Russian submarine with 160 nuclear warheads appears off the coast of the United States

Well like a famous US general once said.... The object is not to die for your country it's to make sure the other bastard dies for his.

 

You forget on thing though, zoom copter - Russians have nothing to lose, except their miserable "vatnik" lives.

Can't scare a soaked man with rain (c)

 

Did they?

I haven't been able to find anything that supports this Pravda story from any other source. Not saying it isn't true for sure, but unless i see it from another source or two, i am going to assume that it's just the Russian bear hoping that it can convince people it really is a bear and not just a clown dancing in the circus.

 

I'm not interested in playing cards. I love chess more. By the way, Bobby Fischer said - "The US, controlled by Jews, is evil. They talk about the axis of evil. But what about the allies of evil? What about the USA, England, Japan, Australia and others? These are the ones who do evil."
But you like to play cards. Why? Do you imagine yourself as a dangerous crime boss that everyone should be afraid of? Try chess..... However, in a chess game one must be able to think. But you still try. Maybe you can make it.

 

And How? Did he die for his?

 

Ostriches, for example, hide their heads in the sand....

 

The Russian people don't, but Vlad and his State Mafia? They have a lot to lose.

 

and puffer fish try to make themselves appear more powerful than they really are.

 

The Trump Family name for this is 'puffery' .

 

Yet the Ruskies can't get a rocket into space. What surprises me is the Russian sub managed to not sink during the trip.

 

So the Russians are preparing to murder 300 million people?

figures

 

No.
Those are nothing but stupid arm bendings.
Zar Putin is bored.. he should deal with Iran's desire for Nukes instead of BS.

 

I'm surprised anyone in Iran would be allowed to celebrate pre-Islamic religious holidays. Usually Islamic dictatorships discourage any other forms of worship. Like the Taliban destroying the Buddha statues in Bamiyan.

 

You simply have no clue about Iran and the persistent propaganda you are exposed to makes things worse.

As for Nowrouz, it marks the Iranian new year and is official holiday observed by everyone in Iran, including Iranian clerics. In fact, Norouz begins with both Iran's Supreme Leader and Iran's president addressing the nation in separate speeches.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-new-year-khamenei-idUSKBN2BC0AY
Supreme leader ushers in Iranian New Year with message of hope

 

Isn't Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in fact some kind of supreme religious chieftain who wields the power of Allah? Or do I misunderstand Iran's religious dictatorship?

 

You don't understand Iran's system. I can't cover all the complexities of Iran's unique system in a short message here, but: the "Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution" is a high ranking cleric (not even necessarily the highest ranking) selected by an elected body, the Assembly of Experts, and tasked with political responsibilities. On purely religious matters, Shia faithful are supposed to pick their "source of emulation" (marjah) from among dozens of "learned" shia scholars/mujtahids called "Ayatollahs, with Ayatollah Khamenie being merely one of them.

Anyway, my main point to you wasn't about Iran's form of government, but your lack of Iranian/Persian Shia Islamic tradition, which isn't about what you imagine. To oversimplify it, being "shia" meant being a dissident who rejected the legitimacy of the Islamic caliphate without rejecting being a "Muslim". The basis for rejecting it had to do with questions about who would be the rightful successor to the prophet? But fused with pre Islamic Persian traditions, in Iran, shia Islam became a vehicle for preserving many pre Islamic Iranian attitudes. The "shia umbrella" in any case is very flexible when it comes to accepting different traditions. The Alawites in Syria were/are considered heretics by most sunni Muslims and their beliefs have very little to do with "Islam". Yet, they are considered "shia" by Iran's shia clerics. And Iran's constitution, in accord with Iran's shia tradition (but not sunni mainstream tradition) recognizes (besides the other Abrahamic religions, namely Christianity and Judiasm) also Zoroastrians as protected religious minorities as well.

 

Why keep any of the Arabic Allah worshipping trappings if it's the pre-Islamic Persian civilization that matters? I don't get how Persia ever allowed itself to be taken over by Mohammad's so-called religion of peace.

 

1- The term "Allah" simply means God in the Arabic language. The Persian term for God is "Khoda" (also transliterated as "Khuda".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuda

It doesn't matter if you are called "God worshiping", "Allah worshiping", or "Khoda worshiping", its all the same thing. It means you are not an atheist and believe in a (single) higher being.

2- The Islamization of Iran/Persia took a couple of centuries after the conquest of Iran. It really succeeded only after the Arab Umayad caliphate was overthrown in the 9th century by a revolution spearheaded in Iran, replaced by the Persianized "Abassid caliphate" which ushered the Golden Age of Islam -- and where political power was not only defused with the rise of local dynasts (think a federal-like system) but the administration of the caliphate itself was left to Persian administrators. Even the capital was a moved to a new city, named Baghdad, built at the site of the old Persian capital, Cteisphon.

3- Unlike all the lands the Arabs conquered, whose people became not only Muslim but Arab (when being "Arab" was in vogue), the Persians managed to retain their separate, distinct, identity. But if in the 8th-9th centuries, the biggest threat to Iran's separate, distinct, Persian identity were the "Arabs", the "West" has posed that threat today. And the same way the Persians fought to keep Rome from advancing into the Middle East for eight centuries; it is now fighting to keep the new flag bearers for the West from encroaching on its domain. And if history is any judge, Iran will succeed:

A) it will succeed the same way it succeeded in ancient times converting the flag bearer of a xenophobic form of Hellenism, namely Alexander (who burnt the seat of what was really the seat of the first world government, the Persian capital the Greeks called Persepolis), into a philo-Iranian ruler seeking to establish a world government by the marriage of his generals to Persian princesses (and the fusion of Macedonian and Persian race) as rulers of the new world order Alexander envisioned...and then kicking out these foreign invaders and re-establishing Iranian rule over Iran and much of the Middle East as rightful heirs to the Persian throne (while Rome looked itself eventually as rightful heirs to Alexander's throne, fighting Iran in the so-called Persian-Roman wars for nearly 800 years.

B) it will succeed the same way it succeeded even losing their empire to the new Arab invaders, when the Persian managed to conquer "Arab Islam" from within and transform it into "Iranian Islam", while keeping Iran's distinct Persian identity and regain Iran's political independence, consigning those Arab invaders to the role of largely of impotent caliphs and eventually back to their deserts in Arabia...

C) it will succeed the same way it succeeded in converting the Mongols who had ravaged and pillaged the whole of Iran at first, to eventually become flag bearers of Iranian Islam and (ironically) Iranian nationalism - the Mongol Ilkhanate of "Iranzamin" (land of Iran) becoming the center for revival of Persian traditions and Iran's national epic, the Shahnameh (Book of Kings). (very ironic because much of the story of the Shahnameh revolves around war between mythical kingdoms of Iran -- representing the forces of good -- against an enemy called Turan -- inhabited by mongoloid peoples in the East).

Iran will succeed because you cannot prevail over truth or beauty merely by brute force. You cannot burn it down even if you burn its capital as Alexander burned Persepolis. You cannot conquer it even if you ravage and pillage its towns and cities as the Mongols did. You can be even the most obnoxious European racist, believe so much in the superiority of Nordic races that you look down even at many of your own country-men as half-breds, like Comte de Gobineau (father of so-called 'scientific racism'), and come to a country whose people are definitely not Nordics, fall in love with it like no other place, mesmerized by it the rest of your life. Iran can only be overcome, even then temporarily, by ignorance and falsehood.

 

Nice information Iran Monitor thanks for sharing you knowledge. Now tell me why Iran has morality police that go around making sure women have their hair covered and aren't wearing provocative clothing.

 

You are welcome.

On the issue you raise, briefly for now, let me say two things which I will need to explain some other time:
1- Iran has many policies I don't support and what you allude to is one of them.
2- Almost all countries have some sort of regulation on attire allowed or prohibited depending on the setting. For instance, laws proscribing public nudity, which reflect social and cultural norms of what is nudity for men as opposed to women, as well as regulations (public or private) of how you are to dress or not in one place or another. The important thing is that, in the context of public regulations, they accord with evolving societal and cultural standards.

 

And this too. Look at any US TV channels, everywhere the same thing - "we are the greatest", "we will now bring down sanctions", "we are the most important in the world." Really resembles puffer fish.
It also reminds me of Banderlogs from The Jungle Book. Remember how a flock of banderlogs yelled - "We are great! We are free! We are admirable! We are admirable, like no other people in the jungle! We all say so - it means it's true!"

 

Do you suppose there is anything to the theory circulating that Friday's blast was not volcanic, but nuclear, delivered by a Russian torpedo?

 

I beat an electronic chess set on the "hard" setting once. I couldn't believe it. Chess sets on that setting typically beat me in 10 moves or less.

 

Any nuclear explosion large enough to cause a tsunami would be easily identifiable as a nuclear weapon going off even from half a world away.

 

What makes you think any Russian SSBN is not being trailed by an American nuclear attack submarine which is fully capable of sinking it the moment it shows it is preparing to launch?