Minimal sacrifice in defense of
haqq.
I am glad you removed the part about my British flags given your own European flags and residence.
The Iranian flag beneath my username is clearly visible. Missing from yours however.
Residence is of no relevance here, ideas and posture are.
As for what you retained, your slanderous narrative of a copy and paste driven pro-opposition crusade or infiltration (LOL) is just in your head and not reality.
Similarity with the oppositionist line on the topic at hand is a verifiable occurrence which cannot be erased through rhetoric.
For the record, I obviously never insulted 'Iranian war heroes' - that's a preposterous lie. Calling any criticism of Iranian military figures an insult against war heroes is an obvious and pathetic attempt to deflect from the very real criticisms of the following: how cheap Iranian life is under the IRI, how Iran is impotent and unwilling to respond to frequent Israeli acts of aggression (against Iranians and Iranian interests in Syria, Iraq and inside Iran) and how IRI officials lie about this to save face.
Systematically ridiculing war heroes is not called "criticism", it's insulting and any patriot ought to and will take offense at it. No matter how much spin is put on it.
The premise you're attempting to push through, namely that valuing the lives of Iranian soldiers supposes tit for tat retaliation against every single action taken by the enemy in the multiple, complex theaters in which the confrontation is playing out, is a fallacy which - whether you realize it or not - only serves the enemy's psy-ops campaign aimed at influencing the patriotic majority of Iranian opinion. Especially when:
1) Iran is operating under asymmetrical conditions, and material / economic resource distribution between Iran and her enemies is highly unequal.
2) Overall strategy is never sacrificed for avenging individual fatalities in what would reflect an inoperative tribalist mindset. Neither Iran nor the USA superpower will act in such a way - case in point, America's crass failure to retaliate for hundreds if not thousands of G.I. casualties caused by Iranian-backed Iraqi Resistance groups. In short, the Islamic Republic's modus operandi in this regard does not betray any lack of concern for "Iranian lives" but sound tactical and strategic thinking.
In the overall picture i.e. what actually matters, Iran has been and keeps being successful against the enemy. This fact alone instantly negates any pretense of legitimacy to misplaced rantings against Iranian decision makers.
What you're doing, is promoting unrealistic expectations which no rational political actor can be asked to meet, by appealing to readers' basic emotions instead of their intelligence.
3) If Iran was "impotent", she would have been razed to the ground several times over by the zio-American empire in the early 1980's rather than surviving and steadily progressing for 44 years all the while of confronting said imperialists, as one of only a handful of governments on earth brave enough to embark on this noble struggle.
A fact whose significance you've clearly set yourself the goal to try and minimize. However, no amount of what you may depict as shortcomings will ever suffice to put a dent into this impressive record. This method of obfuscating the essence for the benefit of inadequately interpreted, overblown side-aspects is exactly what the exiled opposition is practicing against the Islamic Republic.
You are complicit in the above by propagating the same lies,
No lies on Iran's part. Plenty of fabrications from zionist and other mainstream media however, which you've been endorsing at least passively and echoing in the framework of your narrative.
which is why I tagged you to recent developments after you claimed (1) Israeli strikes very rarely kill Iranians
Which corresponds to plain truth. Let's reiterate: if claims are accurate that zionist strikes against Syria have numbered in the hundreds, then the percentage of strikes in which Iranians were martyred has been
very low.
You and another user taking issue with this were then invited to present the tally of confirmed Iranian fatalities to prove your contention. Both of you failed to address the challenge because you know it would prove wrong your discourse.
A contrario, I demonstrated with concrete evidence how zionist media outlets and regime officials, by means of fallacious semantic techniques, are bent on twisting the truth about the very low amount of Iranian martyrs resulting from zionist air strikes on Syria.
The suggestion that zionists have martyred large amounts of Iranians in Syria is a
lie concocted by the regime in Tel Aviv and peddled at PDF by the likes of user Beny Karachun. And you are here obviously lending credence to this lie.
and (2) when they do, Iran always responds directly. Well (2) in particular is a very simple hypothesis to prove/disprove given we have unfortunately had two more martyrs in the past few days. The click is ticking for Hajizadeh to vindicate your thesis.
Responded, past tense, is what I wrote, prior to offering two illustrations to this effect. Not that it would matter in the grand scheme of things anyway, contrary to what you've been insinuating.
