What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

HIMARS batteries have dedicated AD.
High value assets.

HIMARS is an MLRS with a guidance kit (GPS) on it with 50 miles range.

Don’t fall for western (and Ukrainian) propaganda that is some magical device. Both sides have been using MLRS dummy rockets since the start of the conflict.

HIMARS won’t change the battlefield. Soon they will be found as Ukraine gets more desperate to hold last frontline spots and takes more risk and leaves S-300 envelope that are likely somewhere in mid Ukraine. The S-300 that get to close to the front lines been getting destroyed.

Point is it is not left bare naked.

Unless you have visual evidence that mobile AD are following HIMARS it’s more likely they are shoot and scooting.

Israel couldn’t find Hezbollah firing positions fast enough during the war in tiny South Lebanon with the best intelligence assets in the world in the skies.

Would be tough for Russians to find a handful of HIMARS scattered across Eastern Ukraine when they are constantly on the move and there is so much forest and green cover to blend in.
 
HIMARS is an MLRS with a guidance kit (GPS) on it with 50 miles range.

Don’t fall for western (and Ukrainian) propaganda that is some magical device. Both sides have been using MLRS dummy rockets since the start of the conflict.

HIMARS won’t change the battlefield. Soon they will be found as Ukraine gets more desperate to hold last frontline spots and takes more risk and leaves S-300 envelope that are likely somewhere in mid Ukraine. The S-300 that get to close to the front lines been getting destroyed.



Unless you have visual evidence that mobile AD are following HIMARS it’s more likely they are shoot and scooting.

Israel couldn’t find Hezbollah firing positions fast enough during the war in tiny South Lebanon with the best intelligence assets in the world in the skies.

Would be tough for Russians to find a handful of HIMARS scattered across Eastern Ukraine when they are constantly on the move and there is so much forest and green cover to blend in.

An extra asset and no magic. Mobile and hit and run.

Still high value asset.

 
Russian KH-101 stealth cruise missile confuses Ukrainian air defense

1658035281860.png



Realistically the Russians have destroyed dozens of Ukrainian ammo depots since the start of the war, but I don't see the western media putting Russian MLRS' on a silver platter. Yes HIMARS is an advanced platform but it's not the be all, end all that it's being made out to be.

An extra asset and no magic. Mobile and hit and run.

Still high value asset.

 
Russian KH-101 stealth cruise missile confuses Ukrainian air defense

View attachment 862579


Realistically the Russians have destroyed dozens of Ukrainian ammo depots since the start of the war, but I don't see the western media putting Russian MLRS' on a silver platter. Yes HIMARS is an advanced platform but it's not the be all, end all that it's being made out to be.
Exactly.it's the power of Electronic Warfare.it's so genius that how a missile could show a fake swarm attack(in radar you would see more than 1 kh-101 but in reality there would be just one).i wish we had something like this in our missiles.
 
اهان. مرغ خوری و شکم پر. مثل حیوانات که آغاز و پایانشون بیش از این نیست. مردم حیوون نیستن گرچه بعضیها در این مغلته غرغن.

حرفام غولدری و وابسته به مکان نیست. حقیقته و حقیقته سخته. جا برای مرغان نداره بلکه جا برای مردم عمله نه گدایی و سر و دست انداختن به بیگانه.
I am glad we could not get loans...imagine how much the interest these countries are paying on their debts..the higher they are on the risk ladder the higher the interest rate they pay...

The 5 billion I remember was a political strategy they did to demonstrate how inhumane the western propaganda of "Human rights" is...it worked..they will always hold it against Western countries in any of their dealing..lol

Notice how some have suggested that to them, Iran's monetary and financial independence matters less than outstanding payments owed to Iran by foreign debtors.

In other comments yet, the shah regime's complete enfeoffment to the Americans and the zionists appears to have been questioned on grounds that China and Russia have supposedly been unreliable or even adversarial n their dealings with Islamic Iran - it should be immediately apparent how flawed the deductive rationale underlying this argument is, since the latter cited proposition implies nothing about the former, there's simply no relation between the two.

