What's new

Suicide drones hit target 500km inside Iran

well do you consider Russia responsible for what ever done with AK-47 or USA with M-4 or Germany with G3
do you consider turkey responsible for what ever happened by weapons your arm industry provided . i can post very alarming footage from Afrika about that
This is different than an AK, and I don't care about Afrika.
come on , did you ever saw the size of Syrian army storages that fell in the hand of ISIS and FSA .
in some of them there was more weapon than all the weapons army of countries like lebanon have

First of all, I don't think Syria had very large caches of Iranian weapons that got seized by ISIS or other groups, even if it was, a lot of it would have been used and depleted. Iran gave PYD truckloads of ATGMs and other equipment., there were pictures when they got delivered After Turkish army started advancing on Afrin.
 
.
This is different than an AK, and I don't care about Afrika.


First of all, I don't think Syria had very large caches of Iranian weapons that got seized by ISIS or other groups, even if it was, a lot of it would have been used and depleted. Iran gave PYD truckloads of ATGMs and other equipment., there were pictures when they got delivered After Turkish army started advancing on Afrin.
like to see those pictures that show they were delivered by Iran

and you get one thing fundamentally wrong , guns like AKs killed 10 time more than bombs and ATGMs and missiles since ww2. so why there is exemption for them ?
and why you don't care about Africa ? are African blood is other color than Red ?
 
.
The USA regime removed Saddam in order to destroy the Iraqi nation-state. But also in order to gain a large territorial forward base from where to destabilize Iran. Thus Saddam had to go. If you seriously believe sharing thousands of kilometers of borders with and stationing hundreds of thousands of troops at Iran's doorstep wouldn't massively play into Washington's hostile agenda vis à vis Iran, then the joke's on you.

Likewise, if you thought either Saddam or the Taleban could have invaded Iran and toppled the government in Tehran, no matter what amount of assistance the west and zionists would've thrown at them, then again you'd be disconnected from reality. Saddam for eight years played the role of a proxy for the west in attempting to defeat Iran, but he failed. So yes, gaining a direct foothold in Iraq and Afghanistan came in extremely handy for neoconservative, serial nations wreckers in their plans to obliterate Iran next. Those anti-Iranian regimes in Baghdad and Kabul wouldn't have cut it in a million years.

Moreover you need to understand the historical sequencing. Prior to the 9/11 incidents, there was no political momentum for the implementation of this grand zionist scheme to redraw the map of the region by dismantling every one of its larger nation-states. Including Iran. Including Pakistan. However such a colossal endeavour requires two things: one, political pretexts to mobilize domestic support (take a look at the neocons' Project for a New American Century or PNAC document); and two, a proper timing and schedule.

Any amateur planner would've proceeded in the same order: when you have relatively weak Afghanistan on one side, a battered Iraq (after a decade of crushing sanctions and disarmament) on the other, and potentially vacillating political capital at home, you'll evidently start with these two i.e. with the easier prey rather than with the stumbling block, the big prize that's Iran. Had Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be a walk in the park for the USA and not the senseless multi-trillion dollar holes they dug themselves into, in no small part thanks to Iranian support for popular Resistance in those countries, then Iran would've been at imminent risk of destabilization.



I wonder if you read up on Pakistani history? Because if you did you'd probably have realized by now that the current insurgency in the province of Baluchestan has a had a couple of precedents. In fact the first of its kind took place as early as in 1948, followed by a second one in 1958-1959, a third one in 1973-1977.

Stop pinning the blame on Iran, which has also had to confront terrorists in her own province of Sistan-Baluchestan.



🤦‍♂️

Sure, Iran "created" the transnational drug smuggling rings which to date have martyred no less than 3000 Iranian border guards!

Believe whatever you want but for Heaven's sake, cease quoting me now. Deal?
The same iraq which had the largest millitary of middle east numbering 1 million active troops that had fought a 10 year war against iran the same iraq which kept iran engaged on all fronts including millitary and eventually killed 1 million iranian troops so by removing the most anti iranian regime right next door to iran which curtailed iranian influence was in america's favour and not of iran is the biggest joke the world has ever seen ontop of that indian spy operative khulbushan himself said on Pakistan national tv on interrogation that he set up spy bases in chahbahar in iran to hit Pakistani security forces and Pakistani civilians plus all exiled baloch separatists live in iran weather it be bugtis marris and khan of qalat all lives and are hiding in iran so i dont know who are you foolin here with your lies
 
. . . .
A lot of copium, I see in this thread :rofl:
Not to mention the tinfoil hat brigade as well.:cuckoo:

And speaking of a mad [tinfoil] hatter...
This is different than an AK, and I don't care about Afrika.

why you don't care about Africa ? are African blood is other color than Red ?
Oh,I think that our turkish "friend" here is simply showing us all what a true "european" he is,a true "gardener" after josep borrells own little heart,and as such who really cares about the african "jungle" dwellers in the "jungle" outside of the "european garden".
Altho I do seem to recall that a lot of the of the "gardeners" do seem to be in 2 minds as to whether the turks are actually part of the "garden" or just a part of the "jungle".:azn:
 
Last edited:
.
The same iraq which had the largest millitary of middle east numbering 1 million active troops that had fought a 10 year war against iran

See, this right here is why we say outliers exposed to anti-Iran propaganda have no idea what they're talking about. You weren't aware that Saddam's aggression against Iran lasted for eight, not ten years. Starting out one's rant with a gross factual mistake is not exactly a sign of acquaintance with the subject matter. Rather than trying to pontificate on a topic whose basics you're yet to master, how about keeping an open mind and learning something new?

Furthermore, in between those events you're referencing, a little conflict happened whose impact you keep obfuscating, termed "Operation Desert Storm" by Yankees.

You know, that massive onslaught in 1990-1991 which brought Iraq to its knees, destroying much of its military. Ditto Iraq's infrastructures. After which Baghdad was subjected to nearly 12 years of crushing UN sanctions brought about by the USA regime. A period that saw 500.000 Iraqi children lose their lives due to a lack of medicine.

On a side note, guess what country assisted Iraq to prevent further damage to its civilian population, by deliberately allowing food and other goods to be smuggled in, in contravention of international sanctions? That's right, none other than the Islamic Republic of Iran. This was openly admitted to by the man who was heading Iraq's Central Bank at the time. Contrary to most other statesmen, Iran's Supreme Leader seyyed Khamenei was brave enough to publicly denounce the inhumane UN sanctions in a memorable speech delivered directly in Arabic.

the same iraq which kept iran engaged on all fronts including millitary and eventually killed 1 million iranian troops

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, as reflected in yet another counter-factual statement: Islamic Iran gave 210.000 martyrs during the Imposed War, not "1 million". Not even close.

Also it seems you failed to get the point, so I'll have to reiterate. After the 9/11 attacks, the neocon-led USA aimed for so-called "regime change" in nations George W. Bush had labeled as part of his so-called "axis of evil" (Iran, Iraq, Korea). The goal was not to "keep them engaged" but to topple their governments pure and simple. Grasp the decisive nuance.

Iraq at the height of its power was totally incapable of toppling the Islamic Republic. Eight long years of open war in the 1980's prove this. Let alone the brutally battered, utterly weakened Iraq of 2003 which no longer represented an objective threat to any party.

so by removing the most anti iranian regime right next door to iran

A regime that was but a shadow of its former self in terms of strength, and had effectively been deprived of its warfighting capability during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf war.

which curtailed iranian influence was in america's favour

So Washington acted against its own interests in 2003? Surely if that was the case, it wasn't because of some non-existing Iranian lobby in D.C.

But because of a heavy miscalculation by the ruling neocon cabal: the miscalculation that by stationing 300.000 troops along Iran's borders and presiding over the formation of a friendly "liberal-democratic" government in Iraq, the USA would eventually manage to extend its "regime change" operations to Iran proper.

As often in politics, things did not go according to plan though. Iran threw her weight behind the popular Resistance in Iraq, and Washington neocons messed up big time by implementing deeply flawed policies, which caused them to lose the political capital necessary for additional wars and ultimately ushered in Obama's accession to the presidency.

and not of iran is the biggest joke the world has ever seen

After it got squashed by the USA and allies in 1991, Iraq did not represent a menace to Iran whatsoever. Even less so in 2003, following almost 12 years of stringent sanctions which had devastated Iraq's power as a state.

ontop of that indian spy operative khulbushan himself said on Pakistan national tv on interrogation that he set up spy bases in chahbahar in iran to hit Pakistani security forces and Pakistani civilians

This doesn't mean Iran was a party to it. In effect, Pakistani officials are on the record for stating Iran was not involved in any such plot.

plus all exiled baloch separatists live in iran weather it be bugtis marris and khan of qalat all lives and are hiding in iran so i dont know who are you foolin here with your lies

No lies on my part, but missing out some information on yours. Care to remind us where Mir Javid Mengal, Baluch "ethno"-nationalist leader has been staying? Don't bother, I'll do it for you: in the UAE and the UK.

Mir Javed Mengal lives in exile in London and the UAE.


This is on top of the fact that Pakistan's Baluchestan province has experienced unrest since 75 years (the first insurgency taking place in 1948). The issue has local roots.

Now will you kindly cease quoting me?
 
Last edited:
. .
See, this right here is why we say outliers exposed to anti-Iran propaganda have no idea what they're talking about. You weren't aware that Saddam's aggression against Iran lasted for eight, not ten years. Starting out one's rant with a gross factual mistake is not exactly a sign of acquaintance with the subject matter. Rather than trying to pontificate on a topic whose basics you're yet to master, how about keeping an open mind and learning something new?

Furthermore, in between those events you're referencing, a little conflict happened whose impact you keep obfuscating, termed "Operation Desert Storm" by Yankees.

You know, that massive onslaught in 1990-1991 which brought Iraq to its knees, destroying much of its military. Ditto Iraq's infrastructures. After which Baghdad was subjected to nearly 12 years of crushing UN sanctions brought about by the USA regime. A period that saw 500.000 Iraqi children lose their lives due to a lack of medicine.

On a side note, guess what country assisted Iraq to prevent further damage to its civilian population, by deliberately allowing food and other goods to be smuggled in, in contravention of international sanctions? That's right, none other than the Islamic Republic of Iran. This was openly admitted to by the man who was heading Iraq's Central Bank at the time. Contrary to most other statesmen, Iran's Supreme Leader seyyed Khamenei was brave enough to publicly denounce the inhumane UN sanctions in a memorable speech delivered directly in Arabic.



Again, you don't know what you're talking about, as reflected in yet another counter-factual statement: Islamic Iran gave 210.000 martyrs during the Imposed War, not "1 million". Not even close.

Also it seems you failed to get the point, so I'll have to reiterate. After the 9/11 attacks, the neocon-led USA aimed for so-called "regime change" in nations George W. Bush had labeled as part of his so-called "axis of evil" (Iran, Iraq, Korea). The goal was not to "keep them engaged" but to topple their governments pure and simple. Grasp the decisive nuance.

Iraq at the height of its power was totally incapable of toppling the Islamic Republic. Eight long years of open war in the 1980's prove this. Let alone the brutally battered, utterly weakened Iraq of 2003 which no longer represented an objective threat to any party.



A regime that was but a shadow of its former self in terms of strength, and had effectively been deprived of its warfighting capability during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf war.



So Washington acted against its own interests in 2003? Surely if that was the case, it wasn't because of some non-existing Iranian lobby in D.C.

But because of a heavy miscalculation by the ruling neocon cabal: the miscalculation that by stationing 300.000 troops along Iran's borders and presiding over the formation of a friendly "liberal-democratic" government in Iraq, the USA would eventually manage to extend its "regime change" operations to Iran proper.

As often in politics, things did not go according to plan though. Iran threw her weight behind the popular Resistance in Iraq, and Washington neocons messed up big time by implementing deeply flawed policies, which caused them to lose the political capital necessary for additional wars and ultimately ushered in Obama's accession to the presidency.



After it got squashed by the USA and allies in 1991, Iraq did not represent a menace to Iran whatsoever. Even less so in 2003, following almost 12 years of stringent sanctions which had devastated Iraq's power as a state.



This doesn't mean Iran was a party to it. In effect, Pakistani officials are on the record for stating Iran was not involved in any such plot.



No lies on my part, but missing out some information on yours. Care to remind us where Mir Javid Mengal, Baluch "ethno"-nationalist leader has been staying? Don't bother, I'll do it for you: in the UAE and the UK.




This is on top of the fact that Pakistan's Baluchestan province has experienced unrest since 75 years (the first insurgency taking place in 1948). The issue has local roots.

Now will you kindly cease quoting me?
The axis of evil were iran syria and north korea not iraq as stated by bush if it wouldnt have been for america saddam and Afghan taliban would have squezed iran from both borders and Afghan taliban and Afghanistan considers khorasan province of iran Afghanistan territory both saddam and Afghan taliban would have started covert overt and extra territorial operations against iran had it not been for america overthrowing them its america which saved iran in the region in future we will see what's the real purpose of america is with iran is it truely a enemy of iran or both america and iran wants to destablise iran's neighbours in the wake of fighting israel or america selling weapons to arab states in fear of iran if america takes out iran then the arab states will buy less weapons from america because their second biggest enemy after israel is neutralised thats why america wants to keep proping up iran in the region so as to sell as many weapons it can to iran's arab neighbours
 
. .
The axis of evil were iran syria and north korea not iraq as stated by bush

You're definitely ignorant of the subject and therefore unqualified to comment.

ae.jpg



if it wouldnt have been for america saddam and Afghan taliban would have squezed iran from both borders and Afghan taliban and Afghanistan considers khorasan province of iran Afghanistan territory

Sure. That's is why after eight long years of war, Saddam failed to score any lasting gains against Iran. As for the Taleban, give us a break.

What you're suggesting is that Saddam and the Taleban were more apt at "squeezing" Iran than the USA military would've been... A comical contention.

both saddam and Afghan taliban would have started covert overt and extra territorial operations against iran

No they wouldn't. Iraq couldn't kill a fly after it was crushed by the USA and allies in 1991. As for the Taleban, they've never been a match for Iran militarily and never will.

Also, they had five years from 1996 to 2001 to start those "covert overt and extra territorial operations against Iran" (sic), yet nothing of the sort ever happened.

had it not been for america overthrowing them its america which saved iran in the region

It's Pakistan which made it possible for the USA to overthrow the Taleban by authorizing NATO supply lines to run through Pakistani territory.

It's Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar which enabled the USA to overthrow Saddam, because it's these countries which invading USA forces were stationed at.

Anyone having an issue with the USA's wars on Afghanistan and Iraq should take their complaint to the above mentioned governments as well. Now you have me wondering, are they too part of that supposed "secret plot" to empower Iran?

Truth is that neither Saddam nor the Taleban represented a threat to Iran in the 1990's. They wouldn't have lasted a month in a direct military confrontation, especially if they had dared to trespass onto Iranian soil. The USA toppled them in order to encircle Islamic Iran, as Iran is and has always been the big prize, the ultimate target for warmongering imperialists.

in future we will see what's the real purpose of america is with iran is it truely a enemy of iran or both america and iran wants to destablise iran's neighbours in the wake of fighting israel

For the past 43 years, we've been witnessing on a daily basis what the USA regime's hostile aims against Iran consist of.

Washington hasn't ceased attempting to harm Iran in whatever way they could: endless sanctions, use of a proxy like Saddam and then various terrorist groups to attack Iran, the biggest propaganda and psy-ops campaign in history, massive support for the exiled anti-IR opposition, "color revolution" attempts such as in 2009, support for riots (1992, 1994, 2017, 2019, 2022), coup attempts by pro-western air force generals and politicians during the early years of the Revolution, and so on and so forth.

Iran is seeking stability in the region. The zio-American empire however is bent on creating permanent crises, and the ones assisting it in this policy are America's regional allies read client states.

or america selling weapons to arab states in fear of iran if america takes out iran then the arab states will buy less weapons from america because their second biggest enemy after israel is neutralised thats why america wants to keep proping up iran in the region so as to sell as many weapons it can to iran's arab neighbours

First of all, PGCC regimes had steadily been augmenting their weapons procurement from the west for many years prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Secondly, Washington does not need to resort to such a convoluted, bizarre stratagem to have its clients purchase American weapons en masse. They are clients, after all.

Thirdly, Islamic Iran has no intention of waging war on PGCC states. On the contrary, Iran has repeatedly offered them a joint partnership to ensure security in the Persian Gulf and ask western powers to leave the area, but the offer was consistently turned down.

Fourthly, the above quoted assertion is inoperative in terms of logic. If Iran was this supposed scarecrow, where does the assumption stem from that Arab rulers are dumb to the point of not realizing it? If they do, then why are they maintaining their strategic alliance with Washington? Surely an ally responsible for keeping your enemy in place just to have you buy more weapons, doesn't deserve to be your major strategic partner now, does it.
 
Last edited:
.
You definitely know zilch about the subject and therefore aren't qualified to comment.

View attachment 914431




Sure. This is why after eight long years of war, Saddam failed to scratch Iran. As for the Taleban, what a joke.

Saddam and the Taleban were more apt at "squeezing" Iran than the USA military would've been, is what you're saying... Pure comedy.



No they wouldn't. Iraq couldn't kill a fly after getting crushed by the USA and allies in 1991. And the Taleban have never been a match for Iran militarily.



It's Pakistan which made it possible for the USA to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taleban by allowing NATO to have their supply lines run through Pakistani territory.

It's Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar which made it possible for the USA to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, because that's where USA invading USA forces were stationed at.

You have an issue with the USA's wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, take your complaint to the above mentioned governments.

Neither Saddam nor the Taleban represented a threat to Iran in the 1990's. They wouldn't have lasted a month in a direct military conflict. The USA toppled them in order to encircle Islamic Iran, as Iran is and has always been the big prize, the ultimate target for NATO and zionist warmongering imperialists.



We've been witnessing what the USA regime's hostile objectives against Iran are for the past 43 years. Washington hasn't ceased attempting to harm Iran in whatever way they could: sanctions, use of a proxy like Saddam and then various terrorist groups, the biggest propaganda and psy-ops campaign in history, massive support for the exiled anti-IR opposition, "color revolution" attempts such as in 2009, military coup attempts during the early years of the Islamic Revolution, and so on and so forth.

Iran is seeking stability in the region. The zio-American empire is bent on creating permanent crises, and the ones assisting the empire in this policy are America's regional allies i.e. client states.



First of all, PGCC regimes kept augmenting their weapons purchases from the west prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Secondly, Washington does not need to resort to such a convoluted stratagem to have its clients purchase American weapons en masse. They are clients, after all.

Thirdly, Islamic Iran has no intention of waging war on any of the PGCC states. On the contrary, Iran has repeatedly offered them a joint partnership to ensure security in the Persian Gulf and ask western powers to leave the area, but the offer was consistently turned down.

Fourthly, the above quoted assertion is flawed from the logical point of view. If Iran was this supposed scarecrow, where does this assumption stem from that Arab rulers are dumb to the point of not realizing what random internet users have? If they realize, then why do they uphold their strategic alliance with Washington? Surely an ally that's propping up your enemy just to have you buy more weapons, doesn't deserve to be your major strategic partner, does it?
What a joke bush himself said at the state of the union adress that syria is in axis of evil that's why project Syria came to destablise syria and bring iran's proxies to Syria as well plus it was iran and india helping northern alliance government in Afghanistan with weapons trainings etc against the Afghan mujahideens even northern alliance chief ahmed shah massoud's son is living and hiding in iran so who are you foolin here a terrible war fought by americans for iran and india in the region cost them 2 trillion dollars plus american soldiers and operatives casualties now Afghanistan is back at the hand of rightfull owners the Afghan mujahideens the Afghan taliban etc even its recorded that iranian intelligence members were coordinating airstrikes on Afghan mujahideens Afghan taliban with americans and giving america intelligence regarding Afghan mujahideens Afghan taliban etc to american intelligence members so that they can hit Afghan taliban
 
.
What a joke bush himself said at the state of the union adress that syria is in axis of evil

I posted a link and a screenshot reminding us of how Bush in his speech cited Iran, Iraq and Korea as the constitutive elements of his so-called "axis of evil", so what exactly are you on about?


In pictures and sound.

that's why project Syria came to destablise syria and bring iran's proxies to Syria

To destroy Iran's main state ally in the region by arming and funding a high intensity, all out rebellion against it.

plus it was iran and india helping northern alliance government in Afghanistan with weapons trainings etc against the Afghan mujahideens

As I said, Iran will stay loyal to her allies until and unless they switch sides or start working against Iranian interests.

even northern alliance chief ahmed shah massoud's son is living and hiding in iran so who are you foolin here

No he is not.

am.jpg



This is at least the fifth counterfactual claim you're making. With each post you're displaying flawed understanding of Iran-related matters you're commenting on here.

Ahmad Masoud's spokesperson Fahim Dashti was heard endorsing anti-Iranian Kurdish separatists in an interview with Rudaw (a Kurdish Iraqi news outlet):


Masoud had fallen out with Iran before the Taleban's renewed rise to power.

a terrible war fought by americans for iran and india in the region cost them 2 trillion dollars plus american soldiers and operatives casualties

A war orchestrated to encircle Iran and threaten her directly via American troop deployment along her borders.

even its recorded that iranian intelligence members were coordinating airstrikes on Afghan mujahideens Afghan taliban with americans and giving america intelligence regarding Afghan mujahideens Afghan taliban etc to american intelligence members so that they can hit Afghan taliban

Those mujahedin do not seem to hold too much of a grudge against Iran. Iran backed them with arms and funds to fight American occupiers.

Iran Backs Taliban With Cash and Arms​

Shiite Tehran has quietly boosted ties with the Sunni militant group and is now recruiting and training its fighters

June 11, 2015 7:32 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-backs-taliban-with-cash-and-arms-1434065528

Afghan, U.S. Officials Say Iran Arming Taliban​

September 28, 2017

https://www.mei.edu/publications/afghan-us-officials-say-iran-arming-taliban

Since the Taleban takeover, Pakistan has been subject to tens of attacks from terrorists operating out of Afghanistan, whilst not a single one was directed at Iran.

Starting to think you're either a kid, or a false flagging troll. Give it a rest.
 
Last edited:
.
Not to mention the tinfoil hat brigade as well.:cuckoo:

And speaking of a mad [tinfoil] hatter...



Oh,I think that our turkish "friend" here is simply showing us all what a true "european" he is,a true "gardener" after josep borrells own little heart,and as such who really cares about the "jungle" dwellers in the "jungle" outside the of the "european garden".
Altho I do seem to recall that a lot of the of the "gardeners" do seem to be in 2 minds as to whether the turks are actually part of the "garden" or just a part of the "jungle".:azn:
I don't know what the **** you're talking about.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom