What's new

Iran arms embargo has officially been lifted by UN

Status
Not open for further replies.

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
367
2
677
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
There is zero resemblance between USSR-US struggle and Iranian-Israeli spat in the region. The US and Soviets had two competing dominant, global ideologies they were struggling for while Iran-Israel spat is about competing interests.
Competing ideologies are not a necessary factor in defining a struggle's existential character.

A state can just as well conceive its interest as residing in another state's removal from the political map. To give you an example, during the recent war in eastern Ukraine, authorities in Kiev sought to eliminate the three Republics which proclaimed their independence there. No globally scaled ideologies were involved.

Now this being said, the Iran-Isra"el" conflict pretty much sees two ideologies confronting each other, and two ideologies with universalist dimensions at that. As far as zionism is concerned, I'd advise to research the concept of Jewish universalism and how it is reflected in the policies of both Tel Aviv and international zionist lobbies. It is no coincidence that zionist elites occupy leading positions in various countries, particularly in the powerful western block. The connections between zionism, Isra"el", freemasonry and messianist globalism, with their ambitions to create a unified one-world regime concommittant with the building of the third temple in Al-Quds, should also not be overlooked.

As for Islamic Iran, the Iranian constitution requires the government to support the disinherited (mustaz'afin) all over the planet. Likewise, Shia Muslim eschathology and belief in the Mahdi shapes Iranian policy making to a non negligible extent.

These ideological, religious and in certain cases even mystical dimensions are all too often obfuscated by analysts. Yet they are very real.

It's true, there is no existential struggle between Iran and Israel. You are more than welcome to argue otherwise.
I just did. I will only add, that since Isra"el"'s enmity towards Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Syria proved to be very existential indeed, since all these nations ended up being subjected to war, destruction and balkanization as per zionist injunctions (refer to the Lewis-Yinon plan, among other clues), there is little doubt that Iran will be treated in the same manner should the zionists ever be given the chance.
 
Last edited:

Fighting Falcon 01

FULL MEMBER
Dec 27, 2019
198
0
389
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
P.S in regards to Iran buying JF-17s. If Iran wants CHINESE Fighter aircraft, Iran will buy it from CHINA and not Pakistan!
We own half the aircraft genius ...
I know enough to know that China developed the FC-1 fighter for Pakistan and no matter how much of the aircraft is now produced locally in Pakistan does not change that fact. So once again I will repeat myself just like you and that retarded tork that you have so much in common love to do. If Iran wants CHINESE aircraft, Iran will buy it from China
JF 17 is a JOINT VENTURE if Pakistan doesn't like to sell it to Iran then China can't sell it to you.... the word JF means joint venture we own half the project and if Pakistan wants no one will even give you the landing gear of JF 17 ... keep reverse engineering f5 tiger... Also the export variant of JF 17 block 2 is not the same as the one Pakistan is using its downgraded..... MR know it all better read some facts before howling[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Falcon29

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 13, 2013
22,112
-12
18,954
Country
Palestinian Territory, Occupied
Location
United States
Competing ideologies are not a necessary factor in defining a struggle's existential character.
I didn't say they need to be, however I did say Iran and Israel are not engaged in a existential struggle. You have not convinced me otherwise. It is apparent to everyone that Israel and the Israeli people, and Iran and the Iranian people do not seek war with each other and find it counterproductive and meaningless as they do not hate each other and both want to build up their nations power and standing and see themselves as similar innovative peoples.

Now this being said, the Iran-Isra"el" conflict pretty much sees two ideologies confronting each other, and two ideologies with universalist dimensions at that. As far as zionism is concerned, I'd advise to research the concept of Jewish universalism and how it is reflected in the policies of both Tel Aviv and international zionist lobbies. It is no coincidence that zionist elites occupy leading positions in various countries, particularly in the powerful western block and that . The connections between zionism, Isra"el", freemasonry and messianist globalism, with their ambitions to create a unified one-world regime concommittant with the building of the third temple in Al-Quds, should also not be overlooked.
Not sure if you're serious or what. I don't believe in something called freemasonry. I believe in evil people who reject God and go on misguided path as Allah described them in the Quran and those you mention happen to be of them. I also see Iranian regime fall under that category.

