Iranian Chill Thread

[Tehrani021]

The Syria, Iraq, and Yemen file was in his hands. He met directly with Kurdish, Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese, and other government officials. He even texted leading US general David P. Who was in charge of Iraq and the Middle East, taunting him.

When shit hit the fan in Syria, who met Putin? Solemani.

Now tell me back when Solemani was alive who had more power and connections than Solemani within IRGC? Salami? Hajizadeh?

Yes he wasn’t head of IRGC, I never said he was, but as head of Quds Force and within Iran’s dynamic power structure he had much more influence and responsibility than any other IRGC commander. He had a closer connection with the Supreme leader than others with IRGC ever had.

That doesn't mean he was the head of IRGC, or "top of the chain of command", these were the theatres that Quds Force were involved in and he was the best man to speak to Putin due to his experience. Let's be accurate and not fire from the hip.

I still don't know how any of this refutes what I said in my post.

 

[Immortals]

That doesn't mean he was the head of IRGC, or "top of the chain of command", these were the theatres that Quds Force were involved in and he was the best man to speak to Putin due to his experience. Let's be accurate and not fire from the hip.

I still don't know how any of this refutes what I said in my post.

I never said he was head of IRGC, that is a positon and basic facts will show that to be untrue. But he was certainly top of IRGC leadership and consulted on any serious foreign policy matters and his voice mattered. To dispute that is puzzling given who the man was and his experience.

He wasn’t some ordinary field general delegated to the external battlefields. Quds Force has lost high ranking generals before, For example, General allahdadi was killed by Israel alongside Imad’s son. He held a very high rank. In fact he was in charge of Syria answering to Solemani.
Solemani had one of the most important roles within Iran and IRGC. The 2nd in my opinion would be Hajizadeh in charge of missile command.

I still don't know how any of this refutes what I said in my post.

But you still haven’t answered my question, why would Iran attack US directly if IRGC is attacked in Yemen, Iraq, or Syria [ie foreign soil] when it hasn’t attacked Israel directly for the numerous IRGC generals and officers they have killed, including 5 this month?

Israel is a much smaller adversary than US.

 

[Persian Gulf]

But you still haven’t answered my question, why would Iran attack US directly if IRGC is attacked in Yemen, Iraq, or Syria [ie foreign soil] when it hasn’t attacked Israel directly for the numerous IRGC generals and officers they have killed, including 5 this month?

Israel is a much smaller adversary than US.

good question but I think the answer is that the USA has bases outside of its homeland, while Israel does not

an attack on the US homeland is a very different proposition

 

[AmirIGM]

Hi Guys.

How's things?

 

[Hack-Hook]

Please don't insult. Not befitting of a Muslim. I have read the book many times and nowhere does it speak about WMD. It is down to interpretation and fiq of these verses, which requires knowledgeable scholars and not some random guy on an internet forum who is unknown in the circles of knowledge.

How do you extract that WMD is permissible from Surah Nisa: 71 and 102? I'm puzzled!

Surah Anfaal verse 60 is the strongest verse that could suggest WMD is allowed. However, there are still conditions attached to this. Does that verse mean I can use it against civilians even in a NFU situation? My understanding is that you can't use it against civilians even if they use it against your civilians. You can only use it as a detterance or against military in NFU scenario. This is why you can't look at one verse in isolation, but have to look at all the verses and hadeeth pertaining to the subject before making a ruling and this is the job of scholars and not laymen like us.

it say gather enough weapon to build fear in the heart of the enemies. and guess what put fear in the heart of enemy.
and who said use it , have it so enemy don't use it on you

 

[Hack-Hook]

My understanding is that you can't use it against civilians even if they use it against your civilians. You can only use it as a detterance or against military in NFU scenario. This is why you can't look at one verse in isolation, but have to look at all the verses and hadeeth pertaining to the subject before making a ruling and this is the job of scholars and not laymen like us.

based on?
the civilians allowed politician and military use it ?
by the way threat of use it against military is enough for them not to use it

 

[Nilgiri]

Hi Guys.

How's things?

Hey bro, good to see you dropping by here

 

[Tehrani021]

based on?
the civilians allowed politician and military use it ?
by the way threat of use it against military is enough for them not to use it

Based on the fact that the Prophet or Sahaba or Ali or Ahlul Bayt never killed civilians under any circumstance, and logically if a murderer kills your mother, does that mean you can kill the murderer's mother? No, you can only excecute the murderer. So similarly, even though they bomb your civilians, that doesn't mean you can bomb their civilians but you can use the nukes to destroy their military. Yes detterance is a valid way to use it but you have to have a strategy of how you plan to use it in the event of a nuclear war. Sorry but the people didn't choose when the President uses the nukes, this decision solely lies on the government and military.

 

[Tehrani021]

it say gather enough weapon to build fear in the heart of the enemies. and guess what put fear in the heart of enemy.
and who said use it , have it so enemy don't use it on you

We agree that for detterance you can use it, but you have to have a policy if you plan to use them in such an event. Having nukes where you dont plan to use them negates the effect of a detterance, however we still can't use it against civilians under any circumstance because we use Islamic law to govern our conduct.

 

[Tehrani021]

But you still haven’t answered my question, why would Iran attack US directly if IRGC is attacked in Yemen, Iraq, or Syria [ie foreign soil] when it hasn’t attacked Israel directly for the numerous IRGC generals and officers they have killed, including 5 this month?

Israel is a much smaller adversary than US.

I don't recall Iran hitting US directly on US soil. However Iran has hit Israeli targets in Erbil and other places. Also in case you are oblivious, Iran has proxies who are hitting Israel as we speak. You also may not be satisfied, but the fact remains that Iran did hit back against US targets after Soleimani and has armed a formidable proxy force which has been launching hundreds of attacks on US targets in Syria and Iraq. So to say that Iran is doing nothing is just not true.

 

[Immortals]

I don't recall Iran hitting US directly on US soil.

Nobody talked about Iran hitting US soil directly. Come on. Directly means Iranian military (IRGC) striking a US military asset in the Middle East thru its own means rather than rely on proxy.

You claim counter to my point that IRGC would directly attack US assets in ME if target directly abroad. I said history points otherwise and more reliance on proxy.

However Iran has hit Israeli targets in Erbil and other places.

A Kurdish businessman’s alleged den of spies in Kurdistan is not attacking Israel military assets directly. And the “other places” was a similar incident in Kurdistan. Only Iran and Israel know the truth behind those attacks and the shadow war. We merely get a glimpse.

Also in case you are oblivious, Iran has proxies who are hitting Israel as we speak.

Yeah that’s called proxy warfare. Which is the avenue Iran prefers. You aren’t making a point here. You are merely agreeing with what I said.

I said it’s unlikely that Iran would respond directly to US attack on its own assets abroad and more likely that it would respond via its proxies. You disputed that, so I am asking what is your logic on that. And you point to…..proxy warefare?

. So to say that Iran is doing nothing is just not true.

I never said Iran is doing “nothing”. I said if US strikes Iran directly, I wouldn’t “expect much” of a DIRECT IRANIAN RESPONSE.

Iran prefers to use proxies and all of your points above did was confirm my exact point. Iran would rather use Houthi’s and Hezbollah to attack than use IRGC assets against Israel and most certainly US.

It is not in Iran’s interest to get into a direct shooting war with Biden whose in an election year and has a point to appear “tough” to voters. He will be forced to respond even if he doesn’t like to when US deaths are involved vs mere harassment attacks without casualties.

So we will see how it plays out. But expecting Iran to retaliate directly against US using its own forces hasn’t been paying to history between these two powers. Solemani was a rare case due to how exceptional of a man he was and how embedded he was in Iranian society as a hero.

 

[Immortals]

good question but I think the answer is that the USA has bases outside of its homeland, while Israel does not

an attack on the US homeland is a very different proposition

It seems there is confusion between you & @Tehrani021 When I say US directly, I don’t mean US soil. I mean US assets in Middle East directly.

Besides Solemani & Al-Assad, Iran does not prefer to attack US assets directly. It prefers to use proxies.

The user said if US strikes IRGC assets in Syria or Yemen or Iraq that IRGC would directly strike back US assets in Middle East.

I said where is the logic in that? IRGC doesn’t hit Israeli warships in open sea. It doesn’t target Israeli military advisors in Azeribajian. Instead it used HZ to stage attacks in North Lebanon and Hamas.

I want to understand if the majority of users on here think the IRGC would target US military in retilation.

 

[Immortals]

it say gather enough weapon to build fear in the heart of the enemies. and guess what put fear in the heart of enemy.
and who said use it , have it so enemy don't use it on you

How much fear because of 1940’s fission devices?

Maybe if Iran built anti matter weapon or some quantum leap in the laws of physics that leads to anti gravity propulsion, then yes USA and NATO would be afraid of a major gap in capability against an adversary like Iran. But nukes? No

Russia has thousands of nukes. How much is it protecting it currently? It Doesn’t stop NATO/US giving 100B+ in weapons to Ukraine. Doesn’t stop attacks on Russian cities. Doesn’t stop US and NATO from using space based ISR to locate Russian military assets and weaknesses that Ukraine then targets. Tens of thousands of Russian troops dead at hands of NATO backed war effort.

Solemani was killed for far far far less. With such logic, Russia could wipe out the entire US and NATO command for their crimes using same basis as US did for Solemani strike…..and yet it doesn’t.

So again, what point is nukes when NATO already found the “cheat code”? Just use color revolution or proxy war to completely degrade your enemy.

They used this in Afghanistan against Soviet Union. They used this in Iraq vs Iran war. They used this against Ghaddafi. They used this against Assad.

Nukes are useless in proxy wars and colour revolutions. The hermit kingdom of NK is hardly a successful image of a country that is prospering after attaining nukes.

 

[Immortals]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tehrani021]

Nobody talked about Iran hitting US soil directly. Come on. Directly means Iranian military (IRGC) striking a US military asset in the Middle East thru its own means rather than rely on proxy.

You claim counter to my point that IRGC would directly attack US assets in ME if target directly abroad. I said history points otherwise and more reliance on proxy.



A Kurdish businessman’s alleged den of spies in Kurdistan is not attacking Israel military assets directly. And the “other places” was a similar incident in Kurdistan. Only Iran and Israel know the truth behind those attacks and the shadow war. We merely get a glimpse.



Yeah that’s called proxy warfare. Which is the avenue Iran prefers. You aren’t making a point here. You are merely agreeing with what I said.

I said it’s unlikely that Iran would respond directly to US attack on its own assets abroad and more likely that it would respond via its proxies. You disputed that, so I am asking what is your logic on that. And you point to…..proxy warefare?




I never said Iran is doing “nothing”. I said if US strikes Iran directly, I wouldn’t “expect much” of a DIRECT IRANIAN RESPONSE.

Iran prefers to use proxies and all of your points above did was confirm my exact point. Iran would rather use Houthi’s and Hezbollah to attack than use IRGC assets against Israel and most certainly US.

It is not in Iran’s interest to get into a direct shooting war with Biden whose in an election year and has a point to appear “tough” to voters. He will be forced to respond even if he doesn’t like to when US deaths are involved vs mere harassment attacks without casualties.

So we will see how it plays out. But expecting Iran to retaliate directly against US using its own forces hasn’t been paying to history between these two powers. Solemani was a rare case due to how exceptional of a man he was and how embedded he was in Iranian society as a hero.

History points to the fact that Iran has directly attacked US targets when IRGC was attacked by US abroad. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself, you can go and reread where I clearly pointed this out to you as you have so much spare time on your hands.

Well you definitely don't know the truth either, so I don't know why you're acting like you do. All you have is suspicions and hearsay, nothing concrete. The evidence is clear that Mossad operates in Erbil. They don't exactly hide it anymore.

I think Iran can take a fair share of credit for fighting through proxies seeing as they are armed, trained and funded solely by Iran. It is still a valid form of offence and one that keeps the heat off Iranian soil, something which you seem to not care about which is a little suspicious. Thank God trigger happy careless people like you don't assess the risks for Iranian military strategy.

You keep worming past the fact Iran DIRECTLY attacked US forces in Soleimani, and it refutes your entire argument hence you like to be fixated on proxies. However, even that refutes your argument because even the US agrees with me that Iran has to take some responsibility for the fact it uses a proxy force to attack US forces.