₦airaland Forum

Helinuse:
So if Saddam, Assad, and AlBaghadi didn’t survive, did Khamenei survive?

If he didn’t, what makes him superior to those guys when throws guys survived hundreds of days than he did?

😅😅😅

Wait... are you even following your own argument anymore?

You spent several comments calling Iran "0/10", weak, useless, and comparable to ISIS. Now suddenly your benchmark for greatness is whether someone survives assassination attempts forever? 😂

By that logic, every cartel boss hiding in mountains for 20 years is greater than world powers.

And your comparison still fails because:
Saddam lost his country.
Baghdadi lost his caliphate.
ISIS collapsed territorially.
Assad only remained because of heavy foreign backing.
Yet Iran as a state still exists, still projects influence, still affects global oil markets, still shapes regional conflicts, and still forces major powers to constantly respond to it.

You keep reducing geopolitics to "who died faster" like this is WWE rankings .

Also, you accidentally destroyed your own earlier point. If Iran was truly as irrelevant as you claimed, why would the US and Israel dedicate massive intelligence, sanctions, cyber operations, assassinations, military coalitions, and years of containment policies toward it?

Nobody spends decades strategically containing a "1/10" actor.

Your entire argument is built on emotional mockery, not coherent reasoning.

educatedfool:
Wait... are you even following your own argument anymore?

You spent several comments calling Iran "0/10", weak, useless, and comparable to ISIS. Now suddenly your benchmark for greatness is whether someone survives assassination attempts forever? 😂

By that logic, every cartel boss hiding in mountains for 20 years is greater than world powers.

And your comparison still fails because:
Saddam lost his country.
Baghdadi lost his caliphate.
ISIS collapsed territorially.
Assad only remained because of heavy foreign backing.
Yet Iran as a state still exists, still projects influence, still affects global oil markets, still shapes regional conflicts, and still forces major powers to constantly respond to it.

You keep reducing geopolitics to "who died faster" like this is WWE rankings .

Also, you accidentally destroyed your own earlier point. If Iran was truly as irrelevant as you claimed, why would the US and Israel dedicate massive intelligence, sanctions, cyber operations, assassinations, military coalitions, and years of containment policies toward it?

Nobody spends decades strategically containing a "1/10" actor.

Your entire argument is built on emotional mockery, not coherent reasoning.

Noticed that you grew out of the “argument is collapsing” line. 😅😅😅

Anyways, yes.
When a society is built around a person, and it is cut off, the society is totally defeated. What remains is simply a remains.

It happened during WW II on Germany. Hitler gone.
It happened during the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon arrested.
It happened in Libya. Gaddafi finished.
It happened during Iraq war. Saddam eliminated.


But these have had their leaders taken out, even though their leaders provided their ideology, and yet they never vanished:
Al Qaeda
Boko Haram
ISIS
Taliban
ISIL
Iran.

Do you know why? Because they are not an army but a terrorist group whom their leader never actually had control over his subjects, but had the privilege of leading their lust. 😅😅😅

And yes, the bench mark of greatness is not the “survival of a conflict” as Iran and extremist world describe it, but the survival of their ability to defend themselves (as in Ukraine) or the ability to take on the offensive as in Israel. No serious people loose their leader on the first day. Even Bokoharam don’t. And you are not serious if you do. Iran = -20/10.

😅😅

Helinuse:
Noticed that you grew out of the “argument is collapsing” line. 😅😅😅

Anyways, yes.
When a society is built around a person, and it is cut off, the society is totally defeated. What remains is simply a remains.

It happened during WW II on Germany. Hitler gone.
It happened during the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon arrested.
It happened in Libya. Gaddafi finished.
It happened during Iraq war. Saddam eliminated.


But these have had their leaders taken out, even though their leaders provided their ideology, and yet they never vanished:
Al Qaeda
Boko Haram
ISIS
Taliban
ISIL
Iran.

Do you know why? Because they are not an army but a terrorist group whom their leader never actually had control over his subjects, but had the privilege of leading their lust. 😅😅😅

And yes, the bench mark of greatness is not the “survival of a conflict” as Iran and extremist world describe it, but the survival of their ability to defend themselves (as in Ukraine) or the ability to take on the offensive as in Israel. No serious people loose their leader on the first day. Even Bokoharam don’t. And you are not serious if you do. Iran = -20/10.

😅😅

Lol this is getting funny.