Also I don't really consider Twelver Shiasm to have universalist dimensions to it, no offense.

As for Islamic Iran, the Iranian constitution requires the government to support the disinherited (mustaz'afin) all over the planet. Likewise, Shia Muslim eschathology and belief in the Mahdi shapes Iranian policy making to a non negligible extent.
Certainly does not, it's just a ploy to get the masses intrigued and renting religion out to justify expansionist policies. By the way if one was sincerely religious they wouldn't think about Mahdi or try to manipulate events to bring about end times. There is no such thing and that's as a result of their misguided understanding of Islam.

Also there is no proof for the so called Mahdi Iranian regime is talking about. He was a fabrication due to last Imam of Shia's not having a successor so they claimed he had a little boy who hid and went into occultation and will come back thousand plus years later. The only real Mahdi is someone who born in end times and I won't be surprised if so called state of Imam Mahdi ends up opposing him. I would like to see your position then if it happens in our lifetime.

I just did. I will only add, that since Isra"el"'s enmity towards Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Syria proved to be very existential indeed, since all these nations ended up being subjected to war, destruction and balkanization as per zionist injunctions (refer to the Lewis-Yinon plan, among other clues), there is little doubt that Iran will be treated in the same manner should the zionists ever be given the chance.
I gave you my perspective in the beginning of my post.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
367
2
677
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
You shitpost and nothing else.
Wow, that was quick! So your freshly made resolution to try and keep your composure went down the drain in a matter of what, four or five posts?

You literally write walls of ad hominem
Like where?

and rhetorical gibberish
Such as?

thinking it will turn people off from challenging whatever narrative you and the Iranian regime are trying to build.
And who told you I harbor such thoughts? By all means, keep them coming, so I can keep countering.

I have no relation to any "regime" nor to any government, by the way. So whatever thoughts I share here and elsewhere, are my own.

US deployment in Afghanistan to your benefit?
US deployment aimed at encircling Iran.

US war on Iraq to topple regime that gave you most trouble?
Again, in order to encircle Iran and start destabilizing her from accross the borders. "Real men go to Tehran" used to be their slogan back in the day.

Also, Saddam had ceased giving Iran any trouble in 1991 already.

Russian intervention in Syria
Did anyone pretend Russia is exerting pressures on Iran for you to bring this up in support of your claims?

and US coalition intervention in Iraq and Syria?
Concerning Iraq, see above.

As for Syria, again, US military presence there is naturally detrimental to Iran. We're talking of the same US regime that poured in fighters and weapons and set up control rooms to direct insurgents trying to topple the Iran-allied government in Damascus. Currently, US troops are occupying the entire oil-rich northeastern part of Syria, thereby cutting it off from government control and threatening to separate it from the rest of the country. This could also be used as a launching pad for a renewed onslaught on Damascus, or for operations to disrupt the land bridge connecting Iran to the anti-zionist Resistance in southern Lebanon. Most definitely, US intervention is Syria is not in Iran's favour by any measure.

Chinese and NK support?
Again, what do China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have to do with zionist-induced US pressure on Iran? Please don't go off-topic.

US and Europe helping you jumpstart nuclear program in 1950's?
Errrr... you do realize that in the 1950's, Iran was ruled by the Pahlavi monarchy, a major ally of the US regime? And that said monarchy happened to be overthrown during the 1979 Islamic Revolution and replaced by the Islamic Republic, which turned Iran's relationship with both Washington and Tel Aviv upside down?

By the way, Iran's nuclear program was kickstarted in the late 1960's (1967, to be exact) with the inauguration of the Tehran research reactor. Not in the 1950's. However, that doesn't affect the point above.

