Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Khomeinist

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Religion
    Ithna Ashari
  • Mood
    La ilaha illa Allah

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,971 profile views
  1. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    I have several times tackled your arguments directly and have given you clear answers and examples. Sadly, you have responded once to which I again have debunked your arguments. If you are unable to provide evidence or a much more logical approach to the problem, you can say so and we will call it a day. Cherry-picking to whom you will respond isn't going to prove your point at all. Then again comes the argument that you do not posses the tactical and military knowledge to base your arguments on. And not only do you lack this, you are also unaware of what is happening at the very moment. You do not receive any real life intel feed nor behind the scenes documents. This states that you are in no position to talk about "better methods" to kill less civilians or criticize the current methods used as you have no knowledge of better ones available. Those experts there know what is better and available and thus they act accordingly. I quote from a different thread which backs up my argument: If you are willing to criticize a method, you should be able to provide a better alternative or a solution. You have been unable to do this during these whole 6 pages. Can you tackle a teacher without giving a solution to the cause? You cannot. You have come back with giving a few examples of wars where BBs claimed lives of people. I have come with examples of how missiles have devastated entire countries. As a respected and big marja' has given his opinion on the matter, I stand fully behind it. One may go and debate this marja' directly in order to change my thoughts. There is no need to discuss a certain matter with someone who is unwilling to go further in the debate. I thank you for your replies and wish you all prosperity. May Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى accept your duas and prayers.
  2. How can you claim that the current methods are questionable, or in other threads, "indiscriminate way of using weaponry" while you yourself do not have the knowledge nor any better method available? Criticizing without having something better does not contribute to anything. Someone who legitimately criticizes someone actually has a solution to the problem. You still do not have the knowledge in regards of what is better. Watching a few BBs youtube videos doesn't make you an expert on what should be used and whatnot. There are hundreds of Hezbollah as well as IRGC experts on the battlefield in Syria. They all have high influence in the battle tactics of the Syrian army. They advise generals with their decisions. Do you think I will believe them, or some internet stranger, sitting probably thousand of miles outside of the battlefield, unable to present solutions as well as directly tackle arguments?
  3. The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been set to meet the criteria of the IRGC, which is under Ayatollah Khamanei's command. Thus, Ayatollah Khamenei receives much more inside as outside information about Syria. On top of that, Hezbollah and IRGC soldiers are fighting the rebels at the very moment. They also gather intel and send it to the IRGC command centres in Iran. The Ayatollah is always kept up to date. Thus, he has much more knowledge on the situation than any of us here at this very moment.
  4. Could you explain how Bashar has "far superior weaponry" while the "moderate" rebels as well as Bashar use weaponry that have been made and produced in the 50s-60s-70s-80s? This point is debateable. And then again, that Bashar has the benefit of airstrikes is something that one should praise. I am glad the terrorist don't have airjets as that would make this situation even worse. The thing they do have is anti-aircraft missiles. Are you looking for a war that is balanced or something?
  5. Do you think that if he would have used a missile or mortar he would have killed less civilians? You are only criticizing without bringing any solutions on the table. What should he use then? You do not have the knowledge to know the options Bashar is facing at the moment. You are not a general nor commander in his army. You are not an adviser nor military soldier in the SAA. You have absolutely, just like the rest, zero knowledge of the options bashar has. This again proves my point. You are assuming there to be a different method. What if there isn't? What if Bashar run out of missiles? What if he has to use bombs to destory these terrorists? Instead of criticizing, please come with a solution. If he would have done things that would cause doubt in Ayatollah Khamenei's eyes, Ayatollah Khamenei would probably have (again) more knowledge than us all here and he will cast a certain opinion on the matter. Do you think that Ayatollah Khamenei is uneducated in these barrel bombs propaganda? He knows better than all of us what is happening. The same with the UN. I have faith things are said behind closed doors in the UN to try and make it look like the UN isn't hiding the truth from the world. Ayatollah Khamenei, unlike others, actually has the audacity to speak up and form his opinion on Bashaar al-Assad. There are many who are afraid to do this because of their followers. Correction: as best as possibile with the tools at hand. Not with imaginary weaponry that an internet stranger is assuming thousands of miles away from the battle scene. Options are limited.
