a lot from salafism, as any competent scholar will confirm.

Otherwise authorities of the Islamic Republic could easily have implemented programs to attract masses of migrants from a varied spectrum of Muslim nations, and then encouraged mixed marriages like globalists in the west are doing on a more universal scale. But the IR never did such a thing, since it does not correspond to its intent.

In short, the policies of the Islamic Republic are fundamentally different from globalism.

How many times Iran has been betrayed by these friendly countries? How many times do you want me to mention right now on the top of my head? Starting from Yaser Arafat to this very day.

Iran's Axis of Resistance and Iran's alliances with extra-regional partners like Venezuela have proven to be solid.

When it comes to Palestine, Iran's support for the Resistance is not merely a religious and anti-imperialist imperative, it's also a matter of pure national security and deterrence in the strictest "non-ideological" sense, given that the zionist entity and international zionism pose an existential threat to the Iranian nation.

I understand that using Arabic words when it comes to Sharia is justified and in some cases inevitable, but it is not completely so. Look at «نیایش» and «نماز». Both words are used extensively in religious texts. Nobody uses «صلاة» in Iran. Even the clerics use نماز. Or even better, «خدا‌» is used to refer to Allah. Even religious words can be replaced by their Persian equivalents. It's not entirely impossible or forbidden in Islam.

These Persian equivalents are also used in state-controlled media, and they form part of inscriptions on public buildings and amenities. So the Islamic Republic is not hostile to the Persian language.

_____

have you seen the words they spew out , have you seen any program , plan , ....... anything from them ?
they just sit and make nonsense world for example چشمه به جای چاه توالت
آخه نباید طرف را گرفت یک بلایی سرش آورد یا مثلا جای فانتزی آورده غیر معمول غیر ضرور یا دورسخنی به جای ویدیو کنفرانس . بعدش میاد با کمال پر رویی میگه هدف ما حل مشکل مردم بود نا جایگزینی کلمه ای که دیگه رواج ندارد.
من اگر بفهمم بابت هر افتضاح چقدر به اینها میدهند

To me there's nothing wrong with these word creations. Dursokhani instead of 'video conference' is just beautiful. And it's made of Persian words. Likewise, rāyāne instead of computer etc.

I'm not entirely sure about cases such as 'toilet' because we already had words like mostarā and dastshuyi. But, we definitely need Persian substitutes for newly appeared concepts, rather than just importing the English term. This too is part of preserving the national language against globalist cultural onslaught, and in fact the Islamic Republic is one of very few countries to do so.

all these irrelevant to discussion and by the way spewing word and say use them won't solve anything . it need long term planning and programs which academy of Iran language failed to provide any and we see no result from its work

We would have seen the results more immediately if it they hadn't been there. As for long term planning and programs, yes they're needed but much of it is beyond the Academy's area of competence and involves the Ministries of Education and of Culture & Islamic Guidance.
 
Last edited:
.
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom