Has the Axis of resistance failed

[mahmood8726]

I am making this because I see this subject constantly brought up and it diverts the direction of the original subject, wether it be the Syrian war, Lebanon war, etc...

 

So I made this, so everyone in shiachat can discuss it here.

[Fahad32]

I am no military expert, but it is clear to me that from 2006 to 2024, Israel was significantly better prepared than Hezbollah. When Hezbollah opened thier front on Oct 8th, I am sure they thought that eventually Israel would be exhausted as it was in previous conflicts or would be reigned in by the powers that be. Neither happened, and Israel demolished not only Gaza, but also Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah to a near crisis level.

Also in hindsight, Iran's response to assasinations of it's generals, of Ismail Haniyah and Hassan Nassrulla should have been more emphatic.

I understand the wisdom of playing the long game, but what good is this when the enemy continues to chip away and you come away weaker at every skirmish. Whatever gains Hezbollah made from 2006 to 2024 is gone now.

At what do you have a conversation about going on offense instead of being defense?

God knows what's in the future, but personally i feel a lot less confident about the direction of the AOR now than what i felt last year.
 

 

 

[mahmood8726]

Salam, @Ibn Tayyar, here is my response:

 

"Those who claim the war in South Lebanon was a victory are simply coping and unable to admit to reality."

Well see if this is based on actual rational analysis or just because you think so.

 

"The attempt to present anything as a victory is a sign of desperation, and a reminiscent of the failing Arab armies during the Arab-Israeli wars of the past."

If it's unfounded and is a delusional claim.

 

"The Zionists said that their aim was to delink Gaza from Lebanon. Hezbollah said they would fight the Zionists as a support front in order to pressure Israel to submit to a ceasefire."

Yes and the war isn't over, even Israel says this ceasefire is not permanent. Israel has violated this ceasefire 100+ times, this ceasefire is not going to hold and hezbollah knew this because Israelis are so predictable. You're making this claim as if the war has ended, when it has not.

"Gaza has been destroyed and is still under bombardment. Israel completely destroyed South Lebanon"

It caused serious damage, but it did not completely destroyed it, I know because I come from south Lebanon.

"and killed most of Hezbollah's Leaders and Commanders."

Correct and hezbollah prepared for this scenario, given israel sent drones 36000 times since 2006 and gathered decades worth of human resources and intelligence on where these commanders and leaders go. Any army who loses their entire command structure would have collapsed, everyone predicted hezbollah was done for yet here were are 2 months later and hezbollah fended off a full scale invasion of 70k israeli terrorists.

"It is also very likely that alot of Hezbollah's rocket stockpile was either used or destroyed, as is normal in a war against an opponent with air superiority."

Almost every expert on this has stated that most of hezbs missiles stockpiles are fine. Israel made these same ridicilous claims in 2006 about destroying most of hezbollahs missiles, yet hezbollah kept firing more and more, the same happened here. What Israel destroyed were the extra missiles stored above ground that had recently come from Syria or 90% they destroyed apartment buildings that had nothing in them except civilians.

 

 

"All Hezbollah achieved was it showed that it has the ability to damage Israeli border towns, and hit Israeli cities with drones and missiles. Something Israel and the world already knew anyway. Visual damage in Israel is relatively minimal - certainly compared to South Lebanon."

Israel itself said that hezbollah did serious damage to Israel that would take Israel years or even a decade to repair because of the extensive usage of burkan missiles amongst many things. You seeing videos =/= hezbollah barely did anything. Israel also refused to bomb the lebanese airport and important infrastructure like in 2006 because it knew hezbollah could easily do the same to Israel and cripple it's economy badly. 

"Israel was also able to kill some of Iran's most senior commanders with hardly any damage recieved in retaliation."

Hardly any damage that they had to hide their bases with artificial clouds on sattelite imagery for days and even some of them for an entire month? Hardly any damage that natenyahu was shaking when giving a speech and decided to launch a major assault on Iran with 200 missiles fired from fighter jets in Iraq airspace?

 

"What does this tell you? Israel is not deterred. It was not "defeated". It achieved its objective that it announced prior to the pager operation, which was 1) de-link Gaza and South Lebanon/Hezbollah 2) return the Northern Settlers home."

Israel did not return the Northern Settlers home, they're still scared to go north due to a potential oct 7 scenario, especially with israel violating the ceasefire constantly and this war having a 100% chance of breaking out again.

They delinked Gaza and Lebanon temporarily, this ceasefire won't be permanent, Israel itself is saying this and hezbollah has already attacked Israel 4 days ago and warned yesterday that if Israel continues violating, they will escalate things. Israel is violating it and even violated it today multiple times. You're making a conclusive claim whilst the war isn't even over. Hezbollah agreed to this because many people in Lebanon were complaining that hezbollah got them unecessarly into a war with Israel and Israel was slaughtering a lot of civilians in Lebanon, so hezbollah agreed to it, to show to the lebanese people that the lebanese army is useless and Israel violates agreements. When this war starts again and it will, hezbollah will not be blamed anymore by the lebanese civilians as much as previously, thus lowering the chance of a civil war in Lebanon. 

 

All of these are very valid points and not "cope".

Even if I agreed with your point that this is permanent and Israel succeeded in delinkinking Gaza and Lebanon, it would not mean a defeat for hezbollah, it would just mean a bitter end to this war with wins and defeats for both sides. 

 

"Now, did it achieve ultimate victory, as in "destroying" Hezbollah? No it did not achieve that. But how does this prove that Hezbollah's sacrifices - of thousands of martyrs - was "worth it"? Hezbollah did not achieve any of its stated goals and objectives since it joined the war in support of Gaza. All it did was "survive"."

No, Israel did not achieve its stated objective of dismantling hezbollah, disarming hezbollah, destroying hezbollahs missile capabilities or its unstated objectives of occupying Lebanon via an attempted preemptive invasion on October 2023 or via this invasion last month.

 

The reality is Israel failed worse than in 2006, I know this because I'm from the south, I know many villages which israel had a much more difficult time penetrating than in 2006, despite it invading with 70k instead of 10k like in 2006. All of this happened despite hezbollahs leadership gone, it's pagers blown and hezbollah having to regroup in the first 10 days of the invasion. 

Israel planned all of this 10 years ago and now they used all their wildcards on Lebanon atleast. Which is why they had to resort to Syria, they failed in Lebanon, so they want to cut hezbollahs weapon supply. 

"And what happened subsequently - the weakening of Hezbollah and Iran generally, as a result of the Gaza War - is obviously being exploited by Turkey and its rebels to fulfill their ultimate goal in Syria. The Shi'a in Syria will suffer greatly if this offensive remains as hot as it is, in addition to our Holy Shrines being in grave danger."

The weakening of Iran??? I don't think so. This happened because turkey wanted to humiliate Russia and Israel wanted Iran to stop supplying weapons to hezbollah, that's why this assault happened and yes, Syria is in grave danger of falling, Israel might succeed here. 

 

"And if the regime in Damascus does fall and Iran's route to Hezbollah is compromised, then yes, Israel has just achieved a geopolitical victory of the ages."

That would be true.

 

"The believers should be honest with themselves. Learn from your mistakes and do not paint everything as a victory. Be open about where you have failed." 

Most of us aren't doing this, most of us are expecting Israel to win in Syria. 

 

"One thing I wish we learned from our enemies, especially the US, is when they train their troops or simulate wargames, they make it so the enemy is incredibly strong, perhaps much stronger than the enemy really is or stronger than even themselves.

This is why the US Military regularly loses in war game simulations. They try their best not to underestimate their enemy."

 

Well America has more resources, what you're saying is a good point, but keeps in mind America has far better resources than us too.

 

"And what happens when the US or the West (including Israel) fail? Instant self-criticism and internal debates. They don't try and sugarcoat their failures. They try and learn from their mistakes. You don't think in Israel there won't be a critical investigation into the failures of their military and intelligence when it came to October 7? There will be for sure. Just as there was following the 2006 War. And after the 1973 War."

That happens with the AOR too, you're assuming they don't do it because some people online are too zealot about the AOR, only Syria now is doing damage control and not facing reality. 

 

"Unfortunately in our Shi'i political circles all you see is positivism and talks of how in mere minutes we can wipe our enemies out. Even right now, some are people have convinced themselves that what is happening is in Syria is some sort of 4D master plan."

Most people aren't this deluded, you're focusing on the people who have too much hope. 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by mahmood8726

[AbdusSibtayn]

No, I don't think the Axis has 'failed'. 

A temporary setback? Yes, sure. But not failure certainly. 

They have to lick their wounds, stand up again and find their bearings to figure out what to do next. 

It's too early to say anything. Both despondency and denial are harmful. 

People were saying the same thing about the Russians after the Kursk offensive (I know that the two situations are not exactly comparable) - 'hahaha look they lost'. Yet here we are. 

The point is that we never know what the future holds. 

Honest self-evaluation will help our cause, and not jaundiced accusations or blind cheerleading. 

[HusseinA9182]

1 hour ago, mahmood8726 said:

"Those who claim the war in South Lebanon was a victory are simply coping and unable to admit to reality."

Well see if this is based on actual rational analysis or just because you think so.

Bro they killed every single top official in hezebollah. 
 

this is considered a victory in any war. Imagine Biden and his whole cabinet got killed. 
 

 

[Ibn Tayyar]

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

Salam, @Ibn Tayyar, here is my response:

wa alaykum al salam

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"Those who claim the war in South Lebanon was a victory are simply coping and unable to admit to reality."

Well see if this is based on actual rational analysis or just because you think so.

I believe it is based on my own rational analysis. Happy to be proven wrong. But let me address your points one by one, and insha Allah you will also see my perspective.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"The Zionists said that their aim was to delink Gaza from Lebanon. Hezbollah said they would fight the Zionists as a support front in order to pressure Israel to submit to a ceasefire."

Yes and the war isn't over, even Israel says this ceasefire is not permanent. Israel has violated this ceasefire 100+ times, this ceasefire is not going to hold and hezbollah knew this because Israelis are so predictable. You're making this claim as if the war has ended, when it has not.

What does it tell you when one side violates the ceasefire hundreds of times and the other site barely does anything in response, beside a few rocket warning shots? 

What does it tell you when Hezbollah has already started a campaign to compensate those whose property was destroyed or damaged? 

This does not give you the impression that Hezbollah has the will to keep on fighting, does it? It tells you that Israel is acting in impunity, does it not?

It is clear to me that Hezbollah wants to move past this chapter, especially with the current debacle in Syria, which is no doubt interrupting the logistical support to Hezbollah from Iran and its other allies. Brother, you can only do so many things at once.

Tell me, before Israel commenced its escalatory behaviour after the pager attack, with the killing of tens of Hezbollah's commanders and leaders swiftly after that, and significantly increasing its aistrikes aswell as beginning the ground operation in Lebanon, would Hezbollah have accepted this same ceasefire? No, because it went against everything Nasrallah talked about in his speeches.

The Hezbollah official narrative was the fighting stops in Lebanon when it stops in Gaza, and that was the message given to American and French mediators. Until Hezbollah changed its stance. Why did it change its stance? Because of external military pressure aswell as internal political pressure.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"Gaza has been destroyed and is still under bombardment. Israel completely destroyed South Lebanon"

It caused serious damage, but it did not completely destroyed it, I know because I come from south Lebanon.

The damage was nowhere near disproportionate. Remember when Nasrallah said for every building that is destroyed in Lebanon, we will destroy a building in Israel? 

 

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"and killed most of Hezbollah's Leaders and Commanders."

Correct and hezbollah prepared for this scenario, given israel sent drones 36000 times since 2006 and gathered decades worth of human resources and intelligence on where these commanders and leaders go. Any army who loses their entire command structure would have collapsed, everyone predicted hezbollah was done for yet here were are 2 months later and hezbollah fended off a full scale invasion of 70k israeli terrorists.

Hezbollah fought bravely and admirably for a group that lost its command structure. But you know what would have been better for Hezbollah? Had they not lost their command structure in the first place. 

It is clear Israel won the intel and counter intel battle. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"It is also very likely that alot of Hezbollah's rocket stockpile was either used or destroyed, as is normal in a war against an opponent with air superiority."

Almost every expert on this has stated that most of hezbs missiles stockpiles are fine. Israel made these same ridicilous claims in 2006 about destroying most of hezbollahs missiles, yet hezbollah kept firing more and more, the same happened here. What Israel destroyed were the extra missiles stored above ground that had recently come from Syria or 90% they destroyed apartment buildings that had nothing in them except civilians.

Even if I grant you that, all this tells me is Hezbollah did not want to attempt to deter Israel by engaging in equal fire, the doctrine which Nasrallah spoke about repeatedly. 

Israel had told its citzens to prepare for 2 thousand to 5 thousand rockets and shells being fired from Lebanon on a daily basis. That never happened. 

All the while Israel engaged in an air camapign whose scale was probably not seen since the American war on Iraq.

Does this not tell you Israel was in control of the escalation ladder from the beginning? 

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"All Hezbollah achieved was it showed that it has the ability to damage Israeli border towns, and hit Israeli cities with drones and missiles. Something Israel and the world already knew anyway. Visual damage in Israel is relatively minimal - certainly compared to South Lebanon."

Israel itself said that hezbollah did serious damage to Israel that would take Israel years or even a decade to repair because of the extensive usage of burkan missiles amongst many things. You seeing videos =/= hezbollah barely did anything. Israel also refused to bomb the lebanese airport and important infrastructure like in 2006 because it knew hezbollah could easily do the same to Israel and cripple it's economy badly. 

Brother, the only large scale damage that was done was in border towns. Nasrallah had talked about the importance of the industrial, political and security infrastructure in Israel's major cities, and how Israel is vulnerable due to how interlinked they are.

They were not significantly damaged at all. 

What I'm saying is, Hezbollah did not achieve anything Israel did not expect it to achieve. It knew the Iron Dome could not possibly intercept all rockets from South Lebanon, especially in the border region. Which is why it evacuated the settlers in the first place, before even commencing the ground operation by months prior to it beginning.

In 2006, Hezbollah achieved many surprises against Israel. In this war, everything Israel prepared for did happen.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"Israel was also able to kill some of Iran's most senior commanders with hardly any damage recieved in retaliation."

Hardly any damage that they had to hide their bases with artificial clouds on sattelite imagery for days and even some of them for an entire month? Hardly any damage that natenyahu was shaking when giving a speech and decided to launch a major assault on Iran with 200 missiles fired from fighter jets in Iraq airspace?

I don't believe Israel significantly damaged Iran either, but they certainly hit and damaged soft targets, such as long-range radars (Ghadir) and solid fuel production sites.