You are not under this massive magnitude of pressure you like to imply you are under.
Oh, Iran certainly is. In fact Iran is currently being subjected to the most severe sanctions regime in history.

US does not seek regime change in Iran and neither does Israel.
They most definitely do, in fact. And not just regime change: but the destruction of Iranian infrastructure, culture, society, nationhood as well as the territorial disintegration of Iran.

Nor Europe, Russia, and China.
Europe yes, Russia and China no. These powers have hardly anything in common when it comes to their Iran policies.

They all see Iran as necessary player to disrupt a formation of singular ME axis.
They see Iran as a giant bullwark disrupting their nefarious designs for Western Asia, and as a prime target to eliminate. Hence their unbelievable degree of hostility and constant destabilization attempts against Islamic Iran.
 
Last edited:

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 28, 2018
13,214
5
28,317
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Post 9-11, the US and its zionist masters, aided by their regional lackeys, set out to spread chaos all accross the Islamic world.
Interesting statement. As you claim a Pakistani flag, do you consider Paksitan a regional lackey?

It would go along with your other general rhetoric.

I really want to hear to answer to this question.

No, Iran did not support Armenia against her stolen province of Aran. That's merely a zionist fabrication with zero evidence to back it up, nothing more.
Your rhetoric proves otherwise. As does this.

Following Armenia’s independence (1991), the warmth of the Irano-Armenian reunion was genuine, after a long period of separation since 1828. Flights between Tehran and Yerevan were introduced in 1992. Likewise, a temporary bridge (1992-1994), and then a permanent one (1995), called ‘the Bridge of Friendship’ by the Armenians, was built over the Araks at Meghri, enabling goods to be trucked into Armenia from Iran9. Genuine though the Irano-Armenian friendship was, it was still primarily determined by the two partners’ national interests. The border with Iran was the only route by which Armenia could receive supplies, subject as it was to a Turko-Azeri blockade due to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
...
On Tehran’s side, thegoal was to engage in active diplomacy towards the new independent states of the post-Soviet Caucasus. The decision to ally with Christian Armenia was therefore in line with Iran’s national interests, given that, over the border, the leaders of the new Azeri state were in favour in the wake of independence of creating a Greater Azerbaijan including the Azeri provinces in the north of Iran. It therefore made sense for theauthorities in Tehran to seek to preserve the integrity of Iranian territory by supporting Armenia in its war against Baku over the Nagorno-Karabakh question.
...
In 1992, Iran became Armenia’s second-largest trading partner after Russia. This situation has continued, and in 2007, with annual trade worth 200 million dollars, Iran was still one of the country’s leading economic partners.


Oh so these dynasties were Iranian afterall, not Turkic, right?


It's either that, or you consider certain Turks as treacherous.


There is no escaping basic logic.
Looking for issues where there are none. I can tell you loving spinning stories. Reminds me of a certain "Nigerian."

Reactions to Turkey's mediation in the nuclear dispute with Iran don't even come close to these sanctions and other acts of aggression against Iran. In fact, in this particular dossier the US took no punitive measure at all against Ankara. Afterall it was nothing more than an attept at diplomatic mediation, which was simply ignored by Washington.
Ungratefulness also seems to be in lines with iranian policies in relation with their neighbors who have stood with them through difficult times.

Turkish bankers went to jail to help Iran, and Pakistan's head nuclear scientist went into house arrest. Both countries have backed iran during Iran-Iraq war, for example, and established ties early after the revolution.

However Iran did not appreciate any gesture.

The Ottomans benefitted militarily and economically from their alliance with France, and put to use these benefits in their wars against Muslim Iran.
This is quite dishonest considering that Persia (it was not Iran at the time) had a robust alliance with Christian states like the Habsburgs, specifically aimed at the Ottomans.

