newacctidk [none/use name] @ newacctidk @hexbear.net

Posts

10

Comments

478

Joined

1 yr. ago

I asked for people actually doing that, and the one example you gave I said I agreed with you on. How is that dooming? This word means nothing at this point, you created for yourself a version of "woke". And what unsupported assumptions? apartment blocks in Tehran got blown up, Iran's defenses did not halt Israel's bombings all last night. Iran themselves had already talked about getting them "back online".

Iranian defenses DID fail to stop those strikes. That is not an assumption, it is supported by the fact that they literally didn't manage to stop them. So while others are discussing the sabotage which low and behold hours later we are getting more and more specifics on, you were brow beating me for.....saying missiles hit on account of missiles hitting?

You are demanding people just ignore damage to Iran, as "unsupported assumptions". What did I say that was unsupported? Did those buildings just do that randomly at the same time Israel fired missiles? This was observably a failure of security and defense, that is not debatable. You are talking as if I said Israel actually nuked Tehran and Iran surrendered. You don't want reality, you want to complain that people are dooming, and so you adapt dooming and what people are actually saying to accommodate that.

This was me 16 hours ago btw

If people are expecting collapse that is crazy. They worst case scenario here is Iran's offensive capabilities and means of threatening Israel are fucked. NOT their ability to function as a state. I don't want to be braggadocios, but they survived the Iran-Iraq war. Strain from bombings is not going to break what didn't break during a decade of fucking trench warfare hell and atrocities abound.

I do wonder how far Israel thinks they can get with this though.

See I am thinking the opposite. That politically they don't have the division Syria had, and that while things can get rocky, they should be fine. But while yes they can outlast the US in conventional military strength, and my money is on them for any US invasion; the threat they posed to Israel as a deterrent is severely weakened. Israel knows for sure that they can strike with ease. Iran no longer has Syria as a means of directly getting ground troops to Israel's border. They can't use Hezbollah any time soon for a threat to Israel on the ground. All they have is the threat of missiles in retaliation, which is significant, but clearly not cutting it with Israel right now. The chance of getting their nuclear program running at all is effectively dead, let alone the chance of doing so and being able to secretly create a nuke for their protection.

it is not a matter of them being able to be militarily defeated, I don't think that is the case. What has been damaged is the immediate threat to Israel. Now, even if they wanted to, their chance of countering Israel in Syria let alone Palestine is diminished greatly. Iran is losing a lot of power projection, least that is what I am worried about

Yeah such dooming, you got me. Viewing dead Iranians as a tragedy and not just something to shrug off and treat as not a loss is such doomerism

Do you think Marmalade is dooming as well? Is anything but complete certainty that no setbacks have occurred doomerism? Starting to think that whole label might be dumb rhetoric and a thought terminating cliche to lump anyone you don't agree with into one. From people saying Russia has lost to those saying the strikes on Russia's airfields are not good for Russian security.

Oh so you are saying I was dooming? So you finally want to actually admit what you are complaining about instead of gesturing at a different comment and vague posting about what you THINK people feel?

You said your problem was people saying Iran had lost the war, i trusted you had nuance, I guess I was wrong, you really did see any view that Iran getting struck like that was bad as complete doomerism.

Point me to what I said that was doomer? You gonna be passive aggressive and vague, or are you going to admit that you are angry at me for saying Iran's defenses failed and Israel's attack was more effective than it should have been? Because that is ALL my comments have been about in this thread. I seriously thought you had to nuance to only be talking about people saying Iran lost, but now you are saying I have been dooming? For what, saying the S-300 system being taken out and nothing replacing it was bad?

WHen did I say Iran had lost the war? Don't vague post, or construct narratives, actually speak

god that was satisfying. I am sure they are going after another missile, but just seeing them respond only for one to sweep right past them anyways and hit is beautiful

Pour one out for baby bombers squadrons

Didn't Israel try to hit a water plant last night? I mean it would be only fair.....lol

edit: you know what this really does not matter. You mentioned the Battle of Britain, but we don't need parallels, we have what is happening right now which can be judged on its own, not fit into a specific box of "well unless ships are involved then it is irrelevant"

Iran suffered losses and Israel was able to strike them with no real pushback in the attack itself. Iran's defenses got hit from inside Iran via drone attacks, their S-300s have been out of commission since October of last year. You don't need the Battle of Britain in order to determine that that is a defeat for Iran's air defenses. NOT THE WAR, but the air defenses during this attack. Which so far everyone has been talking about save for one comment from what you have shown me.

Don't vague post complaining about people, actually respond to them directly instead of policing everyone's language and attitudes based on your interpretation of what they are thinking in their homes at this moment. You are fixated on what other people might think this means for an entire war, than what people are actually saying about this event itself.

Iran is already striking back and hard. Debating about whether or not someone here THOUGHT about this in the context of the entire war to come or not is really silly. The damage to iran is the damage to Iran, and should be judged based on how well it was mitigated, not just the response down the line, and certainly not based on WW2 comparisons.

Yes but involvement in this case would be distinct from the military acting primarily on its own, and as an institution. For instance the soldiers who sided with the Bolsheviks did so as defectors, or as already having been arrested for treason

I guess it depends on if you can pair them with good missile strikes. But once the cat is out of the bag, you wont get another chance soon

Yeah, iran being far from defeated does not make this any less of a tragedy and something that should have been prevented/mitigated. People I think are writing off losses very haphazardly under the presumption that Iran won't cease to exist. As if that fact means the losses are fine. Russia is not gonna collapse or even lose because of the drone attacks, but it doesn't mean that was not a huge breach of security.

That and Iran's offensive capabilities still matter, not for its own security but for their ability to defend Palestine....theoretically, not that they have actually done so recently.

So are the defenses back online or not?

Shhh they could still win the war, so this situation is fine dontcha know?

I actually do agree with you on this. With the strikes on several missile launch sites, and damage to radar systems, Iran is going to check damages first, make sure they are safe to launch, before they start anything. it sucks, but you don't want to fire what is available in one wave only to find out during the next one that several sites still cannot launch. It would be negligent to not do proper damage analysis

The Soviet's winning the war is irrelevant to the action of June 1941. THAT is my point. You can lose a battle and still win the war, but you are fixated on browbeating anyone for implying they lost this battle. It was not even a battle, it was a slaughter which Iran could not resist in the moment, and will now have to endure, regroup, and fight back.

Your overarching point is moving the goalposts as much as possible because one person was being totally defeatist and people upvoted it. Also we do have enough information to say for certain that Israel's attack was not repulsed. After Pearl Harbor most ships could be salvaged and were up and running months later, does that mean Pearl Harbor was not a tactical defeat for the US? Was Barbarossa not a defeat for the USSR?

Saying "YEAH BUT THEY WON" is not a response to what I am saying. Whatever stupid thing someone else said, sure, but I am talking about THIS engagement on the 12th. There is a difference between dooming and calling something bad, and treating those as the same is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and saying things are perfectly fine.

Also you are using "Battle of Britain" as if it was a battle. it was a campaign, the name is just for alliteration. You CAN treat individual days as successes or defeats. if military analysts looked back and said "nuh uh any failures during the blitz are not failures because we won, don't analyze why this thing worked and this thing didn't" that would be foolish. if battle is so wrong then fine, the action on the 12th was a defeat for Iran.

We do know that the defenses failed btw. I don't trust EuroNews but this has been corroborated a bunch and is consistent with what happened https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/13/israels-mossad-mounts-high-tech-covert-operation-to-strike-targets-deep-inside-iran-source

Mossad took down their defenses prior to the attack. That is a security breach, I don't know how you can say that isn't.