Whatever Iran hit in Israel, it was not significant enough to change Israeli strategic calculus - the killing of Iranian commanders did not stop, nor did it alter or degrade their military capabilities i.e their ability to conduct airstrikes, which is their strategic and main asset. And this was after close to 400 missiles were fired in two seperate attacks on airbases. One would think that firing this much missiles on Israel's important airbases would perhaps render them inoperable for atleast some time. But in fact, Israel continued their air campaigns - and in fact escalated them, after both attacks.

And it is clear to me that the Israeli campaign in Syria is one of the reasons for the debacle in Syria today. Israeli targeting of Iranian commanders and associated infrastructure was always bound to weaken the logistical network that Iran spent years creating.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"What does this tell you? Israel is not deterred. It was not "defeated". It achieved its objective that it announced prior to the pager operation, which was 1) de-link Gaza and South Lebanon/Hezbollah 2) return the Northern Settlers home."

Israel did not return the Northern Settlers home, they're still scared to go north due to a potential oct 7 scenario, especially with israel violating the ceasefire constantly and this war having a 100% chance of breaking out again.

They delinked Gaza and Lebanon temporarily, this ceasefire won't be permanent, Israel itself is saying this and hezbollah has already attacked Israel 4 days ago and warned yesterday that if Israel continues violating, they will escalate things. Israel is violating it and even violated it today multiple times. You're making a conclusive claim whilst the war isn't even over. Hezbollah agreed to this because many people in Lebanon were complaining that hezbollah got them unecessarly into a war with Israel and Israel was slaughtering a lot of civilians in Lebanon, so hezbollah agreed to it, to show to the lebanese people that the lebanese army is useless and Israel violates agreements. When this war starts again and it will, hezbollah will not be blamed anymore by the lebanese civilians as much as previously, thus lowering the chance of a civil war in Lebanon. 

 

All of these are very valid points and not "cope".

Even if I agreed with your point that this is permanent and Israel succeeded in delinkinking Gaza and Lebanon, it would not mean a defeat for hezbollah, it would just mean a bitter end to this war with wins and defeats for both sides. 

I will refer you to my first point regarding my personal belief that Hezbollah wants this war ended. I believe this question will be answered in due time, when the ceasefire expires. 

And if I am proven correct, I don't believe you can claim any "win" on Hezbollah's part other than the fact it survived.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"Now, did it achieve ultimate victory, as in "destroying" Hezbollah? No it did not achieve that. But how does this prove that Hezbollah's sacrifices - of thousands of martyrs - was "worth it"? Hezbollah did not achieve any of its stated goals and objectives since it joined the war in support of Gaza. All it did was "survive"."

No, Israel did not achieve its stated objective of dismantling hezbollah, disarming hezbollah, destroying hezbollahs missile capabilities or its unstated objectives of occupying Lebanon via an attempted preemptive invasion on October 2023 or via this invasion last month.

 

The reality is Israel failed worse than in 2006, I know this because I'm from the south, I know many villages which israel had a much more difficult time penetrating than in 2006, despite it invading with 70k instead of 10k like in 2006. All of this happened despite hezbollahs leadership gone, it's pagers blown and hezbollah having to regroup in the first 10 days of the invasion. 

Israel planned all of this 10 years ago and now they used all their wildcards on Lebanon atleast. Which is why they had to resort to Syria, they failed in Lebanon, so they want to cut hezbollahs weapon supply. 

Brother, in 2006, Israel achieved barely anything militarily.

This time, the Israelis clearly stated their objective was to delink Hezbollah from Gaza. If the ceasefire holds, then they would have succeeded in doing that. There is no shame in admitting this.

This would also mean that the Northern settlers would be able to return.

It would also literally mean, Gaza was "left alone". Something that was promised not to happen.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"And what happened subsequently - the weakening of Hezbollah and Iran generally, as a result of the Gaza War - is obviously being exploited by Turkey and its rebels to fulfill their ultimate goal in Syria. The Shi'a in Syria will suffer greatly if this offensive remains as hot as it is, in addition to our Holy Shrines being in grave danger."

The weakening of Iran??? I don't think so. This happened because turkey wanted to humiliate Russia and Israel wanted Iran to stop supplying weapons to hezbollah, that's why this assault happened and yes, Syria is in grave danger of falling, Israel might succeed here. 

Absolutely, the weakening of Iran. You don't believe the countless aistrikes in Syria contributed to Iran's weakening logistically in Syria, which subsequently weakened Syria's ability to defend itself against the rebels?

Do you think this offensive would have succeded in the way it has, had Iran and its allies not fought against Israel? No, they would still have enough power to back the Syrian Government and defeat the offensive.

The rebels saw an opening and took the opportunity. Some of them have admitted this publicly. They knew the Syrian Army without Iran (and its allies), and Russia, will not hold.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"And if the regime in Damascus does fall and Iran's route to Hezbollah is compromised, then yes, Israel has just achieved a geopolitical victory of the ages."

That would be true.

I'm glad you agree here. Also? if this happens, then Hezbollah would have no choice but to end the war with Israel, even if I were to take your previous point that there was some will to fight left in the first place.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"The believers should be honest with themselves. Learn from your mistakes and do not paint everything as a victory. Be open about where you have failed." 

Most of us aren't doing this, most of us are expecting Israel to win in Syria. 

An Israeli victory in Syria would mean an Israeli victory since October 7. Literally the only card left for the Hamas would be the hostages.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"One thing I wish we learned from our enemies, especially the US, is when they train their troops or simulate wargames, they make it so the enemy is incredibly strong, perhaps much stronger than the enemy really is or stronger than even themselves.

This is why the US Military regularly loses in war game simulations. They try their best not to underestimate their enemy."

 

Well America has more resources, what you're saying is a good point, but keeps in mind America has far better resources than us too.

Yes that is correct, but brother, how many people believe our own propaganda? How we are basically undefeatable? I know of many like this. As soon as you say the enemy does something better than you, or the leaders of the resistance are making a mistake, you are seen as a traitor. This zealotry is seen all across our communities. 

It's always "trust the resistance leaders". Sometimes you should trust the critics.

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"And what happens when the US or the West (including Israel) fail? Instant self-criticism and internal debates. They don't try and sugarcoat their failures. They try and learn from their mistakes. You don't think in Israel there won't be a critical investigation into the failures of their military and intelligence when it came to October 7? There will be for sure. Just as there was following the 2006 War. And after the 1973 War."

That happens with the AOR too, you're assuming they don't do it because some people online are too zealot about the AOR, only Syria now is doing damage control and not facing reality. 

The US and the West do one thing right in my opinion: they criticise themselves publicly. Every year the Pentagon releases reports critical of certain aspects of the US military. Where they should improve. What went wrong in previous battles. Congress debates it. The public and the media are allowed to criticise. Those who failed can be voted out.

In our circles such a thing would be viewed as demoralising or traitor-like behaviour. You are giving the "enemy" our "battle secrets" would be said.  

3 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

"Unfortunately in our Shi'i political circles all you see is positivism and talks of how in mere minutes we can wipe our enemies out. Even right now, some are people have convinced themselves that what is happening is in Syria is some sort of 4D master plan."

Most people aren't this deluded, you're focusing on the people who have too much hope. 

Unfortunately there's too many of them to ignore.

Thank you for the response and discussion brother.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Ibn Tayyar

[Fahad32]

There's this insightful debate between Norman Finkelstein and Elijah Magnier about essentially this very topic, specifically on the Hezbollah/Israel war., in terms of who won or who lost.

There's a point in the conversation where Finkelstein mentions that Hezbollah spoke very boastfully of it's position vis a vis Israel. They may have under-estimated their foe quite frankly. The pager attacks were devastating and demoralizing. The killing of the leadership of the Radwan forces and the Sayed himself are losses that are catostraphic in the short team atleast.

Hezbollah lost an incredibly charasmatic leader that was able to inspire confidence domestically, and draw admiration and sympathy internationally due to his charisma, intelligence and political foresight. A leader like that appears once every 50 years maybe. I don't think any one of us truly appreciate what's lost.

Failure is too strong a word, but if they won in 2000 and 2006, then they lost this round. The enemy now is going for the knockout blow with the Syria conflict. Only God knows what happens from here.

[Eddie Mecca]

2 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

beside a few rocket warning shots? 

Piers Morgan and Salafi talking point..."Tehran is putting on a grand fireworks display for the masses"...amazing how Shirazis claim to hate Sunnis, Salafis and Takfiris so much but echo the exact same talking points 

[Abu_Zahra]

No they haven't.

You can't fight everybody's battle every single time. The Syrian army has put up close to no resistance, they are quick to withdraw in the hope that someone else will fight their war for them. However perhaps it's best that blood and resources are not wasted on a population that seems to think that the rebels are a better alternative than Assad. 

In South Lebanon 1300 zionist terrorists were eliminated and 60 of their tanks. The zionists couldn't control any territory and therefore they had to withdraw.

Iran refused to be pulled into a war. The Western and Arab world were waiting for an opportunity to blame the lack of a ceasefire in Palestine on Iran, and Iran didn't give them the excuse. 

The axis is strengthened by presence in Yemen and Iraq. Therefore I wouldn't say it has failed at all, but if people imagine they will run around fighting every single battle in every single corner of the world then they need a reality check. 

[Ibn Tayyar]

53 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Piers Morgan and Salafi talking point..."Tehran is putting on a grand fireworks display for the masses"...amazing how Shirazis claim to hate Sunnis, Salafis and Takfiris so much but echo the exact same talking points 

With regard to what you quoted, I'm specifically speaking of the rocket fire that occurred post-ceasefire (happened a few days ago), which Hezbollah literally said was a warning shot for ceasefire violations.

[Eddie Mecca]

@Ibn Tayyar, regarding your point that Tehran should adopt an all-encompassing sectarian stance/strategy...that is to say...follow the model set by Riyadh albeit in reverse...the design formulated by policy institutes in London and Washington and Tel Aviv is precisely that...you're advocating for Tel Aviv...foster sectarian strife regionally and allow the barbarians to cannibalize themselves...you're totally in favor of this strategy...meet intolerant brand of Sunnism (i.e. Wahhabism) with our own rigid, stern interpretation of Shi'ism and keep ourselves embroiled in decades-long warfare...while the figments of our overactive imaginations (i.e. imperialists and Zionists) steal all the resources and oil

Edited December 7, 2024 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

5 hours ago, HusseinA9182 said:

Bro they killed every single top official in hezebollah. 
 

this is considered a victory in any war. Imagine Biden and his whole cabinet got killed. 

Bro, 20% of Israelis evacuated Israel never to return again...they abandoned their vacation or resort homes in ME and returned back to their permanent places of residence in Germany, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Brooklyn...that is considered a victory in any war

Edited December 7, 2024 by Eddie Mecca

[Ibn Tayyar]

28 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@Ibn Tayyar, regarding your point that Tehran should adopt an all-encompassing sectarian stance...that is to say...follow the model set by Riyadh...the design formulated by policy institutes in London and Washington and Tel Aviv is precisely that...you're advocating for Tel Aviv...foster sectarian strife regionally and allow the barbarians to cannibalize themselves...you're totally in favor of this strategy...meet intolerant brand of Sunnism (i.e. Wahhabism) with our own rigid, stern interpretation of Shi'ism and keep ourselves embroiled in decades-long warfare...while the figments of our overactive imaginations (i.e. imperialists and Zionists) steal all the resources and oil

salam alaykum

I don't believe I said that brother. But I believe in prioritising ourselves over others. That is the view of all nations and people, for example Iran would prioritise Iranians over non-Iranians. That is natural and normal, and what all Governments should do.

Is it wrong to call for the attention of the Shi'a to be directed at oppressed and suffering Shi'a populations? 

I have no issue with assisting Sunnis, in fact I believe it is honourable for one to sacrifice himself for such a noble cause, and we can do more do two or three things at once, but it is simply a matter of priority for me and where we direct our resources. That is all.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Ibn Tayyar

[Eddie Mecca]

@Ibn Tayyar, Shi'ism is not about obeying the zeitgeist...Shi'ism seeks to dismantle and destroy the zeitgeist...we refuse...we reject...we renounce...we resist...and our resolve is firm against the sectarian mantras emanating out of Washington and London

Edited December 7, 2024 by Eddie Mecca

[mahmood8726]

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

wa alaykum al salam

I believe it is based on my own rational analysis. Happy to be proven wrong. But let me address your points one by one, and insha Allah you will also see my perspective.

What does it tell you when one side violates the ceasefire hundreds of times and the other site barely does anything in response, beside a few rocket warning shots? 

Nothing, this is 100% normal because when hezbollah starts this war again, they do not want the lebanese people to put the blame on them again. Israel violated the 2006 ceasefire 36000 times and hezbollah violated the ceasefire in response, now Israel's violations of the ceasefire are more severe (bombing lebanon) because israel wants to pretend like they signed some agreement that allows them to do this, despite this being proven wrong. Hezbollah said they will "try and give the ceasefire mechanism a chance to work", they want to politically let Israel take the blame for this, so no one in lebanese society whines.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

What does it tell you when Hezbollah has already started a campaign to compensate those whose property was destroyed or damaged? 

Its basic responsibility, hezbollah always does this, hezbollah is not just a millitary wing, it's also a political wing and has taken the responsibility of helping the civilians who have been devastated by the war, hezbollah has basic civilian institutions. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

This does not give you the impression that Hezbollah has the will to keep on fighting, does it? It tells you that Israel is acting in impunity, does it not?

No, that's only your impression because you don't realise that this is hezbollahs behaviour to make the lebanese people not blame them for a war and see hezbollah as a political party that actually takes responsibility and pays the people after they promised them to do so.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

It is clear to me that Hezbollah wants to move past this chapter, especially with the current debacle in Syria, which is no doubt interrupting the logistical support to Hezbollah from Iran and its other allies. Brother, you can only do so many things at once.

Hezbollah wanting to do something =/= hezbollah is not prepared . Hezbollah did not want to fight a war inside lebanon. Hezbollah was still ready to fight inside Lebanon and humiliated Israel even worse than before.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Tell me, before Israel commenced its escalatory behaviour after the pager attack, with the killing of tens of Hezbollah's commanders and leaders swiftly after that, and significantly increasing its aistrikes aswell as beginning the ground operation in Lebanon, would Hezbollah have accepted this same ceasefire? No, because it went against everything Nasrallah talked about in his speeches.

No, and you missed my entire point if that's the argument you're making. Please reread why hezbollah agreed to this and how it's most likley temporary.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

The Hezbollah official narrative was the fighting stops in Lebanon when it stops in Gaza, and that was the message given to American and French mediators. Until Hezbollah changed its stance. Why did it change its stance? Because of external military pressure aswell as internal political pressure.

