What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

I think pakistan need America support against India so some of admins here don't want comments against America.

I can understand them. They haven't many choices
@LeGenD is Saddam of this forum. And it is no joke, neither an insult. He openly praises Saddam Hussain لعنت الله علیه
 
What countries did I malign?



This is a military forum. Everyone no matter their nationality will defend their country tooth and nail, at least against foreign adversaries.

As for me posting cheap propaganda, if that's the case then it should be easy to debunk, shouldn't it. However I don't see anyone producing decisive, undisputably convincing counters proving my arguments wrong.



I'll be glad to know what forum rule exactly was breached by what part of my contribution.
The first thing that you need to learn is to address other nationalities the way they are supposed to be as per the Forum Rules. Israeli are Israeli - British and British - American are American - and vice versa. Do not overuse labels like zionists - this is not professional.

As for the "defending" aspect - some of your supposed refutations were not on merit but on nationalistic grounds. If the source is from a country that you do not like - it is automatically false? Iranians are the beacon of truth? This is not how a debate works. I do not have unlimited patience to explain the basic tenets of acceptance of information. Your repeated failure to accept valid points was becoming a problem. A debate looses its value in this manner. I have pointed out the flaws of the analysis of a child molestor in that thread and I do not feel the need to re-emphasize them.

People are not blind and you cannot brainwash everybody by casting legitimate protests in different countries as a zionist conspiracy or color revolution. Free thinkers in every society and many are aware of how dictators work and rule. United Nations is wrong - you are right.
 
Iranian president a few days ago sent 2 letters to Saudi king and crown Prince. Some website started speculating its possible subject. I'll share a hanful of them.

1) The subject of those 2 letters were about official invitation (?)

2) Raisi tried to inform Saudi rulers of regional developments and offered them with options for cooperation without foreign presence

3) Raisi shared Iranian view about Syria, Yemen and Lebanon with Saudi rulers

4) The letter included the issue of broadening cooperation in civil sectors such as tourism, pilgrimage, Hajj, energy fields, economics etc.

 
I think pakistan need America support against India so some of admins here don't want comments against America.

I can understand them. They haven't many choices

They have a choice, to allignate with Iran. I don t know why @LeGenD is against Iran power, all inteligent south western asia is with Iran power, the only one can be a power in international arena.
 
Amir Abollahian meets Saudi FM in New York, USA.

3925846.jpg


Btw, the current Saudi FM is much better than ex-FM that looked like a little boy.
Adel_bin_Ahmed_Al-Jubeir_-_2016_(29734397483)_(cropped).jpg

Farhan is much more friendly and also serious about regional cooperation and i hope before USA interferes as a virus in Iran-KSA relationship, two countries settle their issues and sit around a table. Yemen conflict is not in interest of KSA and the conflict in Syria only benefits Israelis.

Sauds can play a significant role in stabilizing Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and most possibly Libya.

This cooperation is the need of hour.
 
I think pakistan need America support against India so some of admins here don't want comments against America.

I can understand them. They haven't many choices

Hu? Pakistan needs US support? No one needs "US-support".
 
Amir Abollahian meets Saudi FM in New York, USA.

View attachment 955611

Btw, the current Saudi FM is much better than ex-FM that looked like a little boy.
View attachment 955612

Farhan is much more friendly and also serious about regional cooperation and i hope before USA interferes as a virus in Iran-KSA relationship, two countries settle their issues and sit around a table. Yemen conflict is not in interest of KSA and the conflict in Syria only benefits Israelis.

Sauds can play a significant role in stabilizing Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and most possibly Libya.

This cooperation is the need of hour.

Yes image is important. No one normally wants to look weak.

Normally Iran has strong faces in charge, defence ministers and charges overall. IRGC guards look strong.

I cannot take seriously a military decision maker without hair in the face and populated beard and some moustache.
 
They have a choice, to allignate with Iran. I don t know why @LeGenD is against Iran power, all inteligent south western asia is with Iran power, the only one can be a power in international arena.
Pakistan and Iran are neighbors and it will be for the best for both countries to have productive relations. Iranian gas supply project should be completed when possible. Smuggling from Iran should be stopped when possible.

Now here on PDF - I am a Mod and I have to look beyond nationalities while addressing statements because PDF is not Iran exclusive. I see biases in all colors, shapes, and sizes. I see propaganda in all colors, shapes, and sizes. But I show restraint. If I ever judge each and every post to see if it is according to Forum Rules - half of the forum will be banned. But this is not the case - right?

I understand that Iran has tensions with multiple countries and have its positions on various positions. But debates should be professional and claims of moral high ground do not sit well with Iran doing what other big powers also do - intervene in affairs of other countries. Iran also fits in the 50 Shades of Grey domain.

And then there are common sense judgements and positions that I intend to take.

Don't get me wrong. Understand.
 
Hu? Pakistan needs US support? No one needs "US-support".
Pakistan is under indian pressure, they can't have another problem.
@LeGenD is Saddam of this forum. And it is no joke, neither an insult. He openly praises Saddam Hussain لعنت الله علیه
Saddam was a savage criminal, only stupid panarabs love him. I think he want a good relationship with these peoples so he praise him. Arabs have many moneybags...

They have a choice, to allignate with Iran. I don t know why @LeGenD is against Iran power, all inteligent south western asia is with Iran power, the only one can be a power in international arena.
I don't know why they don't have good military relationship with Iran. Pakistan have indo_persian culture.
Perhaps they afraid Americans and arabs become angry.

Pakistanies will understand soon these countries are not good friends
 
Last edited:
Uh-oh you've returned in full nag mode again. Perhaps the break wasn't long enough... :-)
No I'm alright. I didn't have a break... just nothing to talk about as their is no new unveilings. Just about everything has been discussed in this forum until something new is shown.
 
Pakistan is under indian pressure, they can't have another problem.

Saddam was a savage criminal, only stupid panarabs love him. I think he want a good relationship with these peoples so he praise him. Arabs have many moneybags...


I don't know why they don't have good military relationship with Iran. Pakistan have indo_persian culture.
Perhaps they afraid Americans and arabs become angry.

Pakistanies will understand soon these countries are not good friends
panturks and strangely some pankurd also praises him, depends of the context for pankurd, if it is about Iran, some of them sympathize for Saddam

You can see them on other platforms and this is hardcore in terms of living with such hate in themselves
 

This is why SHORADs based on PESA and/or mechanically steered can have difficult against western munitions.

Iran has somewhat negated that with more hydraulic and IR focused solutions, but this should serve as a reminder of the damage low RCS munitions by the west can do.
 
Some members pop up to level accusations, troll, and abuse reactions. I had to remove multiple posts to control this nonsense. Let's have a look at some Forum Rules.

1. PDF wishes to be a platform for ideas to be discussed openly and in a cordial productive manner.

2. Ethnic / political / nationalistic hate - Needless to say, PDF wishes to be a productive exchange of ideas and not a place of spreading communal, national, political or religiously motivated hatred. Members found involved in such activities would be severely penalized.

3. Indoctrination - Sharing of information garnered at indoctrination of the public are not allowed. That includes political / religious / ethnic indoctrination are not allowed at PDF and would be penalized.

4. Commenting on Management decisions - Any protest or questions on management decisions should be done at the GHQ section or via communication to contact@defence.pk email if the member is already banned.

----

I have not asserted that the word zionist cannot be used in debates but there is a difference between using this word in contextual sense and to apply it on nationalities as a habitual practice to look down upon them - rule # 2 mentioned above is violated. WE understand what the term is, but you are advised to be mindful of Forum Rules.

PDF is not aimed to advance nationalistic hate - understand this much. If you have to critic a country, do this in a professional way.

Do not remind of how to do my job. I am not selective in application of penalty on members for violating Forum Rules. I have penalized members of any nationality when I felt then need to.

Do not comment on my Moderating actions - these are carried out in view of a broader picture of activity such as trolling that normal members tend to overlook. There are trolling gangs here.

Thanks.
 
The first thing that you need to learn is to address other nationalities the way they are supposed to be as per the Forum Rules. Israeli are Israeli - British and British - American are American - and vice versa. Do not overuse labels like zionists - this is not professional.

Interesting, what terms have I substituted British and American with, when addressing other users?

As for Isra"el", to me as to many people that regime does not represent a legitimate one. Therefore I will not make use of the name Israel - which includes a Hebrew word for God, when referring to a usurpatory apartheid entity built upon ethnic cleansing (Al-Nakba), one which has kept oppressing a Moslem nation to this day by forcibly depriving said nation of its most basic rights. Quite similar to how I will not be uncritically endorsing the so-called "Islamic" State's self-designation (hence the quotation marks).

If this comes across as unprofessional, I do not lay claim to professionalism. Nor do forum rules require users to act professionally. By that token hardly a user would qualify so this begs the question why am I in particular being enjoined to opt for professional vocabulary, or shall we say vocabulary which conforms to the norms promoted by western regimes.

On this occasion, we may emphasize that the Pakistani government is not recognizing Isra"el", meaning that in the Pakistani context, legal nomenclature does not extend to the entity in question.

To speak of zionist regime instead of Isra"el" is therefore considerably more appropriate than to rehash - as some here are doing on a near daily basis, cheap slurs such as "mullah regime" and "mullahs" in reference to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not least because these nouns have an anti-clerical if not borderline Islamophobic connotation, as opposed to the term zionist which covers a strictly political, not a religious nor a racial reality.

Those who consider the regime in Tel Aviv as a legal and legitimate political entity, are of course free to do so. For my part, I will prefer to take exception with this standpoint. And it will show in my lexical choices.

As for the "defending" aspect - some of your supposed refutations were not on merit but on nationalistic grounds.

This is your opinion, which you're entitled to. Personally I would certainly beg to differ.

If true however, then I will simply have followed in the footsteps of about every forum user. Singling me out in this regard seems surprisingly selective.

If the source is from a country that you do not like - it is automatically false? Iranians are the beacon of truth? This is not how a debate works.

Might I remind that you dismissed various points on grounds that according to you, they are but empty claims issued by the Iranian government for internal consumption.

Also I did not treat any source as being automatically wrong for originating from a country whose regime I dislike (note: my issue is with certain regimes, not with peoples). When a source ventures into publishing uncorroborated, bold claims without offering a shred of evidence though, especially when it exhibits political bias to boot, I shall call that out.

Approving declarations from anonymous zionist officials who pretend their F-35 has overflown Tehran yet fail to substantiate it with proof, is akin to categorizing the regime in Tel Aviv as a beacon of truth. I will say that prohibiting readers from questioning this sort of report is not how a debate works.

On a side note, the way in which the above quoted question is formulated tends to suggest you are making a wrong assumption about me. Indeed and as indicated above, I avoid as a matter of principle any and all blanket generalizations about peoples (nationalities, ethnicities, religious communities etc). If needed, I can gladly furnish ample proof to this effect, based on my past contribution at this forum. It cannot be said, by the way, of considerable amounts of forumers whose repeated, explicitly sectarianist and/or racist expletives are here for everyone to see. Thus, I wonder why I should be scapegoated about this.

I do not have unlimited patience to explain the basic tenets of acceptance of information. Your repeated failure to accept valid points was becoming a problem.

No offence, but I am not forced to accept your commentary on Iran or on the situation in Palestine, even if we assume it is valid beyond the shadow of a doubt. There is no regulation (at the level of the forum nor of common rules of debate) stipulating I must.

Moreover I argued against the points in question using logic and established data when available. I don't make blanket assertions.

So allow me to object to the above criticism. If the discussion in the other thread is becoming tiring, you can agree to disagree with me. But kindly do not prohibit or intimidate others from voicing contradicting views.

A debate looses its value in this manner. I have pointed out the flaws of the analysis of a child molestor in that thread and I do not feel the need to re-emphasize them.

Then don't. I will be the last person to request that you repeat yourself.

Speaking of child molesters, one Epstein with Mossad links is believed to have collected kompromats from numerous western establishment figures after inviting them to the sinister quasi-paedocriminal or downright paedocriminal sessions he staged. Unhindered, for decades, operating out of the city of New York. What kind of a regime will engage in such abominable practices, and what kind of a regime will allow the culprit to act freely from its soil for years?

People are not blind and you cannot brainwash everybody by casting legitimate protests in different countries as a zionist conspiracy or color revolution.

Is this also an established fact we aren't allowed to question?

I'd invite you to address concrete statements of mine in this area, rather than contenting yourself with the sweeping allegation that I'm bent on misleading people.

Through its media mouthpieces, the zio-American empire happens to enjoy a near monopoly across the global media landscape. It says a lot when those who believe in the narratives sponsored by the powers to be, display low thresholds of tolerance towards competing ones. Practically all media are repeating their line of thought, yet the slightest room made for alternative information appears to feel unbearable to them. And regimes they support are the ones that launch destabilization operations and wars in the name of "free speech", "democracy" and so on.

Free thinkers in every society and many are aware of how dictators work and rule. United Nations is wrong - you are right.

Depends what you'll subsume under the term United Nations. On occasions, UN institutions have been right in their declarations whilst on others they haven't.

Like you or any registered member of this website, I would think my ideas are right and opposite ones aren't. To my knowledge this does not represent a breach of forum rules either.

I have not asserted that the word zionist cannot be used in debates but there is a difference between using this word in contextual sense and to apply it on nationalities as a habitual practice to look down upon them - rule # 2 mentioned above is violated. WE understand what the term is, but you are advised to be mindful of Forum Rules.

I have not addressed Isra"el"i users personally as zionists in a systematic manner with the aim of hectoring them. This simply does not apply to me, and as underscored I will take responsibility solely for my own actions.
 
Last edited:

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom