Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
hasanhh

lRl vs. USA

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Guerilla warfare is mostly a thing of the past.

Look at the idiots running around at night in lraq. They couldn't do anything.

As the USArmy said in the 1980s, the dumbest thing you can do is attack an armor unit at night.

Blackhawk helicopters can see your breath rising from the snow. The thermal optics on tracks can see you lying behind a clay or concrete wall. The individual infantry helmet mounted optics are nearly as good.

So different concepts of bushwhacking are needed.

Yeah, it's interesting how things change so quickly. My father was a police officer on duty in the border area of Ireland during the "troubles" in the 1970s as 1980s and he told me that the presence of IRA fighters sneaking around in the fields was often given away by curious cattle that will always go and investigate something in the field. Seems almost quaint now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America has superior air power. To counter this, Iran has underground missile silos, making Americas air superiority quite useless.

As seen in the Hezbollah-Israel war in 2006, and despite having all the latest American technology, Israel was unable to stop missiles till the last day of the war. The same Israeli Army which destroyed 5 Arab armies in the 6 day war was unable to occupy an inch of Lebanon, nor stop missiles being fired at Israel. And Lebanon is tiny in size compared to Iran; which has more precise missiles in larger quantities with the ability to carry bigger loads.

If Iran fires a significant number of missiles at US bases in the region, they can easily overwhelm the air defence systems and flatten all their bases in the region. It will be the downfall of not only Trump, but the US empire as a whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, repenter said:

No they cant. You have to have physical access to them..and know where they are.

Well, I'm not saying it's simple but it can be done. I wouldn't take it for granted that the networks are invulnerable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Yes. I am talking about US destroying the Iraqi Army in a few months in the Gulf war, that proves how strong the US is. That was the same army you fought for 8 years, US defeated it without breaking a sweat.

The US is too strong, that's the truth.

Saddam's men didnt have haqq on their side.. Nor did they have the ahul beyt on their side... "the US is too strong thats the truth" is a statement a weak person would say... 
thats what people told a small group of shias about Israel, and 20 years later they kicked them out of lebanon with rpgs and aks...
1 hizbullah shia took out 17 merkava tanks byhimself.. but why am I wasting energy on you.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Klanky said:

Well, I'm not saying it's simple but it can be done. I wouldn't take it for granted that the networks are invulnerable

The biggest problem is finding the "dead line".

On another thread l posted about this. l'II have to look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

 

How you can solve this paradox :book::einstein::helpsos:

in two post you say two different things about Iran Army ,at the it is capable of war or not :ko:

Iran's Army was more capable but it suffered tactical defeats against a weaker army. That's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sumerian said:

The problem with your thinking is you seem to overestimate your country's capability. You don't even have air defenses that can track the US's most powerful fighters jets or bombers. All it takes for a mission to hit specific targets in a country is air superiortity.

Now Iran might retaliate with a barrage of ballistic missiles but that won't end well. That will just force the US to level Iranian cities and in return escalate.

Whatever damage you do to American assets, it is nothing compared to the destruction America can do to you. You have so much vulnerabilities, you have little international support and your economy relies on one source which will likely be destroyed in any war.

Stop overestimating yourselves. And don't give me the "rely on faith" nonsense because you always compromise.

Rhetoric has never won a war. And it never will.

 

First of all, I am not a part of the Iranian defence apparatus. So I am not overestimating "my" capabilities. I am on the sidelines just like you, simply doing my best to assess the situation. Secondly, I did not really make any reference to faith... although that is absolutely essentially: see how Saudi is signing their own death certificates by invading one of the poorest countries in the world (Yemen). Fortitude, faith, whatever you want to call it. It matters.

 

Now... as for the military capabilities of the United States, the problem many people run into is that they think this is a numbers game. They say: more budget, more industrial capacity, more fighters, more bombers, more artillery pieces, more guidance systems, more warships, etc...

