Global Alert: US–Israel's Major Military Operations on Iran🔥#2 - Page 34

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

I know their answer. They will say u don't understand the context. I mean when is explicitly written - disbelievers and polytheists are the worst of creatures, then what more context do you need. 🤷

But don’t they say “it’s word of god”. It’s absolute. Can’t be changed. And so on and so forth ? Then change that argument to defend the extremists ?

Originally posted by: Cynical1

You are inviting labels that she generously gives to anyone that suggests such things. Didn’t you see what she writes everywhere about me without a single post condemning Pakistan attack on Afghanistan hospital ?

She preaches about the topic of thread and then writes falseties about Hindutva in this thread.

I'm beyond the point of caring about labels now.

Originally posted by: InsaneDivine

Is this their recent release ??🤔

Kuch sharam bhi nai aati kya yeh sab reports banate hue.. atleast look at the timing of the report...

they should have made it a ranking on basis of false propoganda of happiness and then the ratings would make sense.

how can begging bowls to IMF and WB make people more happy than others ?

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

I'm beyond the point of caring about labels now.

I was never at that point. But you asked yesterday it’s safe so I thought I should tell you about what to expect now

Originally posted by: Cynical1

But don’t they say “it’s word of god”. It’s absolute. Can’t be changed. And so on and so forth ? Then change that argument to defend the extremists ?

They will also say wrong interpretation. I mean what scope of misinterpretation is left when a verse explicitly states disbelievers are the worst of creatures. 🤷

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

They will also say wrong interpretation. I mean what scope of misinterpretation is left when a verse explicitly states disbelievers are the worst of creatures. 🤷

If you paid attention to someone exchanging posts with me. They categorically stated “mocking god is worst than terrorism” .

Charlie Hebdo was killed for this.

He still thinks he is a peace lover.

Hence I say there is no cure when one is past a certain point. Humanity has tried reform , migration to west and so much. But once they cross a certain line in their thinking, I believe there is no turning back for them from their violence and beliefs

Originally posted by: InsaneDivine

But then can we really say that US is gaining control over the oil reserves of Iran ? So far Iran retains the power to close Hormuz as and when and for whom it wants.. Trump said that they destroyed the Iranian air force but Iran still manages to intercept F35.. I agree that for a country like US losses cannot be a criteria for judging whether they win or loose a battle. What makes US a superpower is not just its riches but its presence everywhere on this planet, from where it can bomb any country. Its there in Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, in the middle East... Now since US is a security guarantor for Gulf, if they are not able to secure critical energy infra and if post things settle down Gulf seeks options, wouldn't that dent their superpower status ??

Yes US and Israel have surely managed to attack their stream of leadership, so that's certainly where they gain points..

Also if at all US wins in Iran and Iran becomes a vasal state of US, it will be a problem for India. I still maintain that.. A vasal state Iran after a vasal state Pakistan... Not a good idea..

Also I completely resonate with everyone's views against the brutalities of Islam and Islamization, however Iran didn't reach where it is today without the mighty US' hand. A bit of history below - May be you guys already know about it, still thought of posting :-

Iran may be just may be could have become a thriving democracy, a successful nation with human rights for its people and an economic success, had US let them be.. Iran had democracy in 1950s. The leader Mohd Mossadegh tried doing labor reforms, gave land rights, expanded social security and also something that perhaps he should not have done - 'nationalize Oil' ... So US did what it does best.. Orchestrated a coup.. against an elected, democratic leader.. Not only did they bribe politicians but also the orthodox Islamic clergy.. As a result Mossadegh was removed, monarchy led by Shah was given absolute power.. Mossadegh then lived under house arrest for life, was not even given proper funeral... A secret police force of Shah was established - SAVAK, with the help of USA that was also quite brutal in cracking down political opponents. As usual they came hard on secular and communist forces much more than the clergy.. Hence the only opposition that remained was the orthodox Khomeini after whom everyone rallied leading to the revolution of 1979 - of course it was a mistake... It is said that US misread Khomeini and did little to prevent the revolution from happening because of Khomeini's presumed anti communist stand and his promise to US that oil won't be a problem for them. US ambassador compared him to Gandhi... Post revolution Ayatollah came down heavy on Shah's forces and even those who had supported him during the revolution - communists .. The illusion that US can work around Khomeini ended with the hostage crisis of 1979... Hijab was imposed on women strictly by 1983.. Sharia imposed, textbooks changed, laws giving divorce and custody rights to women scrapped... All communists, common Iranians and US misread Islamists and Iran plunged into the age of darkness.. Then US and Israel supported both Iraq and Iran in the Iran Iraq war to keep both sides weak and find some 'moderates' in the regime with whom US can work around.. Of course history is a proof that so far they have not been able to find any... For Iranians if SAVAK and Shah were brutal, regime turned out to be even 10 times more brutal... Ayotallahs could have given up on the dream of becoming leaders of the Islamic world and not gone after Israel, given that Iran and Israrel don't even touch borders. Given the power they had over people, they could have read people at the right time when they desired certain freedoms.. But then they won't remain hardline Islamists with absolute control if they did so...

To think that Iran would be "allowed" to live in peace by these forces is quite aspirational, I would say. If Iran's resources are not in their control, they are not really free. Some or the other movement will keep emerging in Iran who would oppose US control of it's resources, even if we suppose Iran gets freed from the regime which itself looks difficult at this point...

I firmly believe that leaders are born from within... I don't think that US or Israel can liberate them. That's where I diverge from ur perspective.. Yes a weakened Iran will no longer be able to fund Hamas, Hezbollah... So Israel gets benefitted whether US wins or loose... An Islamist Iran will and hopefully never get it's hand laid on Nukes is another positive...

Here is what I hope to see .... I hope US looses. Iran retains its resources but is weakened due to prolonged war.. I do not wish to see in any way a US backed leader sitting in Iran or Iran as a vasal state of US...... Gulf diversifies its security apparatus and I hope India steps in, increases its influence to keep this region stable..

Whether Iranians will get a life they desire.. I don't know.. What I do know is till the time such forces exists in Iran - be it Islamists, communists or West aligned who think that for the sake of power they have a right to persecute people, kill the opposition, till that time any country can't progress or become successful... Yes religious fanaticism, when it becomes life threatening should be dealt with iron fist but in Iran it is only the religious fanatics who got a free pass .. Rest everyone got a good amount of medicine..

I kind of agree with all your points but i do believe that a vassal state iran would be very different from a vassal state pakistan. Imo iranian people are more educated, progressive and come from a rich historical background. Because of that, i believe a vassal state iran would focus more on development and progress.

On the other hand, india is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, so a vassal state iran would have no choice but to engage with india in trade and possibly build strategic alliances (since they will lose our on china they had to build strong ties with india for rapid development), so i dont think there would be a major impact on india - iran relations, whether iran becomes a vassal state or remains under its current regime. However, a weakened iran under its current regime would be more advantageous for india than a stronger iran under the same regime.

Also, for a vassal state iran, the USA’s priorities would be different compared to pakistan. Iran would likely be used to weaken china by taking away one of its key strategic partners and to gain greater control over middle eastern oil reserves and trade routes. Pakistan, on the other hand is used for different strategic purposes.

The USA uses different vassal states for different goals, pakistan is used in the context of india, Iran would be used against china and for control over middle eastern energy and trade routes, south korea and japan are used to keep north korea and china in check, EU is aligned against russia and taiwan plays a role in countering china and securing semiconductors. So, in the case of a vassal state Iran, the primary focus would not really be india.

Originally posted by: Cynical1

If you paid attention to someone exchanging posts with me. They categorically stated “mocking god is worst than terrorism” .

Charlie Hebdo was killed for this.

He still thinks he is a peace lover.

Hence I say there is no cure when one is past a certain point. Humanity has tried reform , migration to west and so much. But once they cross a certain line in their thinking, I believe there is no turning back for them from their violence and beliefs

I saw 2 humanitarians right in this forum justifying stsj as a punishment for disrespect of Allah. What do we know of Humanity

Originally posted by: IamRaj96

I kind of agree with all your points but i do believe that a vassal state iran would be very different from a vassal state pakistan. Imo iranian people are more educated, progressive and come from a rich historical background. Because of that, i believe a vassal state iran would focus more on development and progress.

On the other hand, india is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, so a vassal state iran would have no choice but to engage with india in trade and possibly build strategic alliances (since they will lose our on china they had to build strong ties with india for rapid development), so i dont think there would be a major impact on india - iran relations, whether iran becomes a vassal state or remains under its current regime. However, a weakened iran under its current regime would be more advantageous for india than a stronger iran under the same regime.

Also, for a vassal state iran, the USA’s priorities would be different compared to pakistan. Iran would likely be used to weaken china by taking away one of its key strategic partners and to gain greater control over middle eastern oil reserves and trade routes. Pakistan, on the other hand is used for different strategic purposes.

The USA uses different vassal states for different goals, pakistan is used in the context of india, Iran would be used against china and for control over middle eastern energy and trade routes, south korea and japan are used to keep north korea and china in check, EU is aligned against russia and taiwan plays a role in countering china and securing semiconductors. So, in the case of a vassal state Iran, the primary focus would not really be india.

Is your view of Iran from 30-50 years ago ? Shah of Iran and moderate days of Iran.

Don’t you think the radicalization over so many decades may mean that everything you wrote about it does not hold true any more ? Didn’t US think it was liberating Afghanistan and Iraq?

Iran maybe able to get there again but do you honestly think it’s as easy as “Iran was moderate and hence it will be like that if liberated ?” Maybe in 1-3 decades if they want

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

I saw 2 humanitarians right in this forum justifying stsj as a punishment for disrespect of Allah. What do we know of Humanity

I must have missed their posts. Imagine they use humanitarian word in the same space as STSJ.

And then they have a problem with me saying elimination of Islamic terrorists / extremists is a must ? 🤷‍♂️