During the reign of the Persian Shah Ismail, exchanges occurred between him and Charles V, and Ludwig II of Hungary in view of combining against the Ottoman Turks.

inally, on 18 February 1529, Charles V, deeply alarmed by the Ottoman progression towards Vienna, again sent a letter from Toledo to Shah Ismail, who had died in 1524 and had been replaced by Shah Tahmasp, pleading for a military diversion. His ambassador to the Shah was the knight of Saint John de Balbi, and an alliance was made with the objective of making an attack on the Ottoman Empire in the west and the east within the following year. Tahmasp also responded by expressing his friendship to the Emperor. A decision was thus taken to attack the Ottoman Empire on both fronts, but Balbi took more than one year to return to the Persian Empire, and by that time the situation had changed in Persia, as Persia was forced to make peace with the Ottoman Empire because of an insurrection of the Shaybanid Uzbeks.
...
Meanwhile, King Francis I of France, enemy of the Habsburgs, and Suleiman the Magnificent were moving forward with a Franco-Ottoman alliance, formalized in 1536, that would counterbalance the Habsburg threat. In 1547, when Suleiman attacked Persia, France sent him the ambassador Gabriel de Luetz to accompany him in his campaign. Gabriel de Luetz was able to give decisive military advice to Suleiman, as when he advised on artillery placement during the Siege of Vān.

The Persians effectively entered into conflict with the Ottoman Empire on five occasions in the Ottoman–Persian Wars, weakening the Ottoman Empire considerably every time, and effectively opening a second front when the Ottoman Empire was in conflict in Europe, to the rejoicing of Habsburg Europe. It was a great relief for the Habsburgs, and appeared as the realization of the old Habsburg–Persian alliance stratagem.


So here we go again (and hopefully, again and again and again and again and again and again and again every time the same inaccuracy is repeated):
You are dishonest. The French alliance with Turks was in reaction to the prior Hapsburg alliance of Safavid Persia.

@MMM-E Look at the lies of this poster and deliberate omissions of important facts.

In its final years the Ottoman empire once more backstabbed Muslim Iran. The British were conducting genocide against the Iranian people during World War I by starving them to death, which took the lives of some 10 million (!) Iranian Muslims. How did the Ottoman regime react? Instead of simply assisting their Iranian brothers in faith, they took advantage of Tehran's weakness at that time in order to occupy north-western Iran from February-March 1917 to late August 1918 akin to vultures. There are reports of how the Ottomans not only extended their campaigns of massacres against Christians to the Assyrian Iranian population around the Orumiyeh area, but also of how they tried to suppress the Aryan cultural identity of Azar-Badegani Iranians.
Another lie. British and Russians used Persian territory to attack the Ottomans. Qajars were not able to defend against the invasion and occupation.

How is Turkey at fault for that?

In the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1907 the imperialist governments of Russia and Britain agreed to divide Persia between themselves, with the Russians having laid claim to northern Persia, the part adjacent to their previously conquered territories in the Transcaucasia, and the British claimed the south which bordered British India.

The Ottoman Empire's military strategic goal was to cut off Russian access to the hydrocarbon resources around the Caspian Sea. Aligned with the Germans, the Ottoman Empire wanted to undermine the influence of the Entente in this region, but for a very different reason. The Ottoman Minister of War, Enver Pasha, claimed that if the Russians could be beaten in the key cities of Persia, it could open the way to Azerbaijan, to Central Asia and to India. Enver Pasha envisioned an extended cooperation between these newly establishing nationalistic states, if they were to be removed from western influence.
...
In 1914, Enver Pasha ordered Lt. Col. Kâzım Bey, commander of the 1st Expeditionary Force (11 December) and Lt. Col. Halil Bey, commander of the 5th Expeditionary Force (25 December): "Your duty is to move with your division towards Persia and proceed through Tabriz to Dagestan, where you will ignite a general rebellion and repulse the Russians from the shores of the Caspian Sea."