Again, I gave the reasons why I think they accepted it. This is just telling me that hezbollah put one goal of not separating Gaza from Lebanon with more words.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

The damage was nowhere near disproportionate. Remember when Nasrallah said for every building that is destroyed in Lebanon, we will destroy a building in Israel? 

I don't remeber him saying this specifically, he said a "proportionate" response if I remeber. With that argument you might argue the 2006 war was lost by hezbollah, Israel flattened dahiyeh in 2006, unlike in 2006, this time Israel was scared of hitting critical infrastructure and kept making these ridicilous warnings to not kill as much civilians as Gaza, Israel didn't kill 20k in lebanon in the span of 2 months, they killed 4k max, why? Because they were scared hezbollah will devastate them.  Israel itself has always been disproportionate in its targetting and hezbollah responded accordingly by hitting their millitary bases and inflicting heavy losses on their millitary bases. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Hezbollah fought bravely and admirably for a group that lost its command structure. But you know what would have been better for Hezbollah? Had they not lost their command structure in the first place. 

You're repeating yourself here.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

It is clear Israel won the intel and counter intel battle. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

That didn't win them the war, Israel has always had an intelligence advantage, hezbollah isn't backed by America.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Even if I grant you that, all this tells me is Hezbollah did not want to attempt to deter Israel by engaging in equal fire, the doctrine which Nasrallah spoke about repeatedly.

When he meant equal fire, he meant a proportionate response to every Israeli strike from the perspective of hezbollah. Hezbollah will not go around flattening tel aviv, they're an Islamic organization, they'll only resort to this if they're really desperate. Again this argument proves nothing, i remeber even in 2006 you had this kind of speech from sayed hassan nassrallah. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

 

Israel had told its citzens to prepare for 2 thousand to 5 thousand rockets and shells being fired from Lebanon on a daily basis. That never happened. 

That's Israel's classic talk, to make it appear as if they destroyed hezbollahs rocket capabilities. They constantly made such ridicilous claims and hezb kept telling the Israelis that they planned to do no such thing. They didn't just plan to lob 6000 rockets a day, this is stupid. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

All the while Israel engaged in an air camapign whose scale was probably not seen since the American war on Iraq.

That's called shock n awe campaign to make the lebanese people loose hope and start a civil war. Not only did Israel fail to do that for 2 months, when this war starts again and it will, Israel would have most likley failed in this objective.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Does this not tell you Israel was in control of the escalation ladder from the beginning? 

No, if they were, it would have no climbed. As the war progressed Israel started flattening lebanon more and more.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Brother, the only large scale damage that was done was in border towns. Nasrallah had talked about the importance of the industrial, political and security infrastructure in Israel's major cities, and how Israel is vulnerable due to how interlinked they are.

Israel did not hit lebanons critical infrastructure so hezbollah did not do so, that's what sayed hassan nassrallah threatened. Hezbollah though did major damage to cities like haifa, safed, places in the Golan, etc... by targetting millitary and intel sites. Your take is very ignorant my friend, not even Israel agrees with you.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

They were not significantly damaged at all. 

That's your problem for not seeing something the Israelis themselves saw.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

What I'm saying is, Hezbollah did not achieve anything Israel did not expect it to achieve. It knew the Iron Dome could not possibly intercept all rockets from South Lebanon, especially in the border region. Which is why it evacuated the settlers in the first place, before even commencing the ground operation by months prior to it beginning.

Israel evacuated settlers from the north because hezbollah had been pounding the north for an entire 11 months and flattening the north for an entire 11 months, when hezbollah started devastating haifa, many thousands fleed haifa, you even saw their convoys of cars flee haifa and start to go to tel aviv. That's one reason Israel lowered its ceasefire demands. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

In 2006, Hezbollah achieved many surprises against Israel. In this war, everything Israel prepared for did happen.

In this war hezbollah achieved many surprises. Did you just casually ignore all the objectives of Israel that they failed? Israel expected hezbollah to fall instantly after the pager and command structure attack, that's why they arrogantly invaded Lebanon, like in 2006. They fell into the same trap.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

I don't believe Israel significantly damaged Iran either, but they certainly hit and damaged soft targets, such as long-range radars (Ghadir) and solid fuel production sites.

Most of the stuff they claimed to have hit is them coping. They hit an abandonned missile production site fron 2003 which they flasley claimed was some nuclear testing site. They hit a bush, killed 4 irgc members, hit some radars which got fixed and in general Israel got humiliated because everyone expected irans AD to be horrible and instead it intercepted most of their missiles as if it were the iron dome. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Whatever Iran hit in Israel, it was not significant enough to change Israeli strategic calculus - the killing of Iranian commanders did not stop, nor did it alter or degrade their military capabilities i.e their ability to conduct airstrikes, which is their strategic and main asset. And this was after close to 400 missiles were fired in two seperate attacks on airbases. One would think that firing this much missiles on Israel's important airbases would perhaps render them inoperable for atleast some time. But in fact, Israel continued their air campaigns - and in fact escalated them, after both attacks.

You're acting as if this one strike from Iran is supposed to cripple Israel entirely and destroy all their airfleet and make Israel beg for a ceasefire. No bro, this isn't a Hollywood movie, Israel clearly doesn't want to stop this, natenyahu is scared of going to prison, so he will keep dragging his country to suicide to save himself. 

Israel moved their aircrafts to Cyprus and other places, Iran hit a few planes, but they mostly hit the airbase infrastructure itself which took billions of dollars to repair. Iran will respond again, until we're in a fullscale war between Iran and Israel.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

And it is clear to me that the Israeli campaign in Syria is one of the reasons for the debacle in Syria today. Israeli targeting of Iranian commanders and associated infrastructure was always bound to weaken the logistical network that Iran spent years creating.

Israel got involved in Syria to severe ties between Iran and Lebanon, they seemed to have succeeded.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

I will refer you to my first point regarding my personal belief that Hezbollah wants this war ended. I believe this question will be answered in due time, when the ceasefire expires. 

Yes

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

And if I am proven correct, I don't believe you can claim any "win" on Hezbollah's part other than the fact it survived.

As I said, it's too early to tell, what if even hamas accepts a ceasefire and this was because of the Lebanese ceasefire? There is some many things that haven't happened yet to make this conclusion. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Brother, in 2006, Israel achieved barely anything militarily.

Neither did it achieve anything here except kill the leaders and bomb hundreds of apartment buildings and ambulances and claim they were targets.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

This time, the Israelis clearly stated their objective was to delink Hezbollah from Gaza. If the ceasefire holds, then they would have succeeded in doing that. There is no shame in admitting this.

You're repeating yourself. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

This would also mean that the Northern settlers would be able to return.

They haven't returned yet because israel did not destroy hezb as they claimed they wanted to do, so now the settlers are afraid of an Oct 7 2.0 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

It would also literally mean, Gaza was "left alone". Something that was promised not to happen.

You're repeating yourself, all of this was addressed before.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Absolutely, the weakening of Iran. You don't believe the countless aistrikes in Syria contributed to Iran's weakening logistically in Syria, which subsequently weakened Syria's ability to defend itself against the rebels?

You're talking as if Iran is the defense of Syria. I was denying Israel weakened Iran not its influence on Syria. Syria itself did this because their army structure was diffirent than 2011-2018 and because of so many other things. 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Do you think this offensive would have succeded in the way it has, had Iran and its allies not fought against Israel? No, they would still have enough power to back the Syrian Government and defeat the offensive.

Yes the offensive would have succeeded. Iran's generals and advisors could not stop that from happening dude. Syrias millitary structure was diffient, it was full of conscripts, most of the battle hardened guys had left.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

The rebels saw an opening and took the opportunity. Some of them have admitted this publicly. They knew the Syrian Army without Iran (and its allies), and Russia, will not hold.

Yes, because Iran, Russia, etc... were all preoccupied, that's one factor, but there is also the factor that the Syrian army was diffirent than that of 2018, all the battle hardened ones had left, Syria was economically chocked by the war, covid, earthquake and could not keep putting 80% of its budget on war like 2011-2018.  Go to the syria civil war forum, I quoted someone who said something intresting on this.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

I'm glad you agree here. Also? if this happens, then Hezbollah would have no choice but to end the war with Israel, even if I were to take your previous point that there was some will to fight left in the first place.

We will see ultimatley. But I don't think so, hezbollah stockpiled missiles for decades, they prepared for Syria to fall from 2011 till now.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

An Israeli victory in Syria would mean an Israeli victory since October 7. Literally the only card left for the Hamas would be the hostages.

It would greatly increase Israel's chances of "convincing" hamas of accepting their terms.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Yes that is correct, but brother, how many people believe our own propaganda? How we are basically undefeatable? I know of many like this. As soon as you say the enemy does something better than you, or the leaders of the resistance are making a mistake, you are seen as a traitor. This zealotry is seen all across our communities. 

This zealotry is everywhere, including Israelis who think they won even the 2006 war despite being proven wrong.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

It's always "trust the resistance leaders". Sometimes you should trust the critics.

 

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

The US and the West do one thing right in my opinion: they criticise themselves publicly. Every year the Pentagon releases reports critical of certain aspects of the US military. Where they should improve. What went wrong in previous battles. Congress debates it. The public and the media are allowed to criticise. Those who failed can be voted out.

Hezbollah did this and self criticized a lot, especially after the pager attacks and its leaders deaths.

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

In our circles such a thing would be viewed as demoralising or traitor-like behaviour. You are giving the "enemy" our "battle secrets" would be said.  

Again, zealots, they exist everywhere. Go see Israeli society, they're even worse

5 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Unfortunately there's too many of them to ignore.

Thank you for the response and discussion brother.

Same. Probably will take a break from this, hopefully when I come back in weeks, Syria isn't overrun by isis 2.0

Edited December 7, 2024 by mahmood8726

[Eddie Mecca]

@Ibn Tayyar, Tehran should prioritize the Shi'a?? Is Iran assisting the Salafis in Syria or are they fighting against them there? They're supporting the Assad government (an "Alawite" government)...are the Iranians supporting ISIS in Iraq or are they warring against them? The Iranians are the only ones combating ISIS and they're big supporters of the Iraqi government (a government being led predominantly by Twelvers)...ah, you must mean that the Iranians are backing the Saudis against the Zaydis in Yemen!!!...nope, another fail there for the Iranians...are the Iranians backing Hariri in Lebanon?...oh, they're backing Hezbollah? Does Tehran advocate for the Twelver communities in Bahrain and the Eastern Province of KSA? Yes they do?? Hmm, it's a quandary ...you Shirazis should show Tehran how it's done...yallah, ask Queen Elizabeth for a loan...go to the School of the Americas...let the CIA train you...form a militia and put IRI to shame...kill all the Takfiris and I'll be your biggest fan

Edited December 7, 2024 by Eddie Mecca

[Jaabir]

Wallah it's hard to have any reasonable discussion with the mind that is infected with the disease of IRI. I have so much to say but know it'll be all for naught. It's tough resisting the temptation replying to such foolishness, therefore I've now created my own Axis of Resistance, those who resist the urge to waste time on lost causes. I pray Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guides you all to abandon this suicidal ideology and return to the teachings of the Ahlul bayt. 

4 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

In South Lebanon 1300 zionist terrorists were eliminated and 60 of their tanks. The zionists couldn't control any territory and therefore they had to withdraw.

I'm curious though, what's your source for 1300 eliminated zionists in S. Lebanon?

Edited December 7, 2024 by Jaabir

[Jaabir]

3 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

salam alaykum

I don't believe I said that brother. But I believe in prioritising ourselves over others. That is the view of all nations and people, for example Iran would prioritise Iranians over non-Iranians. That is natural and normal, and what all Governments should do.

Is it wrong to call for the attention of the Shi'a to be directed at oppressed and suffering Shi'a populations? 

I have no issue with assisting Sunnis, in fact I believe it is honourable for one to sacrifice himself for such a noble cause, and we can do more do two or three things at once, but it is simply a matter of priority for me and where we direct our resources. That is all.

It's absolute insanity that something so basic needs to be explained to these people. There is no sane country on Earth who sacrifices the well-being of 90 million of there own nationals for the plight of a 4-5 million people elsewhere. Yet IRI has condemned the lives and image of all Shi'as around the world. Instead of being a protector of Shi'as it became the source of destruction for the Shi'as.

Some fools here think calling for focusing on the protection of Shi'as is being sectarian or being a Shirazi. Absolute insanity the amount of brain rot IRI has made some of these peoples' minds

Edited December 7, 2024 by Jaabir

[Muhammed Ali]

America is a waning power and China is a rising power. The side which aligns with America will lose.

[Irfani313]

2 hours ago, Jaabir said:

It's absolute insanity that something so basic needs to be explained to these people. There is no sane country on Earth who sacrifices the well-being of 90 million of there own nationals for the plight of a 4-5 million people elsewhere. Yet IRI has condemned the lives and image of all Shi'as around the world. Instead of being a protector of Shi'as it became the source of destruction for the Shi'as.

Some fools here think calling for focusing on the protection of Shi'as is being sectarian or being a Shirazi. Absolute insanity the amount of brain rot IRI has made some of these peoples' minds

Are you telling us that Shias weren’t being destroyed all over the world for past 1400 years till IRI came into being and decided to support helpless folks in Palestine? 

Are you telling us that all Shia killings are a “reaction” of IRI’s actions? 

Are you telling us that as soon as IRI (while remaining in its current form) quit supporting Palestinians, the IRI would become desirable, darling, the most favored nation of the West? 

[Ibn Tayyar]

5 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@Ibn Tayyar, Tehran should prioritize the Shi'a?? Is Iran assisting the Salafis in Syria or are they fighting against them there? They're supporting the Assad government (an "Alawite" government)...are the Iranians supporting ISIS in Iraq or are they warring against them? The Iranians are the only ones combating ISIS and they're big supporters of the Iraqi government (a government being led predominantly by Twelvers)...ah, you must mean that the Iranians are backing the Saudis against the Zaydis in Yemen!!!...nope, another fail there for the Iranians...are the Iranians backing Hariri in Lebanon?...oh, they're backing Hezbollah? Does Tehran advocate for the Twelver communities in Bahrain and the Eastern Province of KSA? Yes they do?? Hmm, it's a quandary ...you Shirazis should show Tehran how it's done...yallah, ask Queen Elizabeth for a loan...go to the School of the Americas...let the CIA train you...form a militia and put IRI to shame...kill all the Takfiris and I'll be your biggest fan

salam alaykum brother

What I mean by prioritising ourselves is turning towards our neglected Shi'a communities in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are oppressed and killed on a daily basis.

Iran opened an Office for the Taliban in Tehran and completely normalised these nawasib ghouls as legitimate actors. This is despite the blood of thousands of Shi'a in their hand. 

Is it wrong to call this a mistake?

Is it wrong to criticise the fact that Iran turned to Hamas so many times despite their pro-Saddam history and their pro-FSA position in the middle of the Syrian conflict, when the Shi'a were at risk of extermination? 

Where was their sympathy for us?

How easily are we duped to believe such groups can "change" their position, and that their anti-Shi'ism can be cured? 

My heart pains for the people in Gaza, and I am not against supporting them - it is the duty of the Muslim to extend a hand to his oppressed Muslim brother.

My problem is the failure in resource management. Neglecting our own and relying on nawasib.

Your Shi'i brother is your real ally. He won't stab you in the back when you need him.

As for Hamas and their likes, as long as Turkish and Qatari money is involved (the money that killed thousands of Shi'a), they will sell you out in an instant.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Ibn Tayyar

[Ibn Tayyar]

@mahmood8726 insha Allah I will respond to you in due time brother. Thank you again for your response.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Ibn Tayyar

[Abu Nur]

The AOR needs right now funding and military exercising for the Imam Mehdi (عليه السلام) cause and protecting all the Shias and oppressed minorities. We need to protect all our borders from US, zionist and sufyanis.

[Abu_Zahra]

19 minutes ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

salam alaykum brother

What I mean by prioritising ourselves is turning towards our neglected Shi'a communities in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are oppressed and killed on a daily basis.

Iran opened an Office for the Taliban in Tehran and completely normalised these nawasib ghouls as legitimate actors. This is despite the blood of thousands of Shi'a in their hand. 

Is it wrong to call this a mistake?

Is it wrong to criticise the fact that Iran turned to Hamas so many times despite their pro-Saddam history and their pro-FSA position in the middle of the Syrian conflict, when the Shi'a were at risk of extermination? 

Where was their sympathy for us?

How easily are we duped to believe such groups can "change" their position, and that their anti-Shi'ism can be cured? 

My heart pains for the people in Gaza, and I am not against supporting them - it is the duty of the Muslim to extend a hand to his oppressed Muslim brother.

My problem is the failure in resource management. Neglecting our own and relying on nawasib.

Your Shi'i brother is your real ally. He won't stab you in the back when you need him.

As for Hamas and their likes, as long as Turkish and Qatari money is involved (the money that killed thousands of Shi'a), they will sell you out in an instant.

Wa alaikum as salam

This entire mindset is full of flaws.

 

1. Expecting Iran to march into any and every city where an attack has occured against the Shia shows a lack of understanding of international law and basic logistics. You can't simply march into someone's land. Iran only entered Iraq, Syria and Lebanon when the governing authorities or militias enabled them to. Sending weapons or manpower to Afghanistan or Pakistan is not feasible if nobody on the ground can arrange the logistics without severe consequences.

2. The idea that groups are backed in order to have a 'Shi'i friendly' worldview is a misunderstanding. We have religious principles that define whether we support a cause and a people or not, it isn't a tit for tat business deal. Even then, the reality is that tashayyu has spread to unimaginable places through the actions of the Islamic resistance these past 40+ years.

3. This utopic idea of someone not stabbing you in the back because they are Shia has been contradicted multiple times. You don't need to look further than Iraq where the Shia were killing each other as soon as Saddam was removed and more recently reignited the anti Iranian sentiment shortly after they were bailed out from ISIS occupation.

 

I state these examples for the benefit of readers who might be buying into this flawed mindset. I won't waste your or my time with a circular argument because if you don't understand the above we won't make any progress in the discussion. 

Fee amanillah 

[Ibn Tayyar]

27 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Wa alaikum as salam

This entire mindset is full of flaws.

 

1. Expecting Iran to march into any and every city where an attack has occured against the Shia shows a lack of understanding of international law and basic logistics. You can't simply march into someone's land. Iran only entered Iraq, Syria and Lebanon when the governing authorities or militias enabled them to. Sending weapons or manpower to Afghanistan or Pakistan is not feasible if nobody on the ground can arrange the logistics without severe consequences.

al salamu alayum

1. I don't believe I stated Iran should use military force to change the status of the oppressed Shi'a. Such an assertion would be nonsensical. Iran has many ways where it could leverage its position as a strong neighbour and trading partner to help the Shi'a in these countries.

It could tie their plight to economic (trade) and diplomatic deals, for example. Iran has many cards in its hands to assist the Shi'a.

It could encourage Shi'i businesses in Iran to prioritise business with the Shi'a over others, and make it easier for the Shi'a in those countries to do business in Iran.

It could actually start by addressing the issues Afghan refugees in Iran go through when it comes to their mistreatment.

27 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

2. The idea that groups are backed in order to have a 'Shi'i friendly' worldview is a misunderstanding. We have religious principles that define whether we support a cause and a people or not, it isn't a tit for tat business deal. Even then, the reality is that tashayyu has spread to unimaginable places through the actions of the Islamic resistance these past 40+ years.

2. I don't believe you should attempt to make these groups like us as Shi'a, but it is noteworthy that they have within them people that hate us, or are indifferent to our suffering. If an openly Salafi-Takfiri group was in Gaza fighting the Zionists, would you lend support to them? Would you legitimise them? Open offices for them?

I personally draw the line at supporting groups when they have committed openly anti-Shi'a actions.

I think it is flawed to dismiss Hamas's anti-Shi'i side and paint them as nothing more than heroes, which the current Shi'i media space does.

27 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

3. This utopic idea of someone not stabbing you in the back because they are Shia has been contradicted multiple times. You don't need to look further than Iraq where the Shia were killing each other as soon as Saddam was removed and more recently reignited the anti Iranian sentiment shortly after they were bailed out from ISIS occupation.

3. Internal Shi'i strife wasn't my point, perhaps I should have elaborated further on my point. There is internal Shi'i strife even inside Iran. Most of these issues are based on political issues within Shi'i society, such as parties warring with eachother in Iraq, nationalist sentiment rising, and the such.

I do not look at this in the same way as Hamas stabbing us in the back on religious grounds.

Why did they stand against us? Was it not to show solidarity with those who are chopping our heads because they believe our blood is halal? 

These people are opposed to you due to their religious doctrine.

If a Shi'i is willing to kill his own Shi'i brethren - on religious grounds - he would have committed apostasy. That is kufr. 

Question to you my brother. Who has been Iran's most loyal friends? Are they not all Shi'a? Is Iran not mostly reliant on Shi'a for its geopolitical interests? Do you not believe it is natural for Shi'a to gravitate to other Shi'a? 

27 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

I state these examples for the benefit of readers who might be buying into this flawed mindset. I won't waste your or my time with a circular argument because if you don't understand the above we won't make any progress in the discussion. 

Fee amanillah 

Thank you for your insight brother.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Ibn Tayyar

[hasanhh]

14 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The point is that we never know what the future holds. 

Honest self-evaluation will help our cause, and not jaundiced accusations or blind cheerleading. 

It can appear from this past week's events in the "Shia Creascent" that the Sufyanni are "near".

[hasanhh]

14 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

No, I don't think the Axis has 'failed'. 

A temporary...

They have to lick their wounds, stand up again and find their bearings to figure out what to do next. 

Fifthteen to twenty years ago, lRl was advised to concentrate on electronic warfare (in all electronically based systems).  But even the Russians only did this marginally. In the Ukraine the Amerikan artillery Excaliber shell/guidance ordinance initially inflicted 97% tank kills, yet when the Russians caught up to where they should have been to begin with, this shell last had a reported 3% success rate. And recently the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems were mostly ineffective  in lRl against the Zionistas.

Better start training electronic engineers lRl. And the necessary manufacturing specialists.

[mahmood8726]

2 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

@mahmood8726 insha Allah I will respond to you in due time brother. Thank you again for your response.

Take your time, I have stuff to do, so no rush here.

[AbdusSibtayn]

1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

It can appear from this past week's events in the "Shia Creascent" that the Sufyanni are "near".

 

1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Fifthteen to twenty years ago, lRl was advised to concentrate on electronic warfare (in all electronically based systems).  But even the Russians only did this marginally. In the Ukraine the Amerikan artillery Excaliber shell/guidance ordinance initially inflicted 97% tank kills, yet when the Russians caught up to where they should have been to begin with, this shell last had a reported 3% success rate. And recently the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems were mostly ineffective  in lRl against the Zionistas.

Better start training electronic engineers lRl. And the necessary manufacturing specialists.

Welcome back our beloved SC patriarch uncle  @hasanhh ! Glad to see you back in action! Hope you have been well! 

Agree about the tech and engineering part. With the modern electronic warfare shifting the paradigm away from the conventional warfare, it becomes crucial. 

Edited December 7, 2024 by AbdusSibtayn

[Eddie Mecca]

3 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

What I mean

I can read...in 10th grade I was reading at second year university levels and received an award...I consider myself a capable reader...that's not what you said originally when you posted in the 'Syrian Civil War Reignited' thread...you said Tehran should follow an exculsivist policy...which means following the script and obeying Washington's sectarian narrative

[Eddie Mecca]

6 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

What I mean by prioritising ourselves is turning towards our neglected Shi'a communities in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are oppressed and killed on a daily basis.

Iran opened an Office for the Taliban in Tehran and completely normalised these nawasib ghouls as legitimate actors. This is despite the blood of thousands of Shi'a in their hand. 

Is it wrong to call this a mistake?

1.) All the Islamic discourse etiquette you display...all the niceties and pleasantries doesn't compensate for your Uncle Tom mentality

2.) Islamic Republic's foreign policy is based on primarily two elements...namely: a.) Islamic idealism and b.) national pragmatism like any other country...Tehran adheres to Twelver Shi'ism as the state religion...Twelver Shi'ism is innately a nonsectarian creed...this cannot be changed by Washington or Tel Aviv or the Shirazis or anyone else...Tehran's vision is a pan-Islamic vision...your buddies in Washington, London and Tel Aviv/Jerusalem want Iran to pursue a Shi'i-centric policy in the region so it can be marginalized and considered a potential fifth column entity and despised from its very inception...sorry to burst your bubble...nice try...it ain't happening...Tehran bolstering the Taliban during the 2010's was a genius move...they used little shaytan to remove Sheytân-e Bozorg (i.e. Great Satan)...I realize this is worrisome for you...you don't want Washington ejected out of Central Asia...Kabul and Tehran's interests aligned in removing the Americans from the region...it's called Realpolitik

Edited December 7, 2024 by Eddie Mecca
Correction

[HusseinA9182]

On 12/7/2024 at 2:48 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Bro, 20% of Israelis evacuated Israel never to return again...they abandoned their vacation or resort homes in ME and returned back to their permanent places of residence in Germany, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Brooklyn...that is considered a victory in any war

Israel still has the US and most of Europe in their pockets. They didnt lose any land.

[Ibn Tayyar]

4 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

I can read...in 10th grade I was reading at second year university levels and received an award...I consider myself a capable reader...that's not what you said originally when you posted in the 'Syrian Civil War Reignited' thread...you said Tehran should follow an exculsivist policy...which means following the script and obeying Washington's sectarian narrative

I don't believe so brother. I made note many times that those who sacrificed themselves in conflicts such as Bosnia and Gaza are to be honoured. I don't believe they made any sort of mistake in doing what they did.

I don't believe I said exclusivist, but more Shi'a-centered.

[Ibn Tayyar]

1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

1.) All the Islamic discourse etiquette you display...all the niceties and pleasantries doesn't compensate for your Uncle Tom mentality

2.) Islamic Republic's foreign policy is based on primarily two elements...namely: a.) Islamic idealism and b.) national pragmatism like any other country...Tehran adheres to Twelver Shi'ism as the state religion...Twelver Shi'ism is innately a nonsectarian creed...this cannot be changed by Washington or Tel Aviv or the Shirazis or anyone else...Tehran's vision is a pan-Islamic vision...your buddies in Washington, London and Tel Aviv/Jerusalem want Iran to pursue a Shi'i-centric policy in the region so it can be marginalized and considered a potential fifth column entity and despised from its very inception...sorry to burst your bubble...nice try...it ain't happening...Tehran bolstering the Taliban during the 2010's was a genius move...they used little shaytan to remove Sheytân-e Bozorg (i.e. Great Satan)...I realize this is worrisome for you...you don't want Washington ejected out of Central Asia...Kabul and Tehran's interests aligned in removing the Americans from the region...it's called Realpolitik

I realise it is realpolitik, but this realpolitik has bolstered a group that has killed and is currently oppressing the Shi'a.

I believe Islam asks of us to have a moralist policy on the world, surely if the blood of the innocent believers is on the line.

Perhaps you and I can agree to disagree.

[Eddie Mecca]

@Ibn Tayyar, you're suggesting that Tehran is promoting anti-Shi'i sentiment in Afghanistan by promoting the Taliban against the imperialists...Tehran adopted a completely anti-Taliban posture throughout the 90's...the old or original Taliban...then the new Taliban emerged in 2021 and claimed new aims and noble objectives and a revitalized outlook...alright...Tehran's approach was an extremely cautious one...Tehran didn't start singing "We Are The World" with the Deobandis as you suggested...Tehran congratulated them on their victory...a victory against a common foe/enemy (Tehran had long demanded withdrawal of imperialist forces from the region)...Taliban reintroduced Islamic law...Taliban authorities banned and outlawed poppy seed cultivation as their predecessors had done...okay...two positive steps in the right direction...Tehran's motives are largely driven by regional geopolitics ...Central Asian, South Asian and Western Asian international affairs...Tehran is in-between three worlds...Iran overlaps all three regions simultaneously...it's at the crossroads of all three...also, Tehran's inspiration was steered (to a large extent) by border and security-driven agendas and concerns...if Tehran can begin influencing Taliban behavior in a certain direction...then allies China and Moscow will be elated and extacic and everyone benefits...BRICS nations will benefit...New Silk Road Initiative benefits...also, Tehran can capitalize on ISIS versus Taliban tensions...after the Taliban takeover...Taliban began a purging movement of ISIS operatives and opponents...Salafi mosques and Saudi-sponsored madressas and seminaries were all shut down...mountainous people are generally rougher and more self-reliant and less trusting of outsiders...they're rougher around the edges compared to their cosmopolitan counterparts...it's similar in the hilly terrain of the Appalachian Mountains region and elsewhere...even in the rural regions and mountainous areas of southern Lebanon...the people there are tougher...not all manifestations of Afghan backwardness can be blamed on Sunnism...Spartan rural existence toughens people and effects their perspectives on life and reality and existence...a softening is sometimes needed...many times this can be cured through proper education and social refinement...also, an injection of money can sometimes help

Edited December 8, 2024 by Eddie Mecca