You just spent paragraphs explaining why "terrorist groups survive after losing leaders," then accidentally exposed the irony yourself. The US and Israel did not march into Tehran, overthrow Iran, or even dare face Khamenei openly. Instead, the stories are always about secret operations, assassinations, sabotage, hiding behind air superiority and intelligence networks.

According to your own logic, if Iran was truly "finished on day one," why the obsession with sneaking around trying to hit one old man during Ramadan while he's inside his residence with family instead of facing Iran directly?

You mentioned Hitler, Napoleon, Saddam and Gaddafi. Funny enough, most of them were defeated after full invasions, years of war, occupation, coalitions of multiple countries and massive destruction. But for Iran, it's always "let's secretly eliminate scientists, secretly bomb facilities, secretly target commanders." That does not scream confidence. It screams fear of direct confrontation.

And calling Iran "-20/10" while Israel and the US allegedly need covert attacks, cyber warfare, sanctions, proxies and surprise strikes to contain them is hilarious.

A "non-serious" enemy usually gets crushed openly and quickly. Not treated like a long-term nightmare that requires decades of sneaky operations just to slow them down.

Another funny part.

Imagine praising "strength" while defending attacks carried out during negotiations and diplomatic talks. If someone truly believes they are superior, why wait until talks are happening before attempting assassinations and surprise strikes? Why not confront openly instead of hiding behind negotiations with one hand while planning attacks with the other?

That is exactly why many people see it as cowardly. You sit at the table pretending diplomacy is ongoing, then suddenly launch covert attacks hoping to catch the other side relaxed or vulnerable. That is not the behavior of people overflowing with confidence.

Even your example weakens your argument. If Iran was supposedly weak and unserious, there would be no need for secret operations during sensitive negotiations or while leaders are at home fasting with their families. You do that when you know direct confrontation carries consequences.

So the constant reliance on sabotage, assassinations and surprise attacks says more about fear of open conflict than "greatness."

educatedfool:
Lol this is getting funny.

Ok Sir
My argument has collapse

😅😅😅

Helinuse:
Ok Sir
My argument has collapse

😅😅😅

Lol don't worry, it survived longer than the "Iran got defeated on day one" argument.

Respect for admitting it though.

educatedfool:
Lol don't worry, it survived longer than the "Iran got defeated on day one" argument.

Respect for admitting it though.

My “argument collapsed.”

It did when you said that Iran still sponsors major conflicts in the world and so should be referred to as a super power, and then I remembered that Qatar and Turkey sponsors more than that, and yet still, are not in anyway a super power.

I just say, this conversation is dulling me out.
😅😅😅

Helinuse:
My “argument collapsed.”

It did when you said that Iran still sponsors major conflicts in the world and so should be referred to as a super power, and then I remembered that Qatar and Turkey sponsors more than that, and yet still, are not in anyway a super power.

I just say, this conversation is dulling me out.
😅😅😅

Your argument did not collapse because of Qatar or Turkey. It collapsed because you switched the definition halfway through the debate.

Nobody said "sponsoring conflicts = automatic superpower." The point was influence and geopolitical reach. Iran has armed networks and influence stretching across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and the Gulf, to the point global powers constantly calculate around them. Even critics admit Iran is one of the main regional power centers in the Middle East.

And bringing up Qatar as if it is in the same category is hilarious. Qatar is a wealthy microstate with influence through diplomacy and media. Even studies describing Qatar compare it as a small state beside larger regional powers like Turkey and Iran.

Turkey at least is a serious comparison because it actually has major military and regional weight. Qatar? That's like hearing "Manchester City spends money too" and concluding they are equal to the entire Premier League.

At this point you're not debating anymore, you're just throwing random countries into a blender hoping something sounds smart enough to escape the original point.

But yeah, if the conversation is "dulling you out," resting your brain might be the smartest argument you've made so far.

Arrowhead71:
Note that if Isreal is fighting Iran as whole....the deaths numbers will be more than 2800 reported by Iran regime in the 42 days war

Israel has been using USA to do its bidding!

Arrowhead71:
The attack by Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran on Israel has only succeeded in killing civilians......so what is the difference
The random missiles lunch into Israel by your Terrorists friend ..did they differentiate civilians from others
Because it's only when you guys suffer higher casualties you remember civilians and international nonsense you called laws

The Israelis too have been killing civilians in Gaza and other places! Why don't you call them similarly the same?