The Coming War with Iran

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
Of course there are legitimate protests and causes in Iran, but the way Breitbart tries to blow them up is just pathetic:

Breitbart said:
Hundreds of Iranians take streets against regime

The Iranian government’s admission on Saturday that it shot down a Ukrainian commercial airliner triggered widespread protests nationwide attended by hundreds chanting slogans against the regime and the former head of its foreign terrorist organization, Qasem Soleimani.

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2020/01/11/iran-protests-soleimani-uia-ukraine-flight/


They sound like CNN masturbating over Hillary's "jam-packed townhall with over 50 attendees" :tard:
 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
Obviously everything the U.S. does in the Middle East is pure realpolitik designed to advance U.S. and Israeli interests. It's just annoying to hear the constant stream of propaganda about how our actions there are really about "spreading democracy" and "fighting terrorism". In actual fact, it increasingly appears the entire reason that Qassem Soleimani was killed was that he was too effective at fighting terrorism. That is, he was too good at destroying ISIS, which was created by the CIA and Mossad to destabilize Syria and Iraq.

The Middle East is probably the easiest litmus test to determine if someone actually has any critical thinking ability or whether they just parrot what they hear on television. If you ever hear anyone seriously talking about spreading democracy or fighting the war on terror in the middle east you can be sure they are either a cynical liar with a hidden agenda, a paid shill or a useful idiot.
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
scorpion said:
Obviously everything the U.S. does in the Middle East is pure realpolitik designed to advance U.S. and Israeli interests. It's just annoying to hear the constant stream of propaganda about how our actions there are really about "spreading democracy" and "fighting terrorism". In actual fact, it increasingly appears the entire reason that Qassem Soleimani was killed was that he was too effective at fighting terrorism. That is, he was too good at destroying ISIS, which was created by the CIA and Mossad to destabilize Syria and Iraq.

The Middle East is probably the easiest litmus test to determine if someone actually has any critical thinking ability or whether they just parrot what they hear on television. If you ever hear anyone seriously talking about spreading democracy or fighting the war on terror in the middle east you can be sure they are either a cynical liar with a hidden agenda, a paid shill or a useful idiot.
Also the lies about "spreading" democracy. Democracy = the people given the right to vote to choose their fate. We don't spread democracy. Iraq has voted for us to leave and we refuse and ignore their democracy. So it wasn't democracy we gave the Iraqi's, it was just occupation and lies to them.

Just like in the USA. The American people vote over and over to close the borders, to stop H-1B visa theft, to no longer go bankrupt and lose everything because you get sick or hurt, for safe schools and safe neighborhoods. And we get the opposite regardless of how we vote.

The "democracy" excuse isn't even a good sham.
 
If the intent of this incident of the past couple of weeks was to scare Iran to agree to negotiate with Trump and the US on a new nuclear deal, similarly as North Korea was intimidated into meeting with Trump, it looks like it has failed. Iran rejected the US offer of talks for a new nuke agreement. This incident hasn't changed the overall strategic situation and Iran still doesn't have any reason to concede anything by talking to Trump, as Iran is far less isolated from the world than North Korea and has more options.

Merkel met with Putin in Moscow yesterday and they confirmed that Europe and Russia remain committed to the JCPOA, so Iran has even less reason to meet Trump.
 

hervens

Sparrow
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories, but I came accross something interresting regarding the missile strikes on an Israeli news site:

“An informed source at the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said over 80 American troops were killed and some 200 wounded in the IRGC’s missile strikes on the US airbase of Ain al-Assad in Anbar province in western Iraq,” Mehr News reported on Wednesday.

“[...] at least 80 American troops were killed and some 200 others were wounded, who were immediately transferred out of the airbase by helicopters,”

“Despite the fact that Americans had been on high alert, their air defense was unable to respond,”

source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/irani...han-80-us-soldiers-killed-in-missile-barrage/

This goes contrary to president Donald Trump's statement that no american lives were lost following the missile attacks.

It's possible a cover up was put in place in order to prevent or delay world war 3.
Food for thought.
 

RWIsrael

Woodpecker
A bit of confusion there - Iran initially reported 80 Americans dead for Propaganda purposes.
That had immediately been found to be untrue.

The Israeli paper is just reporting on the Iranian numbers.
No cover up, just Iran saving face for the masses.
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
It_is_my_time said:
It's just annoying to hear the constant stream of propaganda about how our actions there are really about "spreading democracy".
In my younger years i spread some democracy in Iraq. Ask Saddam Hussein about it.

Aloha!
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
I don't think you can just "disappear" 80 dead American soldiers. That's massive news and would be impossible contain. You could lie about what the cause was or who was the culprit, but there's no way that you could hide the fact itself.
 
Iranian diaspora have developed a framework for redirecting every single problem on the "regime".

If Iran is doing well in certain metrics, it's because of the Shah and they would actually be doing way better if it wasn't for the mullahs.

If Iran is doing poorly in certain metrics, it's purely because of the regime.

If other countries are leading aggresive policies against Iran, it's the regimes fault.

If other countries have friendly relations with Iran, it's because the mullahs are giving them Irans money because they are evil Arabs that actually hate Iran.

If sanctions get put on Iran, it's the mullahs fault.

If sanctions get lifted, it'll only benefit the mullahs.

If protesters got killed under the Shah, it was out of necessity to uphold the perfect system and not let mullahs take over.

If protesters get killed today, it's because the mullahs are evil Arabs that actually hate Iran.

If people in Iran show support for the government, they are either paid agents or forced to by the government "because they'll get killed or jailed if they don't"

If Iranians in the diaspora show support for the government, it's because they are paid agents or forced to "because they'll get killed or jailed if they go back to Iran"

And so on.





AManLikePutin said:
Leonard D Neubache said:
No, be serious, if the US government was doing all it's shady murder shit at home rather than abroad then you'd have undertaken a revolution decades ago.

You're currently not so fussed because the ME gets the dead kids and you get cheap gas.

The muslim dude is not wrong. Iran can't hold a candle to US atrocities committed in the name of empire. That doesn't make them "good guys" but neither is your ZOG. A quick check indicates roughly 2 million dead in Iraq to "save them from Saddam and bring them democracy".

Yeah, Iran probably shot down the airliner. Let's not abandon any reasonable sense of scope here and start blathering nonsense about "worst regime ever!!1!"
Khamenei, head of IRGC, Zarif, Rouhani all have tweeted and admitted it was IRGC that shot down the airliner...jesus, not everything is a conspiracy theory.





As for the regime stuff, he issue is skin in the game.

You Westerners moan about your gov't and regimes and ZOG....yet they haven't yet completely taken away your most basic of freedoms.

Freedom to gather and protest, freedom to criticize the powerful people, freedom to even hold a funeral for your loved one, freedom to walk on the street holding hands of your girlfriend/wife, freedom to go to the pub and have a beer with your friend after work, freedom to travel anywhere you want without needing a visa (Iranian passport was very powerful pre-revolution, now it's as useful as a used condom), ever declining purchasing power thanks to depreciating currency, majority of country's budget going to building mosques and promoting religious propaganda and the list goes on.

I see my friends, relatives, old colleagues struggle, denied all those freedoms. All looking for ways to escape, because when they protest, they get shot in the head. So of course my perspective is different. I have skin in the game when it comes to the God Awful Iranian regime. I've seen their crimes first hand. I've had family members executed (some close ones), some shot dead in protests....

so yea for me they are the worst ever. So you can understand from the POV of an Iranian, why opposing ZOG isn't the most pressing priority now. It's not just shooting down the airliner, it's 40 years of embarrassment and embarrassment and disaster one after another.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
There is a segment of liberal-minded urban protestors who are genuinely against the Iranian government, but they are greatly outnumbered by pro-government local pious conservatives, the shear size of the Suleimani funeral demos prove that. As well their government is now taking the mantle of nationalism.
 

Yatagan

Pelican
Gold Member
911 said:
There is a segment of liberal-minded urban protestors who are genuinely against the Iranian government, but they are greatly outnumbered by pro-government local pious conservatives, the shear size of the Suleimani funeral demos prove that. As well their government is now taking the mantle of nationalism.
Yep, no government survives 40+ years without some form of support among the populace.
 

Sherman

Ostrich
Trump makes another wise decision, targeting Soleimani instead of bombing civilians or a bunch of soldiers from the lower classes.

"And in a sharp rebuke to the regime, protesters tore down images of Iranian general and terrorist, Qassem Soleimani, calling him “murderer” and a “traitor” and destroying the Iranian government’s narrative that in killing Soleimani, the United States had united Iranians around the banner of anti-American sentiment."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...nds-of-protesters-stand-up-to-irans-brutality
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
Yatagan said:
911 said:
There is a segment of liberal-minded urban protestors who are genuinely against the Iranian government, but they are greatly outnumbered by pro-government local pious conservatives, the shear size of the Suleimani funeral demos prove that. As well their government is now taking the mantle of nationalism.
Yep, no government survives 40+ years without some form of support among the populace.
Well, Soviet Union endured for 70 years, and from what I know, it was pretty hated... but you have a point.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
The Soviets would have collapsed well before 1991 without the financial support from the West, which also handed to them half of Europe on a platter after WW2, at a time when Patton, who didn't like that, could have easily taken back all of Eastern Europe without much opposition. Instead Patton was killed.

The current ayatollah regime was also propped up by the deep state in 1979, but since the 00s it's been on the regime change list.
 

Goni

Robin
911 said:
The Soviets would have collapsed well before 1991 without the financial support from the West, which also handed to them half of Europe on a platter after WW2, at a time when Patton, who didn't like that, could have easily taken back all of Eastern Europe without much opposition. Instead Patton was killed.

The current ayatollah regime was also propped up by the deep state in 1979, but since the 00s it's been on the regime change list.
It would be impossible for Patton to take over Eastern Europe.

Soviet Army was too strong , too numerous and heavily armed.

The men were also used much more to war than the Americans who used the massive industrial production to defeat the enemy , unlike the Soviets ( or unlike the Germans who used tactics, technology in small numbers im terms of production and bravery).

Patton was killed because he understood that the 3rd Reich was not the monster he was made the believe.

He understood the Jews were his masters and he was killed for that.

Pretty much like Kennedy.

Stalin was not under jewish control btw, or at least not entirely under their control.

He was an outcast.

His takeover òf power was not predicted. Trotsky was the one to become the Soviet leader.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Goni said:
911 said:
The Soviets would have collapsed well before 1991 without the financial support from the West, which also handed to them half of Europe on a platter after WW2, at a time when Patton, who didn't like that, could have easily taken back all of Eastern Europe without much opposition. Instead Patton was killed.

The current ayatollah regime was also propped up by the deep state in 1979, but since the 00s it's been on the regime change list.
It would be impossible for Patton to take over Eastern Europe.

Soviet Army was too strong , too numerous and heavily armed.

The men were also used much more to war than the Americans who used the massive industrial production to defeat the enemy , unlike the Soviets ( or unlike the Germans who used tactics, technology in small numbers im terms of production and bravery).

Patton was killed because he understood that the 3rd Reich was not the monster he was made the believe.

He understood the Jews were his masters and he was killed for that.

Pretty much like Kennedy.

Stalin was not under jewish control btw, or at least not entirely under their control.

He was an outcast.

His takeover òf power was not predicted. Trotsky was the one to become the Soviet leader.
Allied forces had 3,000 strategic bombers, complete air superiority, and nukes. As well the Soviets depended on Allied supplies on funds, weapons food products and key strategic items.

The Soviets were thousands of kms away from home and the US could have quickly taken out Soviet supply lines in a couple of weeks, grounding their armored brigades and air force. The Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians would have cooperated, and the Soviet troops themselves had no animus towards Americans the same way they did towards the Germans.

Even without nukes, it would have been a mismatch, so much so that Stalin could have been forced to retreat to his 1945 USSR borders with just a bit of arm twisting. That was Patton's take as well:

Several months before the end of the war, General Patton had recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders which he had been given to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian, and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.

On May 7, 1945, just before the German capitulation, Patton had a conference in Austria with U.S. Secretary of War Robert Patterson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and American occupation zones. He was also alarmed by plans in Washington for the immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army.

Patton said to Patterson: "Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect."

Patterson replied, "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture."

Patton rejoined: "I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"

...On May 18 he noted in his diary: "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better."

Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger."
On Patton's assassination, which was done by Soviet agents with the tacit knowledge of Allied commanders:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...sm-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html
 

AManLikePutin

Kingfisher
911 said:
There is a segment of liberal-minded urban protestors who are genuinely against the Iranian government, but they are greatly outnumbered by pro-government local pious conservatives, the shear size of the Suleimani funeral demos prove that. As well their government is now taking the mantle of nationalism.
Jesus fucking christ.

What kind of nationalist doesn't even name the name of the country? Watch speeches of Khamenei, Soleimani, Rouhani, etc....very rarely ever they mention the word Iran. Always Islamic Republic

What kind of nationalist show zero respect for the tradition of the nation and basically says in history books (I grew up in Iran and attended school there) that everything in previous 2500 was shit, and only in the last 40 years we've found true enlightenment.

What kind of nationalist government keeps spending national treasury of OIL helping and assisting foreign proxy groups for years instead of the very poor of the country's itself. There is a reason one of the most prominent chants in protests is always: "No Gazza, No Lebanon, I only care about Iran." .... When Soleimani got shredded, they immediately allocated 200 million Euros to Quds Forces budget...but when there's flooding now in Baloochistan, they have announced a national bank account for people to chip in to help. NATIONALISM ?

What kind of nationalist government places a FOREIGN language on the country's flag?

What kind of nationalist government FORCES athletes to withdraw or lose in previous round in Sporting event (when they are there to represent the NATION) if they draw against Israeli?

What kind of nationalist government DOESN'T EVEN BOTHER to meet with families of their own citizens that they shot down?

Hell this is Iranian STATE TV today:


The guy says: "We shouldn't let this Ukrainian plane event distract us from the real victory we achieved and our promised hard revenge which was leveling the American basis in Iraq. That was the most important event and not even 10 plane crashes matter as much as that. That Ukrainian plane was sad, but it was like it hitting the mountain and crashing...we need to move on already and focus on the bigger picture of what we showed the world."

THIS IS NATIONALISM? Murdering own citizens and then on the main TV (that almost all actors are controlled) saying it doesn't matter, they could have hit the mountain?".....over the last 3 days, three of the longest-serving TV anchors have resigned, one of them today on Instagram with caption of: "I'm so sorry to you people. I can't do it anymore. I'm so sorry of lying to you for 13 years."


Some of you are sitting thousands of miles away from this shit, never lived a day under true tyranny, never experienced true propaganda tactics or be scared for your lives on the streets......LARPing theories about the things you've never experienced and pretending to be "Smart and against the narrative", but have your own narrative and see the world only from that one lens view which is every bit as flawed as someone who sees it from the Neocon view.....this is no different than CNN hiring Michael Weiss as Russian expert, the guy who's never been to Russia and doesn't even speak the language. Same shit, different side of the coin.
Some here genuinely could find a Mullah or Putin in bed with their loved one and just stop and clap and high-five them: "You see, take that globo-homo ZOG!!"
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Your take is common among Iranian expats, it assumes that the neocons have benevolent aims towards Iran, when they are itching to have the US level it. It's also very similar to the mindset Syrians had before the civil war, most were against Assad, until they got a peak of the alternative the neocons had for them.

As bad as this government is now, it could get a whole lot worse if the neocons who view the Persians as ancestral enemies have been pushing to level your oil facilities and infrastructure. Look at Iraq, one of the richest countries in the world, with the best public infrastructure, 2 million dead, not even counting the avoidable deaths from malnutrition and disease. We're not talking about a planeful of dead people here.

The nationalism will kick in in full gear once the country is attacked by a foreign power.
 
Top