You can see the discrepancy here https://x.com/Seamus_Malek/status/1933516844578844953 This does not mean Iran lost the war, you know I am not saying that. But calling this minor damage or saying the defenses held up is just denying observable reality. They can rebuild, they can fight back, they can and MUST win. But that does not make what happened yesterday alright or not a security failure. That was my point about Barbarossa, yes the Soviets won, but no one would call Barbarossa a Soviet victory, or anything less than a devastating defeat. Screaming "but they won" does not make the destroyed buildings not a problem or the breaches of security acceptable

Here is a spokesperson for the Armed Police in China who seems to think Mossad's footage of their raid on iran's defenses is accurate https://x.com/zhao_dashuai/status/1933455756889895329

Calling that defeatism and jumping the gun is just covering your ears, as is framing any comments on it as equivalent to saying Iran has lost the war.

An Israeli strike just targeted a border crossing building in Khuzestan, at the Iraqi border. https://x.com/Seamus_Malek/status/1933367855744995634

Looks like Israel really wants to drag Iraq into this

Air defense systems failing to stop an attack that was pretty telegraphed IS a defeat. This is if nothing else a morale loss for the time being. Yes they CAN turn that around, but that doesn't mean this was not a defeat in and of itself. You can move the goalposts to make anything short of total defeat in a war into not being a "real defeat". Was Operation Barbarossa not a defeat for the Red Army? They greatly failed to anticipate their enemy, they lost a ton of ground, they lost a ton of men, they lost a ton of equipment. Much of the Soviet airforce for instance was destroyed in the opening weeks.

That doesn't mean they didn't make the Nazis pay for it, and eventually stopped the tide, but those were still losses. it would be ludicrous to look at the air war on June 22 and not call it a defeat.

Or for another example, Pearl Harbor, the US pretty soundly won the War in the Pacific, but the intelligence and defensive failure to stop that attack was still a defeat. It signaled complete unconditional surrender down the line, but the battle itself was devastating for even having happened.

I just think it is silly to treat the bombing of Tehran and the striking of several nuclear facilities and missile launch bases with a near absence of successful air defenses as something other than a defeat and a loss. You are preemptively counting retaliation in whether or not this strike worked. That kind of goalpost moving is a disservice to the lives lost and the materiel destroyed in this blow.

What has anyone said that is equivalent to "that's it lads we lost the Canal, it's over"? You are asking me to imagine a scenario that parallels something I never said. You went for the Battle of Britain or the entire war being lost, no one else did. You decided that calling this a defeat at all, would be the equivalent of calling losses during an entire campaign a total defeat. You have to know you are being disingenuous.

Was 9/11 not a defeat strategically for the US? I know that is not really a fair comparison, but yours sure as hell is not either.

So let's just regard this in the context of itself. Israel struck Iran and Iran's defenses failed, that is a bad thing and a failure of defense. They could take down Israel by tomorrow and it would still have been a loss for Iran that this strike went off so well. That is ALL that is being said. Not that the war is lost or the west is ascendant, but that anti-missile systems failing so thoroughly like this is a net loss for Iran.

They could have not been hit this hard and been able to do whatever retaliation they are gonna do in the next hours, but sadly that is not what happened, and it is ok to admit that fact. These are not losses to attrition, or losses in a battle, but little-contested losses. That doesn't mean they are losses on the level of losing a war, but they are still a nasty scar.

I am sure Iran will strike back hard, and I have faith in them. I have faith that they will see this through. But I am not going to shrug off or trivialize the loss of life and security breach that occurred just to make myself feel better.

edit: and I say this with nothing but love comrade. I am snippy and exhausted so I apologize if I come off rude

If people are expecting collapse that is crazy. They worst case scenario here is Iran's offensive capabilities and means of threatening Israel are fucked. NOT their ability to function as a state. I don't want to be braggadocios, but they survived the Iran-Iraq war. Strain from bombings is not going to break what didn't break during a decade of fucking trench warfare hell and atrocities abound.

I do wonder how far Israel thinks they can get with this though.

The storm is coming

They have to have been closed off like this before. How long does that take to clear? As long as they get air defenses ready for attempts to bomb the clearing operation

Shhh it is dooming to say missile bases being blown up is a set-back