 

Military science is not a game of "who has more." It never has been. Everything else being equal, then the numbers matter. In a vacuum, they don't mean much. Instead of looking at numbers, look at history. Look at all the wars in which the US has fought since the end of World War II. How many have they won, and by "win" I don't mean "they killed more people." Obviously, the US has a lot of killing power; killing people in droves is not the same as winning a war. Winning a war or a battle is if: you accomplish the objectives defined by the mission. So if for example if you want a reunification of Korea under YOUR terms, then the absence of that is a defeat. If your objective is to prevent the spread of communist rule in Vietnam and instead Vietnam is united under communist rule, then that is a defeat. If your objective is to overthrow the Taliban and then, 20 years later you are forced to negotiate treaties with Taliban... that's a defeat.

 

In all of these wars, the US has lost. And they have not taken on particularly strong countries. Vietnam was probably the all-around strongest in terms of overall military capability. But even Vietnam was really not a regional power, let alone a world power. Still, they lost. Yeah they killed a lot of people. That's not the same as winning. Winning means reaching the military objective. Having failed to reach it, that's a defeat. This is not baradar being a jingoist, these are the facts.

 

Now... could the US "theoretically" defeat Iran. Well, yeah, duh. Nuclear weapons. They could theoretically genocide the entire Iranian people with nukes. But let's save those childish scenarios for the video games, because that's not a realistic scenario. Even against Russia, because the US has more nukes, they can "theoretically" conquer Moscow in a nuclear war. It's a meaningless thought to even entertain because no such conflict will take place.

 

You said that Iran cannot track the best US fighters and bombers. I'd appreciate if you be more specific because as far as I am concerned, any rhetoric about the US having an unsinkable aircraft went out the door when Serbia downed a F-117. There is no such thing as "stealth" in this world, only stealthy. Iran has devoted a very sizable portion of its defence budget, to air defence. And in air defence there are few countries that are as successful as Iran. Serbia downed a F-117. Iran can do much more of that. And now that we are on the subject of aircraft: the intelligence of a nation which continues to manufacture the B-52 has to be HEAVILY questioned.

 

Rhetoric has never won a war. I agree. But whose side's rhetoric has consistently failed to match reality? Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. What has the US won since WWII? Absolutely nothing. They kill, they kill, and they kill. And they lose, and they lose, and they lose. because they fail to meet their most basic objectives. That's the reality of the situation, and that's why - while you're sitting here saying all this fluff about how the US can flatten Iran like a pancake... nothing has happened. 40 years. Nothing. Even their simple "hostage rescue mission" was an abject failure. But yeah, they managed to kill a bunch of civilian passengers of an airliner, sure. Nobody has ever denied they are proficient in killing. They killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, through varied means. That war still was, and always will be, a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Reminder: The last engagement between America and Iran ended up with pretty much the Iranian Navy's destruction.

 

This is factually incorrect. The US "sunk" one warship - the Sahand - and it got recommissioned if I recall correctly.

 

Also that was ten million years ago. Iran's anti-ship missile capability has vastly improved since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@baradar_jackson how was Iraq a failiure from the American military perspective? They defeated the government in months and they caught him hiding in a hole. He was a regional threat to their allies and he was disposed of.

Sure they couldn't install the system they like but their targeted enemy was neutralised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one in their right mind believes Iran would have a chance in a full scale war with the US.  Irans military is no slouch and pretty capable but even though US power is on the decline, their military is still by far and away the most powerful military force in human history and this is ignoring nukes. It is stupendous what kind of fire power they have and they don't even utilize a small fraction of their capacity when engaged in their militaristic adventures around the world.

Given the US utilizes even 20% of their military capacity in a war.  Iran at best can mount a decent defense, and that too for a temporary period after which they would have to depend on diplomacy of some sort. This sort of aggression would end up being too costly for the US so they won't bother, it basically would be a defeat for the US considering the cost-benefits analysis and the political backlash at home.  So yes from this perspective a war against Iran would be troublesome but beyond that there is really no comparison.

Edited by King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

United states projects its power and influence based on illusions. Illusions of military invincibility, democracy, human rights, freedom, etc. Beyond that, they're nothing. Their entire empire is build on maintaining these illusions. That's why control over information is so vital. When it comes to real warfare, they've shown themselves to be paper tigers, only good on paper but completely ineffective in battlefield. We just have to look at their performance in Iraq and Afghanistan to see how. Beyond their initial show of force, they were unable to maintain their dominance and were pushed back through asymmetric warfare tactics.

Israel vs Hezbollah is a miniature version of how such war against Iran will play out, except, Iran is far more capable than Hezbollah, while Israel has US's latest weaponry already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not forget the mighty US marines crying when caught by the Iranians. https://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-general-us-sailors-cried-when-we-captured-them/

This is what America's military might is under the veils. Men who believe in nothing vs men of faith in god. The US tried the direct military strategy after the orchestrated attacks of 2001. They created alot of noise, with plenty of propaganda. Few years later, they had to shift strategy to indirect warfare through jihadis, as their military capabilities were completely insufficient. 

Now even their indirect warfare has failed, as the resistance movement has put into place proper militia groups wherever required. Their last card to play, is financial warfare, which they're waging against Iran, though sanctions and negotiations, pushing Iran back step by step. Hoping to recreate the success they had against soviet union. What will they do once this fails as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, baradar_jackson said:

Now... as for the military capabilities of the United States, the problem many people run into is that they think this is a numbers game. They say: more budget, more industrial capacity, more fighters, more bombers, more artillery pieces, more guidance systems, more warships, etc...

l really hate quoting a Bolshevik, yet as Lenin said, "Quantity has a Quality all its own."

4 hours ago, baradar_jackson said:

Military science is not a game of "who has more." It never has been. Everything else being equal, then the numbers matter. In a vacuum, they don't mean much. Instead of looking at numbers, look at history. Look at all the wars in which the US has fought since the end of World War II. How many have they won, and by "win" I don't mean "they killed more people." Obviously, the US has a lot of killing power; killing people in droves is not the same as winning a war.

This reminders me of 18th and early 19th Centuries warfare. When things were about "equal" -particularly in regards to mobility and weaponry-  the basic numerical was 60-40.

The 'winner' of a battle took 40% casualties and the Loser suffered 60%. This was expected at every engagement.  Decisive engagements were when the Loser lost 80%+ of their force. Which did happen even when the Loser still held their positions.  This kind of thing can happen again.

From what l have gleaned over the years, lRl does not have an 'adequate' TO&E for a relevant TD&T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sumerian said:

@baradar_jackson how was Iraq a failiure from the American military perspective? They defeated the government in months and they caught him hiding in a hole. He was a regional threat to their allies and he was disposed of.

Sure they couldn't install the system they like but their targeted enemy was neutralised.

The two purposes of invading lraq were two "turn right" into lran and to destroy an lsIamic country (in da name of J). The US only succeeded in the later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRGC commander: Foes found it impossible to carry out threats against Iran

http://en.abna24.com/news/iran/irgc-commander-foes-found-it-impossible-to-carry-out-threats-against-iran_903223.html

July 27, 2018 - 2:14 PM News Code : 903223 Source : TasnimLink: 
IRGC commander: Foes found it impossible to carry out threats against Iran
 

Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari scorned the enemies’ rhetoric of harsh military action on Iran, saying the foes have found it impossible to carry out their threats against the Islamic Republic. 

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari scorned the enemies’ rhetoric of harsh military action on Iran, saying the foes have found it impossible to carry out their threats against the Islamic Republic. 

In comments in a gathering of university students on Friday morning, the IRGC commander derided the threat of military strike against the Islamic Republic as “empty and idle”. 

 

 

General Soleimani's disclosures about US military;

From adult-size diapers for soldiers to request of American commander from Haj Qassim in Iraq

http://en.abna24.com/news/iran/we-are-closer-to-you-than-you-think_903121.html

July 26, 2018 - 3:49 PM News Code : 903121 Source : FNALink: 
From adult-size diapers for soldiers to request of American commander from Haj Qassim in Iraq
 

The IRGC’s Quds Force Commander Ghasem Soleimani in reaction to US President Donald Trump’s recent tweet against Iran said “we are closer to you than you think”, rebuking Trump for threatening Iran. 

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force Major General Qassem Soleimani blasted US President Donald Trump for his hollow threats against Iran, warning that the Quds Force alone is powerful enough to stand against Washington in any possible confrontation without any need to the other Iranian armed forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, King said:

No one in their right mind believes Iran would have a chance in a full scale war with the US.  Irans military is no slouch and pretty capable but even though US power is on the decline, their military is still by far and away the most powerful military force in human history and this is ignoring nukes. It is stupendous what kind of fire power they have and they don't even utilize a small fraction of their capacity when engaged in their militaristic adventures around the world.

Given the US utilizes even 20% of their military capacity in a war.  Iran at best can mount a decent defense, and that too for a temporary period after which they would have to depend on diplomacy of some sort. This sort of aggression would end up being too costly for the US so they won't bother, it basically would be a defeat for the US considering the cost-benefits analysis and the political backlash at home.  So yes from this perspective a war against Iran would be troublesome but beyond that there is really no comparison.

 

What you are saying is like saying: the US did not lose a single battle in Vietnam. Technically true. But who cares?

 

Giap thought they were toast after the failure of the Tet offensive. Little did he realize that this "victory" for the US was not celebrated nor seen as progress.

 

It literally means nothing. The power the US possesses in theory is as useful as the theoretical possibility that I can make the NBA.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

May I remind everyone the true strength of the US military hasn't been unleashed and probably will never be because there is no worthy competitor to the US military. 

 

It hasn't been "unleashed" because the US is afraid to actually get into a fight with an adversary that can fight back. They are afraid of conflict expanding beyond the bounds with which they are comfortable, which is in itself a sign of weakness but the reason they even have this issue is because their populous is spoiled by the plentiful means they have enjoyed for 60-70 years or so. There is no population less equipped for long, drawn out warfare.... especially when it's all aggressive warfare and ordinary people tend to not like dying for imperial ambitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sumerian said:

how was Iraq a failiure from the American military perspective?

They were failed to provide the evidences of WMD's, one of the main reason of launching attack on Iraq. 
 

Quote

In the lead-up to the invasion, the U.S. and UK emphasized the argument that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that he thus presented a threat to his neighbors and to the world community. The U.S. stated "on November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

They were failed to provide the evidences of WMD's, one of the main reason of launching attack on Iraq. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

 

That doesn't mean their military failed. That means they lied. But their military obeyed orders and executed the plans and won pretty much every battle they engaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

That doesn't mean their military failed. That means they lied. But their military obeyed orders and executed the plans and won pretty much every battle they engaged.

Ok, They lied that's why their military was failed to produce WMD's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, hasanhh said:

l really hate quoting a Bolshevik, yet as Lenin said, "Quantity has a Quality all its own."

You should be reminded of history of Islam and battle of badr. 313 vs 1000+ well armed fighters. Quality in islam comes from belief in god. We're not non-believers. Another example is 3000+ hezbollah vs Israel in 2006. Shia's have quality of their own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sumerian said:

That doesn't mean their military failed. That means they lied. But their military obeyed orders and executed the plans and won pretty much every battle they engaged.

American military got bogged down in Iraq fighting the militias and failed in projecting its illusion of invincibility which would have been used to extend the US direct military warfare to Iran and elsewhere after 2001. 

US military had created an image of invincibility from the 1991 gulf war, which all evaporated after their second gulf war. The difference was that proper militias using asymmetric warfare were organized against them vs Sadam's classic military tactics with deficient export version weapons from US and Russia. As if any of these nations will give arabs/muslims weaponry that can be a real threat to them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

American military got bogged down in Iraq fighting the militias and failed in projecting its illusion of invincibility which would have been used to extend the US direct military warfare to Iran and elsewhere after 2001. 