  6. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Mali and many other places are examples of how destructive missiles are used by NATO. Why is there no condemnation here? Why hasn't the UN banned the US from participating in the Syrian war after it pancaked Raqqa literally? Why has the UN which you stand behind so much not condemned the use of NATO's missiles in these countries which are INACCURATE and kill civilians? Again, hypocrisy at best. I can also assume many things. Assuming that the UN is not against BBs because of an agenda is like me assuming that the US is spreading democracy. Let's just try to be balanced and recognize that the US is fighting ISIS. Does this still suffice? You haven't refuted the point. The UN has always taken weird positions in war condemning the truth. You are again putting hope in a pro-western agenda corporation. Tomahawks are much more of a crude weapon than BBs. Let the UN first condemn those before condeming BBs. You are assuming Bashar to have an infinite amount of supplies and to have engineers that can basically bring instant birth to weapons that don't kill civilians. This is war and there is not friendly fire. There are no cheat codes to be used. Bashar has a finite amount of supplies as well as finite amounts of strategies. Do you think a 20kg BB is worse than a 100kg missile? Whoever thinks like that is delusional. Specific is a fake lie. The NATO members even admit that their missiles are inaccurate. Missiles, drone strikes and mortars do not hit with a 100% hit rate. Then again, a BB is aimed. It isn't just dropped in a kindergarten. Bashar even told interviewer that a bomb is aimed. I'm repeating: Bashar's options are limited and you do not have the knowledge to decide which option is the best one. You are not even close to such a position. If you are unaware about what makes standard missiles indiscriminate, I refer to you the whole history of human war after Von Braun's missile discovery. Syria has a right, like any country, to have its own defences and tactics to wipe the ground with these dirty imperialists trying to reclaim their land. In war people die. This is a fact you cannot deny. You actually criticize him with the sources of the enemy which are baseless. If you are going to cherry-pick UN resolutions, then I'll also pick mine. Your comments show that you have insufficient knowledge of battle tactics as well as the differences and usage of weaponry.
  7. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    I'm going to say this for the last time: the UN, Doctors without Borders, Red Cross, Amnesty Internationial (who also made some BS propaganda about a prison in Syria) and all the other so-called human rights corporations are not a measure to what is allowed or not. I find it funny how you from one side decide to defend the Syrian sovereignty in front of the wahhabis and from the other side regard the UN banning the use of "barrel" bombs to be good and justful. Meanwhile you probably support the idea of the use of missiles and mortars. Again, the UN is not a measure to what is allowed or not. There are bombs worse than the supposed "barrel" bomb and nobody is condemning them. You are falling into repetitive rhetoric. The UN, security council and all these other humanity right watches are nothing more but a tool in order to be used against certain governments and push a certain agenda. If you adhere to these UN resolutions and security council rhetoric, then do you also acknowledge that Iran has human rights problems? That the death penalty should go away in Iran? Do you think that the missile program should be put to a halt? I find it a big worry that you are standing behind words of western nations in the UN. Again, when Bashar Ja'afari brings forth very strong arguments in the security council, nobody is able to refute them. But here you have you, supporting the baseless and void rhetoric of Nikki Haley (who is not able to refute his points by rationality) saying: "we disagree with his points". Well what are they? Why do western representatives at the security council never present strong refutations? They are unable to because of their dirty war on Syria. Don't mix up feelings with geopolitics.
  8. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    Yeah, I'm seriously not understanding all this fuss. This is war and you can expect civilian casualties. Do you really think Bashar wants to kill his people? Of course not. But you don't have many options to pick from. I think the OP is assuming as if Bashar has a wide range of options to choose from. He is limited and thus has to act accordingly. Syria doesn't have 2018 military technology. It is doing it's best to get these terrorist out and get their own legitimate country back. And on top of that, people are still believing the "peaceful protests" narrative?! It's 2018 already, many journalists have already exposed that these were all BS false propaganda narratives.
