Islamic Republic of Iran

[BMD]

Only terrorists from pakistan are threat to us , other monkeys are threat to the west. Practically they will be more inclined to attack the west than India as nuclear fallout wont affect their cntries. So higher chance of attacks in farther cntires from them , which would mean US or europe not asia.

Only a fool would believe that. The myth of friendly/safe terrorists has been dispelled many times.

And you think nuclear fallout wouldn't affect them if they attacked the west? We have >2,000 warheads actively deployed, you have 164.

In other news, your arch enemy is supporting Iran:

Chinese Laser Anti-Drone System Spotted In Iran

A very high-profile appearance by Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given us a glimpse at some of China's latest counter-drone technology.

www.twz.com

The West looked the other way when Pak got its nukes. Now they are in the process of becoming victims of that action.

Pak, Iran and NoKo created their little nuclear axis under US/UK noses because they thought Pak getting nukes to contain India and the SU was a good idea.

And at the time it was. Stopped you two from killing each other off completely. Iranian hardliners on the otherhand lack the risk management skills to handle having nukes. Someone also turned a blind eye when India acquired nukes to balance China don't forget.

 

[BMD]

This i ssimply not true.
Aytollah would like have a good amount control over India via India's shia population.
His dream would be to have Tehran as control & command Centre for whole of all shia population in the world.

This and Iran is slowly placing Iranian militant groups in every single country near it - Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen - how long before Pakistan?

 

[randomradio]

This i ssimply not true.
Aytollah would like have a good amount control over India via India's shia population.
His dream would be to have Tehran as control & command Centre for whole of all shia population in the world.

Here's a pretty good read about how the Shia leadership in India fell into BJP's camp.

Origins & evolution of BJP's dalliance with Shia Muslims, the ‘minority within minority’

Traditionally, BJP’s outreach to Shias, who make up an estimated 15% of India's Muslim population, has been predicated on community’s religious leadership. But that is now changing.

theprint.in

 

[randomradio]

And at the time it was. Stopped you two from killing each other off completely. Iranian hardliners on the otherhand lack the risk management skills to handle having nukes. Someone also turned a blind eye when India acquired nukes to balance China don't forget.

We had planned to take Pakistan out before they got nukes, the Americans didn't let us. Even sent a carrier after us.

India getting nukes came as a surprise to everyone, even the US. It happened in 1974, 'cause the US sent a carrier after us in 1971. It was obviously too late by then.

Smiling Buddha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US then let Pakistan balance the equation.

Imagine a world without Pakistan and without Pakistani nukes or terrorism.

 

[Asterion Moloc]

This and Iran is slowly placing Iranian militant groups in every single country near it - Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen - how long before Pakistan?

they already have in Pakistan, zainbiyoon brigade has most volunteers from pakistan and the kurram valley pasthuns of a tribe (turi iirc) are shia, and they are under Iran's control but the demographics of pakistan (majority sunni) will not allow the same control that Iran enjoyed elsewhere.

the local pakistanis are radical enough that they will clash with shia militants that Iran may fund in pakistan, just few months back couple dozens were killed in shia sunni clashes in pakistan, when Iran tried to support shias of parachinar pakistan pushed back.

Pakistan says Iran’s statement on Parachinar clashes ‘unwarranted’

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s foreign office spokesperson on Thursday rejected Iran’s recent statement condemning violent clashes in its northwestern Parachinar town, saying it was “unwarranted” and based on an “incomplete picture” of the situation. At least 32 people were killed and over 190 injured in...

www.arabnews.com

 

[BMD]

We had planned to take Pakistan out before they got nukes, the Americans didn't let us.

And that surprises you? Slightly murderous don't you think? I guess stabilisation was required to save lives.

India getting nukes came as a surprise to everyone, even the US. It happened in 1974, 'cause the US sent a carrier after us in 1971. It was obviously too late by then.

Smiling Buddha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US then let Pakistan balance the equation.

Good job based on your opening remark.

Imagine a world without Pakistan and without Pakistani nukes or terrorism.

Well you just told us about that world in your opening remarks - lot of lives lost is that world.

 

[jetray]

Only a fool would believe that. The myth of friendly/safe terrorists has been dispelled many times.

I said India is not a priority for them for the time being, not that they are good. Just pakistan based terrorists are ok with west.

Yeah, unless they arm some terrorist groups who don't like the way India is treating Muslims. They already provide terrorist groups with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and unlike the West, India doesn't have enough nukes to turn every single square centimetre of Iran into glass if they try anything stupid.

why would we fight Iran ? As long as they are occupied with west , we will not have any issues.
We have seen all sort of sh*** in kashmir, all these new idiots dont make any difference to us.

 

[randomradio]

And that surprises you? Slightly murderous don't you think? I guess stabilisation was required to save lives.

Our goal wasn't to destroy Pakistan personally, it was to retake Kashmir, and create enough pressure on their armed forces that they would lose control of the rest of the country and balkanize.

Even in the future, if we are to go to war, the main aim will be to balkanize, not do what Russia and Israel are doing on their respective enemies.

Well you just told us about that world in your opening remarks - lot of lives lost is that world.

Nope. Just balkanize. Look up what we did to a united Pakistan in the same war, 1971.

It was a two phase war, the first was to liberate BD, the second was to retake Kashmir with the follow-on hope that other local separatist movements will gain ground and split from Pakistan. There's potential for 3 or 4 countries there. There are 4 major ethnicities fighting each other, the Punjabis who hold actual power, the second best would be from Sindh, the third and fourth groups are Balochs and Pashtuns (allied to the Taliban).

Otoh, now, we could be talking about nuclear annihilation. So, from mere balkanization leading to potential global peace in 1971, at least as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned (imagine no 9/11, no Taliban), to now a potential nuclear war where the primary targets are women and children, the West created this monster.

Now, @jetray is laughing at how you have created your own new Pakistan in the process. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, they are bound to make their own IRBMs and ICBMs that will eventually threaten Europe and the US. So, congratulations, you've played yourself.

 

[BMD]

Our goal wasn't to destroy Pakistan personally, it was to retake Kashmir, and create enough pressure on their armed forces that they would lose control of the rest of the country and balkanize.

You have half of Kashmir, they have half of Kashmir, that's the way it should have been split in the first place. And that second statement says a lot about the full facts of 1971 that you probably didn't want it to say.

Even in the future, if we are to go to war, the main aim will be to balkanize, not do what Russia and Israel are doing on their respective enemies.

Israel didn't want a war at all, it seems you do though, as is clear from your posts. It really is just as well they got nukes.

Nope. Just balkanize. Look up what we did to a united Pakistan in the same war, 1971.

So Pakistan wasn't the only one in the wrong, always suspected that. There's no balkanisation without loss of life. Russia tried that in Ukraine and see what happened - not only huge life loss in that war but several other conflicts started across Africa and the Middle East as a result of Putin's plan.

It was a two phase war, the first was to liberate BD, the second was to retake Kashmir with the follow-on hope that other local separatist movements will gain ground and split from Pakistan. There's potential for 3 or 4 countries there. There are 4 major ethnicities fighting each other, the Punjabis who hold actual power, the second best would be from Sindh, the third and fourth groups are Balochs and Pashtuns (allied to the Taliban).

Otoh, now, we could be talking about nuclear annihilation. So, from mere balkanization leading to potential global peace in 1971, at least as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned (imagine no 9/11, no Taliban), to now a potential nuclear war where the primary targets are women and children, the West created this monster.

What you're saying is also monstrous and Machiavellian. Have you ever considered that maybe others see you as the monster in supporting Russia's war on Ukraine. You could say the same thing about the potential for balkanising India, I mean you've had more sectarian massacres in the last 40 years:

List of massacres in India - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of massacres in Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, @jetray is laughing at how you have created your own new Pakistan in the process. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, they are bound to make their own IRBMs and ICBMs that will eventually threaten Europe and the US. So, congratulations, you've played yourself.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons for 26 years and it's done a good job of keeping the peace between you two, which is just as well given your goals. A country whose stated goal is wiping out another and spreading violence and regional instability through arming militant groups getting nuclear weapons is not a good idea.

 

[BMD]

I said India is not a priority for them for the time being, not that they are good. Just pakistan based terrorists are ok with west.

That's really less than true, see the Afghan conflict and where Bin Laden was hiding. Priorities change.

why would we fight Iran ? As long as they are occupied with west , we will not have any issues.
We have seen all sort of sh*** in kashmir, all these new idiots dont make any difference to us.