US military had created an image of invincibility from the 1991 gulf war, which all evaporated after their second gulf war. The difference was that proper militias using asymmetric warfare were organized against them vs Sadam's classic military tactics with deficient export version weapons from US and Russia. As if any of these nations will give arabs/muslims weaponry that can be a real threat to them. 

 

Actually Saddam was relying on fairly advanced Soviet equipment and some French equipment. He had little American equipment. And it proved no match for American technology. 

These people talk about one American fighter jet being downed, lol, what an accomplishment. How rare does that ever happen. The dogfights between American/British and Iraqi warplanes were so one sided it was almost like target practice for the coalition.

We know America is not good at occupying, but it can target key assets of Iran easily. Oil infrastructure, nuclear infrastructure and military infrastructure is all within American reach through airpower alone.

The best of Iran's air defenses can never even detect an F-22, which is the greatest fighter jet to ever be created.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Actually Saddam was relying on fairly advanced Soviet equipment and some French equipment. He had little American equipment. And it proved no match for American technology. 

These people talk about one American fighter jet being downed, lol, what an accomplishment. How rare does that ever happen. The dogfights between American/British and Iraqi warplanes were so one sided it was almost like target practice for the coalition.

Export version of military equipment due not have the same sensitive technologies of the host country. Russia/US do not export their best military equipment. The specs of these export models are also known publicly or can be discovered through other nations who buy the same export models. Once the info is known, its just a matter of strategizing. This is why Iran produces its own equipment or heavily modifies them, and also why militaries of powerful nations produce their own equipment and avoid exporting their latest military equipment. 

Regardless, this isn't comparison of classic warfare (tank vs tank, plane vs plane) which Iraq was deploying, but asymmetric warfare (Hezbollah vs Israel 2006) which Iran is deploying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

We know America is not good at occupying, but it can target key assets of Iran easily. Oil infrastructure, nuclear infrastructure and military infrastructure is all within American reach through airpower alone.

The best of Iran's air defenses can never even detect an F-22, which is the greatest fighter jet to ever be created.

Israel also was able to target anything in Lebanon in 2006, but did they win the war? War in-tails the entire spectrum of warfare, not just initial bombing. From beginning to finish. This is why Iranian general Qasim Soleimani has said that US can start the war, but we will finish it. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/iranian-commander-soleimani-to-trump-if-you-begin-the-war-we-will-e.html

Regarding air power, Iran was able to bring down the US spy drone RQ-170 through detecting and then hacking it. Before then, US was bragging about how they're able to spy on Iran with it with impunity. Stealth tech is overrated and serves propaganda purposes.

Iran Unveils Radars that Can Detect Stealth Targets

https://english.alahednews.com.lb/30355/534

Even Chinese have means of detecting these stealth planes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/the-end-of-stealth-new-chinese-radar-capable-of-detecting-invisible-targets-100km-away.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Iran Unveils Radars that Can Detect Stealth Targets

https://english.alahednews.com.lb/30355/534

This link didn't come-up.

Nevertheless,  during Operation Desert Shield (Aug 90-Jan91) and this theme about detection came up it was said then that one of ways to track F-117s and other stealth aircraft was to use Doppler weather radar (and variants since then).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Export version of military equipment due not have the same sensitive technologies of the host country. Russia/US do not export their best military equipment. The specs of these export models are also known publicly or can be discovered through other nations who buy the same export models. Once the info is known, its just a matter of strategizing. This is why Iran produces its own equipment or heavily modifies them, and also why militaries of powerful nations produce their own equipment and avoid exporting their latest military equipment. 

Regardless, this isn't comparison of classic warfare (tank vs tank, plane vs plane) which Iraq was deploying, but asymmetric warfare (Hezbollah vs Israel 2006) which Iran is deploying. 

