Caporegime
I am quite certain that Iran post-revolution was a different country to pre-revolutiuon. Entirely different constitutions for starters.
ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
I am quite certain that Iran post-revolution was a different country to pre-revolutiuon. Entirely different constitutions for starters.
So you'd also agree that Afghanistan only came into existence in 2004 as well then? And how about france? They got a new constitution in the 1950s, are they a different country?
There is no argument that a change in name and government means in reality foreign policy before the change is broadly irrelevant but to say Iran is a different country (which you are implying arguing it hasn't been around for 200 years) is a bit of a stretch. I think almost every Iranian alwould agree with me on that point.
Caporegime
I am quite certain that Iran post-revolution was a different country to pre-revolutiuon, and I'm 100% certain that every Iranian would agree with me on that point. I know you don't really do subtlety but you're going to have to accept that this isn't entirely a black and white issue. I would say that having an Islamic revolution does tend to significantly change a country more than say, democratically electing a new government though.
Scorza lecturing on shades of grey?! Haha 
My other questions still stand, did what we know as Afghanistan come into existence in 2004, did the democratic Republic of Congo only become a country in 1996? iOS what we know as Iraq only become a country in 2003?
Just to clarify, Iran has been around for several hundred years (if not more), the current iteration has been around for about 40 years. (That'll be why official names are actually quite important).
My other questions still stand, did what we know as Afghanistan come into existence in 2004, did the democratic Republic of Congo only become a country in 1996? iOS what we know as Iraq only become a country in 2003?
Just to clarify, Iran has been around for several hundred years (if not more), the current iteration has been around for about 40 years. (That'll be why official names are actually quite important).
Last edited:
Caporegime
Scorza lecturing on shades of grey?! Haha
My other questions still stand, did what we know as Afghanistan come into existence in 2004, did the democratic Republic of Congo only become a country in 1996? iOS what we know as Iraq only become a country in 2003?
Well you are a bit of an Anastasia.
I'd agree that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a different country to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
In your world if someone lives in Prague, do they live in Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic or Slovakia?
The Islamic Revolution, the event that marks the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran was in 1979 - 36 years ago. Only you could dispute that
I'm not disputing that, but that was just a change of name after the overthrowing of a dictator, not the forming of a new country. The only thing that changed was the people running the country (and if the UK/US liked the country or not).
They had a democratically elected government, it nationalised the countries oil so we overthrew it and put a puppet dictator in charge, he wasn't big on elections so they had to have a revolution to oust him, lead by religious figures. This is one of the reasons Islam is so strong in Iran, because it literally delivered the people from evil.
Last edited:
Soldato
Poor Palmyra....
Czech Republic. It's borders have changed significantly along with the rest of the fundamentals of the country. As you rightly point out there are shades of grey in this. I'll ask a question back. If you asked an afghani or Iraqi born before the mid 90s (or Iranian born before the revolution) if they have changed their nationality what will they say?
And I also asked about france. By your definition France came into existence in 1956 with the 5th Republic (due to a change in constitution.
The reality is there has been a (very consistent) area of the world known as Iran, where people living there associate themselves with the name of Iran for hundreds of years. (just go look at a map).
I'm agreeing with you on the salient point though, which is you can't really say "Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years" and believe it is of that much relevance (other than to perhaps give an indication of the personalities of the culture that live there) due to the change in government and constitution. It's still Iran though (as opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran), the people are still Iranian and the culture hasn't changed (except becoming a bit more westernised).
And I also asked about france. By your definition France came into existence in 1956 with the 5th Republic (due to a change in constitution.
The reality is there has been a (very consistent) area of the world known as Iran, where people living there associate themselves with the name of Iran for hundreds of years. (just go look at a map).
I'm agreeing with you on the salient point though, which is you can't really say "Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years" and believe it is of that much relevance (other than to perhaps give an indication of the personalities of the culture that live there) due to the change in government and constitution. It's still Iran though (as opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran), the people are still Iranian and the culture hasn't changed (except becoming a bit more westernised).
So IS have captured 2 cities in the last 4 days, now taken over the last Syrian controlled border crossing between Iraq & Syria.
Seems 5 years of warfare have toughened these guys up somewhat.
The report I heard this morning was an IS force of 200 pushed out the defending Iraqi force of 2000 in Ramadi, that says more about the state of the Iraqi army than anything else....seems they haven't improved any since they rolled over on us when we gave them a kicking.