This reflects the whole contrast between observers who display a clear understanding of what sovereignty, independence and self-determination mean in practice and to whom these attributes are of paramount importance, and those who would forego them in exchange for recognition by the imperial powers-to-be and a shiny outer facade - while being in denial as to the state of servitude that would actually come with it (hence why advocates of such an approach may be seen trying to allege, quite awkwardly so, that the overthrown monarchy enjoyed as much independence as the Islamic Republic).

Being free from the shackles of debt bondage, which has ravaged countless developing nations and even a number of relatively prosperous ones? The IMF not being empowered to dictate structural adjustment policies to your nation, policies known to exert hefty pressures on impoverished masses? Your central bank and financial institutions not being dominated by the global oligarchy? Your sovereign policy making unaffected by the leverage which high indebtedness automatically confers to creditors?

These turn out to be of little relevance to anti-IR oppositionists as well as to in-house liberals. Such are the incredible lengths to which the mentioned groups are willing to go only to reject whatever path the revolutionary core of the Islamic Republic decides to tread, no matter how beneficial these decisions really are for the country.

Other nations indebted to Iran, or Iran eternally having to repay debts as massive as say, 85% of her GDP (which is within the customary range for a "normalized", vassalized state nowadays) plus interests, both these scenarii imply that a portion of national wealth will not be mobilizable for investment or other productive purposes. However, in the second case it will necessarily be accompanied by impediments to national independence and sovereignty, while in the first case it won't. "Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws", Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty is said to have declared.


Likewise, Russia or China dragging their feet on particular contracts with Iran or failing to veto certain US-sponsored UN Security Council resolutions in the past may have an overly irking effect upon some, but what it definitely doesn't imply is that Iran is anywhere close to being submissive to these foreign powers.

Nor does it make Iran's situation even remotely comparable to the pre-revolutionary era, during which the nation's autocratic monarch had to seek refuge in his royal bathroom to discuss confidential topics, as reported in the memoirs of his Court Minister AssadOllah Alam, because the rest of the premises were dotted with listening devices installed by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's imperial patrons. It does not allow a president of the USA to pressure the Iranian leader about whom to appoint into high government offices and what type of policies to conduct, like John Fitzgerald Kennedy pushed the shah to choose Ali Amini as Prime Minister and launch the so-called White Revolution reforms in the early 1960's.


It does not open the way for secret societies and other covert networks of influence to overshadow the Iranian government, unlike the manner in which freemason lodges, the zionist Zeytoun circle or the Haifan Bahai organization had grown so powerful under the Pahlavi regime that the shah was forced to order the banning of a book disclosing the identities of freemason grand-masters which he himself had requested SAVAK collaborator Esmail Ra'in to publish in the first place. It does not make any outside power wield influence upon Iran's key security agencies, as opposed to how the zionist regime, the USA and the UK all three were having at their disposal numerous loyal officers inside the shah's feared SAVAK intelligence service.

Because to liken Iranian independence and self-determination then and now is to grossly distort indisputable, established historic facts. Because Iran was a typical disenfranchised imperial client state prior to 1979, while the Islamic Revolution turned her into an independent and sovereign polity second to none. No amount of spin will achieve to alter this reality. And independence, self-determination are priceless indeed.
 
Last edited:
Kindly refrain from projecting. You showed you'll accept NATO propaganda without hesitating, even when it's utterly sub par and credible only to mindless folk.

As for "worshipping" and "repenting", I'd advise to choose better words, as this could be considered borderline takfir. There's nothing convincing in what you put forth, and there was zero actual evidence of Russia committing war crimes in any of those documents.



Cut these silly "yes/no questions". You're popping up all of sudden in the Iranian section, posting western fabrications about the Ukraine war and demonizing Iran's partner Russia. This is something US-, zionist-, British- and Saudi-funded, foreign-based Persian-language "regime change" media are known for. As well as western-apologetic liberals inside Iran (reformists and moderates) who have issues with the Supreme Leader and the IRGC.