Unless it does...

 

[randomradio]

You have half of Kashmir, they have half of Kashmir, that's the way it should have been split in the first place. And that second statement says a lot about the full facts of 1971 that you probably didn't want it to say.

How about giving me half your house? 'Cause that's the way it should be.

As per the rules the Brits themselves set, the Kashmiri king legally acceded to India. That's why all of Kashmir belongs to India. They control half 'cause they invded.

Israel didn't want a war at all, it seems you do though, as is clear from your posts. It really is just as well they got nukes.

Neither does India.

So Pakistan wasn't the only one in the wrong, always suspected that. There's no balkanisation without loss of life. Russia tried that in Ukraine and see what happened - not only huge life loss in that war but several other conflicts started across Africa and the Middle East as a result of Putin's plan.

Pakistan is practically in an eternal civil war 'cause a lot of parts want freedom. The PA has been killing minorities on a regular basis.

What you're saying is also monstrous and Machiavellian. Have you ever considered that maybe others see you as the monster in supporting Russia's war on Ukraine. You could say the same thing about the potential for balkanising India, I mean you've had more sectarian massacres in the last 40 years:

It's an environment created by the West. India is the victim here.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons for 26 years and it's done a good job of keeping the peace between you two, which is just as well given your goals. A country whose stated goal is wiping out another and spreading violence and regional instability through arming militant groups getting nuclear weapons is not a good idea.

Those Pakistani nukes will be used on the West one day.

 

[BMD]

How about giving me half your house? 'Cause that's the way it should be.

Kashmir didn't belong to either of you at the start and the person in charge of it wasn't elected.

As per the rules the Brits themselves set, the Kashmiri king legally acceded to India. That's why all of Kashmir belongs to India. They control half 'cause they invded.

You and your nob polishers have already made the argument, over in the Diego Garcia thread, that an unelected leader doesn't have the right to even sell land to another country, never mind give it. So by extension, the unelected Kashmiri Prince giving you Kashmir was even more illegal.

Neither does India.

No you just want to take the rest of Kashmir and balkanise Pakistan. No war there huh?

Pakistan is practically in an eternal civil war 'cause a lot of parts want freedom. The PA has been killing minorities on a regular basis.

Even more sectarian massacres have happened in India as I pointed put.

It's an environment created by the West. India is the victim here.

Oh sure, talk about balkanising your neighbour, support the annexation of European country by helping the invader to bypass sanctions and yet you are still the victim.

Those Pakistani nukes will be used on the West one day.

 

[BMD]

Israel says Iran attack will be 'deadly, precise and surprising'; Ex-UK soldier denies passing secrets to Iran

Jerusalem (AFP) Oct 9, 2024 - Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said on Wednesday that Israel's retaliation against Iran for last week's missile barrage will be deadly, precise and surprising.

www.spacewar.com

 

[Parthu]

Israel says Iran attack will be 'deadly, precise and surprising'; Ex-UK soldier denies passing secrets to Iran

Jerusalem (AFP) Oct 9, 2024 - Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said on Wednesday that Israel's retaliation against Iran for last week's missile barrage will be deadly, precise and surprising.

www.spacewar.com

Get it over with already. Take out Khamenei in his bunker.

What are the Israelis waiting for?

 

[BMD]

Get it over with already. Take out Khamenei in his bunker.

What are the Israelis waiting for?

Until the serving dish has reached absolute zero.

 

[randomradio]

Kashmir didn't belong to either of you at the start and the person in charge of it wasn't elected.

Yes, and then it passed on to us.

It doesn't matter who was elected, neither was the British Empire.

You and your nob polishers have already made the argument, over in the Diego Garcia thread, that an unelected leader doesn't have the right to even sell land to another country, never mind give it. So by extension, the unelected Kashmiri Prince giving you Kashmir was even more illegal.

The former was illegal. The latter was legal. All stakeholders had agreed to it, so there was consensus.

No you just want to take the rest of Kashmir and balkanise Pakistan. No war there huh?

Yep. They will fight on their own.

Even more sectarian massacres have happened in India as I pointed put.

Lol, nope.

Oh sure, talk about balkanising your neighbour, support the annexation of European country by helping the invader to bypass sanctions and yet you are still the victim.

Yes. We didn't start the fire.

 

[randomradio]

Get it over with already. Take out Khamenei in his bunker.

What are the Israelis waiting for?

Guess they have not decided yet. This could be the start of an all-out war after all.

Israel to decide its attack on Iran today: What are its options?

Israel is poised to finalize its response to Iran's missile attack, with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant promising a 'lethal' and 'precise' strike. Despite disagreements with the US, Israel plans to target military bases, avoiding nuclear or oil facilities, while weighing the risk of Iranian...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[BMD]

Yes, and then it passed on to us.

It doesn't matter who was elected, neither was the British Empire.

According to the UN/ICJ it does - see Diego Garcia - and that's even when you paid for it

The former was illegal. The latter was legal. All stakeholders had agreed to it, so there was consensus.

All stakeholders at the time agreed to Diego Garcia too, but stakeholders weren't all elected. In the case of Kashmir, the unelected stakeholder was appointed by a colonial empire LOL.

Yep. They will fight on their own.

That's what Putin thought in 2014 too. Here's where it got him:

Russia casualties reach 600,000 during war in Ukraine, Pentagon says

While staggering, the losses don't mean a clear victory for Ukraine either, U.S. officials said.

www.defensenews.com

Lol, nope.

Yup, see last 40 years:

List of massacres in India - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of massacres in Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes. We didn't start the fire.

Billy Joel just phoned The Cholas, and you are once again incorrect.

 

[BMD]

Something for hardliners in Iran to consider:

Jericho 3 | Missile Threat

Jericho 3 is a solid-fueled intermediate-range ballistic missile developed and produced by Israel to replace its older Jericho 2 ballistic missiles. It was first tested in 2008, and entered service in 2011. Jericho 3 Development Reports suggest that the Jericho 3 missile, also designated the...

missilethreat.csis.org

Jericho 3 at a Glance​

Range: 4,800 – 6,500 km

The missile is reportedly equipped with a 750 kg nuclear warhead with a yield between 150 and 400 kT.8 It is suspected that there are decoys included in the payload and several independently targeted RVs (if equipped with the smaller nuclear yield). It has a range of 4,800 to 6,500 km and uses inertial guidance with a radar guided warhead.9

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.

nuclearsecrecy.com

 

[randomradio]

According to the UN/ICJ it does - see Diego Garcia - and that's even when you paid for it

All stakeholders at the time agreed to Diego Garcia too, but stakeholders weren't all elected. In the case of Kashmir, the unelected stakeholder was appointed by a colonial empire LOL.

No. All stakeholders were not involved. The Chagossians are still claiming they are not involved, although Mauritius was. But this is colonization. India's case is about freedom.

If we really argue along your point, then India should never have been partitioned because the Brits made the rules with the intention of balkanizing India, which failed partially. What didn't work out for Pakistan and Britain is the rule supposed to help them in turn benefitted India because Pakistan was foolish enough to invade Kashmir, and they did it with the support of the British. And the Indian side used the same British laws of accession against Pakistan and Britain.

That's what Putin thought in 2014 too. Here's where it got him:

Russia casualties reach 600,000 during war in Ukraine, Pentagon says

While staggering, the losses don't mean a clear victory for Ukraine either, U.S. officials said.

www.defensenews.com

Lol.

Yup, see last 40 years:

List of massacres in India - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of massacres in Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lol.

Billy Joel just phoned The Cholas, and you are once again incorrect.

The Cholas invaded SE Asia because the kingdoms there cut off the trade route between India and China. Once again, we didn't start the fire.

We have the cleanest history in the world. We had a proper Hindu-based democratic society that did not have slavery or kill anyone en masse for thousands of years until the arrival of Islam.

Read what Megasthenes has to say about India.

Indica (Megasthenes) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And guess what, we, at least the Hindus in India, follow pretty much the same customs as before.

The leftists in India are so screwed up, they don't even try to report India's true history. While india was growing, the Chinese were busy killing each other.

This video clearly indicates why India was number 1. Compare that to how f*cked up China was. And look at the period during British rule and what independence did for India. The British make Hitler, Mao and Stalin look like chumps.

We had Islamic rule, followed by British rule, followed by leftist rule. Now that Hindus are back in power, almost, if this stays, we will go back to being the greatest. The world will find peace and prosperity as long as Hindus rule India. So, no, we didn't start the fire. We are people who douse the fire.