Still, for all the guys who think IS are going to sweep across Europe and subject everyone to Shariah law,, they would still get wiped in an instant in any form of convential warfare against any western US backed force. And IS would have to fight a convential war of some sorts, you can hardly capture and hold an enemy continent by guerrilla tactics.
A commentator on the war this morning mentioned surprise at the lack of any attacks on IS when they have just been travelling across the desert during these last few days between thier latest attacks, when they would have been exposed and vulnerable, so it seems our concerted efforts to defeat IS aren't that....concerted.
Seems 5 years of warfare have toughened these guys up somewhat.
The report I heard this morning was an IS force of 200 pushed out the defending Iraqi force of 2000 in Ramadi, that says more about the state of the Iraqi army than anything else....seems they haven't improved any since they rolled over on us when we gave them a kicking.
Still, for all the guys who think IS are going to sweep across Europe and subject everyone to Shariah law,
, they would still get wiped in an instant in any form of convential warfare against any western US backed force. And IS would have to fight a convential war of some sorts, you can hardly capture and hold an enemy continent by guerrilla tactics.A commentator on the war this morning mentioned surprise at the lack of any attacks on IS when they have just been travelling across the desert during these last few days between thier latest attacks, when they would have been exposed and vulnerable, so it seems our concerted efforts to defeat IS aren't that....concerted.
Soldato
I think that is mainly because we are not conducting ops the way we would conduct them. We are there to support ISF and are working a lot of the time under their direction. We are supporting their ops and their overall picture. It is their campaign and not ours (at the moment). I imagine much of it is kind of reassurance, displaying to ISF commanders that if they have a certain game plan then they see that happening in the way they imagined, thus instilling confidence in our relationship and support.
Soldato
Correct. They're not particularly effective. I said in the thread a while back, the Kurdish are much more disciplined.
Obviously IS will never make it anywhere near europe, but I do wonder if it is possible for them to completely take over the whole of Iraq and Syria given enough time?So IS have captured 2 cities in the last 4 days, now taken over the last Syrian controlled border crossing between Iraq & Syria.
Seems 5 years of warfare have toughened these guys up somewhat.
The report I heard this morning was an IS force of 200 pushed out the defending Iraqi force of 2000 in Ramadi, that says more about the state of the Iraqi army than anything else....seems they haven't improved any since they rolled over on us when we gave them a kicking.
Still, for all the guys who think IS are going to sweep across Europe and subject everyone to Shariah law,
A commentator on the war this morning mentioned surprise at the lack of any attacks on IS when they have just been travelling across the desert during these last few days between thier latest attacks, when they would have been exposed and vulnerable, so it seems our concerted efforts to defeat IS aren't that....concerted.
I suspect if it did happen they wouldn't get much further than that as all the countries around them will be forced to seriously act.
Caporegime
In case you missed it, they're near Europe now. People should stop underestimating them, when this thread got started they were about to have their backsides handed to them by US airstrikes, now they control an area of Syria larger than the area controlled by the Syrian government.
Then we have all those boat people migrating from IS held territory to Europe, which doesn't have the guts to do what needs to be done. It's going to happen - somewhere in Spain in the next 25 years is my prediction.
Caporegime
I'd rather have Theresa May's censorship law than submit to Islam.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,044
To be fair, if you were in a security post, you knew ISIS were coming along, possibility of suicide bomber running up to you, you have seen/heard of all the executions of captured soldiers, and that it was likely your comrades would be running away any time soon and you could be surrounded/captured, I think I'd be off too
Soldato
To be fair, if you were in a security post, you knew ISIS were coming along, possibility of suicide bomber running up to you, you have seen/heard of all the executions of captured soldiers, and that it was likely your comrades would be running away any time soon and you could be surrounded/captured, I think I'd be off too
But if they did have the suggested 2000 men vs 200. They would have had a good chance if they planned properly. Also what does running do? Eventually, they are going to control the whole of Syria. So unless they fight back for their rights, they will eventually come under control of ISIL.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Historically Iran was known as Persia to outsiders. I doubt there are many maps from 'hundreds of years' ago that refer to that region as Iran.
The big problem the Iraqi army has is that it has Sunni and Shia members, the government of Iraq is Shia (as are most Iraqis) and ISIS are Sunni (like Saddam was). If you were a Sunni in the Iraqi army would you want to fight to the death with other Sunnis in order to support a Shia government who hates/persecutes you? or would you simply run?
And once a number of soldiers start running more join them.