  9. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    OP, you are doing nothing but push a western agenda about condemning the use of barrel bombs as well as put fake fear in the hearts of the people about "barrel bombs". Apparently, the west might have noticed the effectiveness of these bombs in practice and how they shred their mercenaries in pieces, thus pushing an agenda through the UN by condemning the use of these BOMBS. They stay BOMBS nonetheless. Then again OP, you have ignored several points and just came back with the void interview argument. Barrel bombs are nothing but a different mechanism of a missile or mortar. A mortar and missile have the EXACT same devastation as a BARREL BOMB. The difference is that a missile is being shot with more precision, has a stronger effect, may destroy buildings and is used in jets. A mortar is handy for infantry to use as air and distance support. A mortar also explodes upon impact killing anything within its range. People don't get killed by the explosive of these weaponry, they get killed by the tiny little metal parts that fly around with high speeds. But then again, mortars, missiles and BOMBS have the same functionality. I'm repeating this for the second or third time now.
  10. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    I used the US and Russia as an example. Bashar has missiles too that he can use. What I'm trying to say is that barrel bombs (if they are REALLY used, which again, OP hasn't been able to proof with reliable sources) are no different than regular missiles or mortars. Mortars and missile strikes have the same function as barrel bombs. It is designed to kill loads of groups of people at once. The difference is the intention of the use of these weapons. Bashar is legitimately trying to get his country back from these filthy imperialists. The US is trying to illegitimately take Syria from Bashar's hands. Russia is trying to get some bases in the Middle-East to get back into the geopolitical game. And Turkey is doing an illegal occupation of Syrian ground. Again, whatever the west claims, I regard it as BS. The west may say whatever it wants about BBs. If you hate BBs, then we should start having a debate whether missiles and mortars are ok to use. Apparently no one has an objection against them.
  11. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    It's funny how people see the use of barrel bombs as something that should be banned and not used. But when the US or the Russian Federation shoot missiles, a 100 times stronger than some barrely boys, everyone shuts their mouth. OP, explain to me in a comprehensive way the difference between a barrel bomb and missiles who are stronger and more capeable of killing and destroying humans. Why are you so obsessed with showing us how the west is condemning the use of barrel bombs? That the UN has banned it does not mean it's a divine law. But meanwhile you turn your head against the cruel and much stronger weapons the west uses. Oh, and on top of that, why don't you open your mouth about المدفعية الجهنم that are being used to shell damascus and kill children and women?
  12. Late Shaykh Nimr condemns Bashar al-Assad

    Hang on there. Does killing security forces (daily) in Dara'a make these "peaceful protests" legitimate? I feel as if you are not aware of what really happened in the start of this "revolution". Akhi, do not compare the islamic revolution of Iran with that of the imperialistic war on Syria. Many of those protests within Syria were anything except peaceful. On top of that, after some legitimate protests, Bashar had changed many of his government's policies. Do you really think a president - who has more knowledge about politics than the average joey in Syria - will resign after a few demonstrations of which he knows has ties with the west? Are you guys forgetting the US document: "Which Path to Persia?" If it was not for Iran and Hezbollah to stand behind Bashar, the war would now have been fought in Iranian soil. Then again, it feels weird to condemn Bashar here and on a different place support him. Wouldn't that make someone a hypocrite? I do agree with your analysis @shiaman14. Opinions change especially after seeing how imperialistic war starts and how western propaganda influences the community.