Here's a telling example:


Uncritical rehashing of easily debunkable NATO narratives places you on the same page as the BBC, VOA, Saudi International, Manoto as well as Faezeh Rafsanjani and Sadeq Zibakalam (yeah, 'google' those), objectively speaking.

So if anything, it's us who should be submitting the questions, not the other way around.



And you try to read more carefully. I didn't ask for proof that the victims were Ukrainians, but to provide evidence that the shooters were Russians and that they opened fire knowing that the car is manned by nothing more than a harmless civilian couple. Which of course you failed to do, because there's no such evidence. Only claims by NATO goons. Whereas on the other hand, there's evidence of western sources attributing similar actions to Russia without verification, before it turned out that said actions weren't of Russia's doing.



Did it occur to you that maybe I don't have a YouTube account, and will certainly not be bothered to waste time opening one just to watch some random propaganda? Someone who shares a video of Russian forces firing tear gas at people in a situation of war, and describes this is a manifestation of "evil", shouldn't have the nerve to call me names anyway.



Except that I trashed every accessible bit of NATO propaganda posted here, item by item. Including when the use of harmless tear gas was passed off as a horrible war crime. Histrionic anti-Russian antics (as opposed to constructive criticism) have no currency here, this much should be clear by now.



Ridiculous reaction, a crime is a crime, no matter when it was committed. And start showing some manners already, I'm used to civilized discussions not to exchanging insults. But if the party I'm facing is not interested in a courteous exchange, despite having been enjoined thrice to keep it civil, I can adapt my level of vocabulary accordingly, no worries.



I know enough to be aware of the scope of crimes against ordinary citizens (men, women, elderly, youngsters) which the CIA- and Mossad-assisted Indonesian military junta committed in and after 1965.



Off topic rant marking a simplistic attempt to dodge the question. In the context of the present discussion, it's pretty irrelevant whether communists have been responsible for more deaths than representatives of other ideologies, since this isn't meant to be a macabre tally, but rather an examination of how objective you are. Two wrongs don't make a right as you yourself started out arguing. However, your above reply practically amounts to a confirmation that you aren't ready to practice what you preach when it comes to condemning war crimes, massacres of civilians and so on.

You cited Islamic principles relative to the prohibition of killing civilians and expect people to consider Russia as "evil" for shooting tear gas at wartime gatherings, but when confronted with the wanton, mind-boggling mass murder of up to 1,5 million of Indonesia's own citizens by its western-backed military and like-minded mobs, you'll be content with replying "but, communists killed more - in other countries".

Enough said! Every person with a semblance of intellectual integrity will now have seen why you aren't exactly in a position to lecture the Russian Federation in its current war effort nor to engage into some "human rights" crusade against the latter. Full stop.
It's been 4 months and you still haven't answered (yes or no) my simple question. You are good at (or stup*d) twisting your answer words (to avoid) and some people who are similar to you (easy to brainwash) like your answer.

It's been 4 months, and now there's a lot of evidence of Russia/Putin crimes, please if you're still "sane" see all the evidence. I'm still amazed that people like you and others (easily brainwashed) justify the Russian invasion with fickle reasons, such as initially arguing that Russia invaded Ukraine to protect the Russian race on Ukrainian territory, and Russia invaded Ukraine under the pretext of some territory. Eastern and southern Ukraine are Russian races so Russia thinks it has the right to unite the region with Russia, and then changes again with the excuse that Ukraine (whose military even has only 1 frigate) "threats" Russia's security (the world's second largest military with thousands of nukes) , "IRONIC".
Do you know who has always been causing problems Nato or Russia? Yes, it is Russia who often makes trouble on the European continent. Look at the actions of Russia in Serbia, Chechnya, Georgia and now Ukraine (even Russia has broken its promise not to attack Ukraine which has disarmed its nuclear weapons). I want to give an example, do you think it is permissible for the Kurdish state of Iraq to attack and seize the territory of the Iranian province which has the Kurdish race?