Anything Iran makes is generations behind the US. Iran's main weapons are ballistic missiles which are 1950s technology for the US and Russia.

7 hours ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Israel also was able to target anything in Lebanon in 2006, but did they win the war? War in-tails the entire spectrum of warfare, not just initial bombing. From beginning to finish. This is why Iranian general Qasim Soleimani has said that US can start the war, but we will finish it. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/iranian-commander-soleimani-to-trump-if-you-begin-the-war-we-will-e.html

Regarding air power, Iran was able to bring down the US spy drone RQ-170 through detecting and then hacking it. Before then, US was bragging about how they're able to spy on Iran with it with impunity. Stealth tech is overrated and serves propaganda purposes.

Iran Unveils Radars that Can Detect Stealth Targets

https://english.alahednews.com.lb/30355/534

Even Chinese have means of detecting these stealth planes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/the-end-of-stealth-new-chinese-radar-capable-of-detecting-invisible-targets-100km-away.html

Iran is not Hezbollah. Iran has a population of 80 million, you bomb and block their main source of income and the country is in an economic crisis. Too much vulnerabilities to fight a war with the most powerful country.

Are you comparing one spy plane to an entire arsenal of the greatest planes humans have created? In any way, the US will he deploying entire squadrons of aircraft, which even the greatest air defenses combined can't stop. It is a fact, the US is above and beyond in airpower.

And you can't say "even the Chinese", the Chinese are ahead of Iran as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalam Alikum Brother @Sumerian

The believers have tawaqal 3la Allah.

You are only looking at it in the perspective of numbers.

I know you are very good in fiqh, but I ask you have you studied seera?

What do you want the Iranian leadership to do exactly?

Numerous times Mohammad Jawad Zarif said come to us let's talk at the table,  let's work towards diplomacy.  Dump Administration doesn't want that.   So when Dump comes at them with war of words, how do you expect they will respond?  Allah loves the strong mo2mineen.  

They learn from Imam Hussain when he said, "Death with dignity is better than life with humiliation."  

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Laayla said:

Assalam Alikum Brother @Sumerian

The believers have tawaqal 3la Allah.

You are only looking at it in the perspective of numbers.

I know you are very good in fiqh, but I ask you have you studied seera?

What do you want the Iranian leadership to do exactly?

Numerous times Mohammad Jawad Zarif said come to us let's talk at the table,  let's work towards diplomacy.  Dump Administration doesn't want that.   So when Dump comes at them with war of words, how do you expect they will respond?  Allah loves the strong mo2mineen.  

They learn from Imam Hussain when he said, "Death with dignity is better than life with humiliation."  

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

I'm not criticising their policy, I'm saying war would be terrible, whether Iran starts or Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Laayla said:

Assalam Alikum Brother @Sumerian

The believers have tawaqal 3la Allah.

You are only looking at it in the perspective of numbers.

I know you are very good in fiqh, but I ask you have you studied seera?

What do you want the Iranian leadership to do exactly?

Numerous times Mohammad Jawad Zarif said come to us let's talk at the table,  let's work towards diplomacy.  Dump Administration doesn't want that.   So when Dump comes at them with war of words, how do you expect they will respond?  Allah loves the strong mo2mineen.  

They learn from Imam Hussain when he said, "Death with dignity is better than life with humiliation."  

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

 

The US government has shown time and time again that it cannot be reasoned with. They understand one type of language, and that is the language of force.

 

A lot can be gleaned from little things. Look at this post from the official twitter account of the US department of defence:

 

At first when I saw this I thought it was a parody account, but no: check the arrow. It's official. They are actually proud of indiscriminate destruction of nations and of civilian infrastructure. No shame whatsoever.

 

And when you see their so-called diplomacy, this type of posts are not so surprising. They don't generally offer concessions, when they do it is the bare minimum (and then they won't even abide by these agreements they have made anyway). An agreement with the United States is not worth the paper it's written on. I feel sorry for people who do not see this because it's like forgetting that the sky is blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...