  13. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    Not a single source regarding those barrel bomb claims have come from "reliable academic" sources. Alright. As you have done your "homework", could you come with a comprehensive way of dealing with these terrorist without negotiating with the big Satan and without lots of casualties on the army side? I am looking forward to reading your plan. If you are ready to criticize something, please also offer a solution to the problem in order for us to learn a new perspective. Oh and btw. Why does it care that he has "superior" weaponry? I feel as if you are just gathering stuff from here and there to have something behind your points. This has literally nothing to do with backing your argument. Do you know the equipment of the Syrian Army? Do you think it's modern tech? Why aren't you talking about the superior american made anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles they have given to Al-Nusra, Daesh, SDF? Aren't those "superior" weaponry too? Wouldn't that make it even? Wait. I am seriously not getting your point now. Is it wrong to own planes and helicopters now? Do you even know how the military works? Daesh and Al-Nusra are people who came from thousands and thousands of miles away to join this so-called revolution. They are willing to kill themselves to go "dine" with the prophet. Are you willing to risk your military corporals and sergeants to fight them 1v1? I feel as if you do not know much about war strategies. Using airspace has been the solution to killing these desert rats.
  14. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    Nobody in this thread will deny this. But does that mean I should listen to the other side? Does that mean I should gang up with the SDF? Does that justify me to go support the FSA? Does that mean I should go and support daesh? Or are you going to stay neutral? I am going to tell you. I will just like Khomeini stand 180 degrees against every US foreign policy. I will stand 180 degrees against every NATO imperial war. And here is the same thing. I will not stand neutral as neutrality is an indirect supportive stance to the oppressor. Khomeini has taught us this with the islamic revolution. I will stand 180 degrees against the US, israel, the UK, France, Turkey and the whole NATO. If they want to take Syria down, I will stand on the side that wants to take Syria up. Khalas.
  15. Bashar al-Assad - 'Barrel Bombs'

    OP is still unable to prove his claims of the usage of barrel bombs. He still uses the apparent "satire" of Bashar in a video and a few imagery posted by various western media corporations who have been identified as liars and hypocrites when it comes to war reports. Then OP decides to cast a scenario into which he talks about having the power to decide whether you would use a barrel bomb on a heavily densed civilian area. This scenario has faults as the civilian density in Damascus is much higher than most of the Syrian cities (iirc). So one should actually blame the terrorists for their cruel deeds since they have probably killed more innocent people per square km. Then comes another problem around the corner. One must understand basic weapon technology. A missile dropped from an F16 is nothing but a much more precise and powerful barrel bomb. Does that mean the world should ban missiles? Missiles are more dangerous, have higher range, are faster and more precise. You have faults in your reasoning OP. Then comes the cheap argument. This war has been going on for 7 years now. It has been an expensive one since the start. Do you really think Syria has a positive ballance atm? The SAA is literally fighting voluntarily. They aren't getting any paychecks. Whether a barrel bomb is cheap to make or not has 0 value here. Now let's talk a bit more ethical here. I would like to answer your scenario. No, I wouldn't use a barrel bomb on a heavily civilian densed place. But then again, prove me he is using barrel bombs. Let me give you a scenario which is much more realistic than yours. There are civilian meat shields in use right now. You do not want to use missiles or "barrel bombs" in order to save those civilians. Are you willing to grab an AK47 and go face to face with these mujahideen? If you are going to say no, then do not force others such a scenario. Apparently, shelling them with mortars is much more effective than using military personnel face to face with these mujahideen. Do you want to see your uncle return in a coffin because of a bad war strategy? Probably not. Again, the reason why @Hassan- and I are not convinced is due to the lack of evidence. Big ulemas have not spoken about this problem. Bashar has denied the use of them. Russia has denied the use of them. Iran has denied the use of them. You are giving "evidence" from contradictory and untrustworthy sources. Those same sources have admitted the US to be in the wrong when claiming those "chemical attacks" to be initiated by the Syrian govt. Why are you believing those who have been in the wrong? The reason why Khomeini was able to overthrow the Shah was because he himself was one of the first to stand face to face against the tyrant. If you do not want to go face to face with an AK47 in your hands against these mujahideen, then do not force the Syrian Arab Army to do that. Let them use the same tactics as in Aleppo.