Communist Soviet Union, Russia (which is still flying the flag of the Soviet Union on the battlefield), China and North Korea are dictatorial countries, corrupt, undemocratic, greedy. Russia wants to colonize Eastern Europe, China wants to colonize Taiwan and Southeast Asia (the South China Sea) and North Korea wants to colonize South Korea.

For the past few months I have been reflecting, after a long time I liked Iran which started in 2006 I saw the simplicity of President Ahmadinejad (that's where I started to like and study Iran's ideology and military). BUT now that I have seen it from many angles, I realize that Iran bears some resemblance (albeit a little) to Communist Russia, China and North Korea. I see there is SOMETHING wrong with the ideology and thinking of the Iranian leaders. There seems to be a "TWO FACES" in the ideology and thinking of the Iranian leader, THIS IS DANGEROUS!.
 
It's been 4 months and you still haven't answered (yes or no) my simple question. You are good at (or stup*d) twisting your answer words (to avoid) and some people who are similar to you (easy to brainwash) like your answer.

It's been 4 months, and now there's a lot of evidence of Russia/Putin crimes, please if you're still "sane" see all the evidence. I'm still amazed that people like you and others (easily brainwashed) justify the Russian invasion with fickle reasons, such as initially arguing that Russia invaded Ukraine to protect the Russian race on Ukrainian territory, and Russia invaded Ukraine under the pretext of some territory. Eastern and southern Ukraine are Russian races so Russia thinks it has the right to unite the region with Russia, and then changes again with the excuse that Ukraine (whose military even has only 1 frigate) "threats" Russia's security (the world's second largest military with thousands of nukes) , "IRONIC".
Do you know who has always been causing problems Nato or Russia? Yes, it is Russia who often makes trouble on the European continent. Look at the actions of Russia in Serbia, Chechnya, Georgia and now Ukraine (even Russia has broken its promise not to attack Ukraine which has disarmed its nuclear weapons). I want to give an example, do you think it is permissible for the Kurdish state of Iraq to attack and seize the territory of the Iranian province which has the Kurdish race?

Communist Soviet Union, Russia (which is still flying the flag of the Soviet Union on the battlefield), China and North Korea are dictatorial countries, corrupt, undemocratic, greedy. Russia wants to colonize Eastern Europe, China wants to colonize Taiwan and Southeast Asia (the South China Sea) and North Korea wants to colonize South Korea.

For the past few months I have been reflecting, after a long time I liked Iran which started in 2006 I saw the simplicity of President Ahmadinejad (that's where I started to like and study Iran's ideology and military). BUT now that I have seen it from many angles, I realize that Iran bears some resemblance (albeit a little) to Communist Russia, China and North Korea. I see there is SOMETHING wrong with the ideology and thinking of the Iranian leaders. There seems to be a "TWO FACES" in the ideology and thinking of the Iranian leader, THIS IS DANGEROUS!.

To begin with, I speak for myself only. My statements on the Russia-Ukraine situation don't reflect official Iranian policy - which is to refrain from interfering there, to maintain diplomatic relations with both sides and to call for a peaceful resolution all the while of highlighting US responsibility in bringing about this whole crisis.

The latter point allows for transition to the next issue, namely over-simplification of my commenting. If I mentioned that the southern / eastern half of Ukraine is basically inhabited by Russian-speakers, it was in order to draw your attention onto the repression these populations have been suffering at the hands of the Kiev regime's military and neo-Nazi militias, at the latters' violation of the Minsk agreements including the ceasefire. So that you may recognize legal infringements haven't been one sided, and were in fact started by Ukraine.

As far as what led to the Russian special military operation in the first place, and why NATO ultimately bears responsibility, it goes way beyond the simple fact that half of Ukraine is composed of Russians, and even beyond the fact that this Russian community had been oppressed by Kiev. It's a far wider geopolitical problem of the US regime trying to humiliate and showing continuous hostility towards Moscow since the downfall of the USSR which whether we like it or not, was bound to trigger a reaction. For Russia is not exactly keen on letting NATO encircle it and then start destabilizing her own territory.

On this, I'd recommend listening to one of the multiple lectures given by professor John Mearsheimer. As one of the leading contemporary names in international relations theory, Mearsheimer will certainly be above reproach with regards to naivety or simple-mindedness. Here are some of these erudite interventions:




Some immediate questions you might want to ponder: is it a Russian-led military alliance encroaching on the USA's borders or the other way around? Even supposing that both parties are imperialistic, wouldn't you thus be siding with the bigger imperialists by supporting the Washington-led camp? Then, between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the beginning of armed clashes in Ukraine, which party respected the legal democratic process and which is the one that cheated to further its interests, and created trouble by instigating so-called color revolutions, not once but twice, installing its own clients in Kiev through illegal meddling?

As for war crimes, if you believe these four months of conflict have provided ample conclusive evidence incriminating Russia, then you've probably been restricting yourself to the same type of western sources you were citing back then (which among other things were portraying the use of tear gas as a major crime). While brushing aside undeniable hard proof of crimes by Ukrainian forces (such as the video footage in which a Ukrainian soldier can be seen executing a seriously wounded Russian infantryman - such clear cut, direct evidence is lacking for the atrocities Russia has been accused of).

And before singling me out or projecting my views on the Iranian government (which would be a factually inaccurate thing to do), have a look at this forum's massive dedicated thread about the conflict in Ukraine. One of the first things you'll notice is that a clear majority of users with Muslim backgrounds, across nationalities (Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Arabs, Somalis, Iranians and even some compatriots of yours from Indonesia) are leaning towards Russia much more so than Ukraine / NATO. So by the logic of your post, all these countries they hail from ought to be considered as dangerous, ambiguous imperialist entities, and all these users would have to be seen as naive, easy to manipulate folk, correct?

If you'll excuse me now, I'm not sure how constructive it'd be to pursue this discussion much further. However I'd recommend interacting with the numerous Muslim users whose opinion is comparable to mine on this affair, as it may be useful to your personal reflections.
 
Last edited:
Realistically the Russians have destroyed dozens of Ukrainian ammo depots since the start of the war, but I don't see the western media putting Russian MLRS' on a silver platter. Yes HIMARS is an advanced platform but it's not the be all, end all that it's being made out to be.

Exactly. One system will never win a war. Even if it is "game changer". You need a combination of excellent weapons and a good tactics. Neither the V2 rocket or Me262 weren´t enough for winning IIWW. And as others users have stated, HIMARS is not a game changer. It is a time winner for some weeks. Russians are wise and will develop different tactics for destroy them
 
An extra asset and no magic. Mobile and hit and run.

Still high value asset.


Instead of doing all that Hollywood military scenarios Patarames theorizes. Simple way to locate these rocket trucks is via ELINT/SIGNIT of which the Russians haven’t been doing nearly as well as their western counterparts.

But like I said, the effect of HIMARS on the conflict is minimal. Range too short and not enough of them. MLRS does similar damage output in a saturation attack. Not to mention these rockets are way more expensive and constant supply is needed. Better to look for the supply depots of these rockets.
 
Instead of doing all that Hollywood military scenarios Patarames theorizes. Simple way to locate these rocket trucks is via ELINT/SIGNIT of which the Russians haven’t been doing nearly as well as their western counterparts.

But like I said, the effect of HIMARS on the conflict is minimal. Range too short and not enough of them. MLRS does similar damage output in a saturation attack. Not to mention these rockets are way more expensive and constant supply is needed. Better to look for the supply depots of these rockets.
For Ukraine being able to target points beyond the front lines is pretty substantial .
 
Back
Top Bottom