Ottoman-Iranian wars were kickstarted by Ottoman ruler Selim I, who marched on Iran in 1514. This is after some court jurist in Constantinople declared the Qizilbash and Iranian shah Esma'il as "unbelievers and heretics" (i. e. made takfir on them).


Then again in 1532, the Ottomans under Suleiman I attacked the Safavid empire in Iraq.


If the Ottomans didn't want to have to fight Iran at the same time as they battled some European powers, then they shouldn't have attacked Iran to begin with. Simple as that.


Complaining afterwards that Iran was at war with them while they were fighting Christian states, when in fact they themselves started the war against Iran will not cut it.
More omitted facts by you.

After Selim I's successful struggle against his brothers for the throne of the Ottoman Empire, he was free to turn his attention to the internal unrest he believed was stirred up by the Shia Qizilbash, who had sided with other members of the Dynasty against him and had been semi-officially supported by Bayezid II. Selim now feared that they would incite the population against his rule in favor of Shah Isma'il leader of the Shia Safavids, believed by some of his supporters to be descended from the Prophet. Selim secured a jurist opinion that described Isma'il and the Qizilbash as "unbelievers and heretics"

As for 1552-1536 war

The war was triggered by territorial disputes between the two empires, especially when the Bey of Bitlis decided to put himself under Persian protection. Also, Tahmasp had the governor of Baghdad, a sympathiser of Suleiman, assassinated.


On the diplomatic front, Safavids had been engaged in discussions with the Habsburgs for the formation of a Habsburg-Persian alliance that would attack the Ottoman Empire on two fronts.


For more than a hundred years, from 1507 to 1622 to be exact, Muslim Safavid Iran fought the Christian Portuguese with the aim of completely expelling these from the Persian Gulf, which Iran fantastically succeeded in accomplishing.
Portuguese were also defeated by the Mughals during the same time. They were a second-rate power.


Iran only deployed a couple hundreds of advisers and fighters at once in Syria.


About half the victims of that war were military men, circa half of those members of the Syrian Arab Army and allies. That's a 1:1 military to civilian death rate. Even if we were to lend credence to the absurd demagogic statistics published by certain British-controlled "human rights" offices, according to which practically "all" civilian victims of the war fell victim to government forces, that would still leave us with a 1:2 rate - nothing out of the ordinary for a war mostly fought in dense urban areas, essentially with low precision weaponry.


Your preference for Isra"el" over Islamic Iran, is all readers need to know. This sort of drivel perfectly echoes the psy-ops operated for years by zionist users such as "500" on this forum. Please stop this counter-productive attitude, it only puts Turkey herself at risk.
This is a particularly disgusting post, but needs to be addressed in a thread on the Syrian war, not here.

Iran is an enemy of US-European NATO. Turkey is a NATO member. The Turkish regime has been actively collaborating with zio-American and NATO designs, wars and destabilization projects in North Africa and Western Asia.


Turkey would gain in leaving NATO, breaking ties with Tel Aviv and cooperating more with Islamic Iran and the Resistance Axis.
All hypotheticals.

The West cannot exclude Turkey due to its bases and strategic location, especially against Russia.

It is an uneasy relation, that much is obvious.

I guess Iranian conspiracy theory about secret Turkish ambitions is needed to defend its increasingly self-destructive policy vis-a-vis neighbors.

Wrong, the French ambassador directly advised Suleiman I in the early 16th century siege of Van against Muslim Iran.


Ottomans took advantage of the British occupation and genocide in Iran during WW1 in order to occupy and try to annex northwestern parts of Iran.
You ignored the Hapsburg alliance Persia had, which led to this one. Also the interference of Persians in Ottoman internal succession disputes.

Ottomans attacked Iran and stole Iranian lands. Iran defended herself and tried to recover what is hers. That's legitimate defense.


By the way, according to you Iran was then ruled by Turks, so anything you will accuse the Iranian state of, you are in fact accusing Turks of.
It was a back and forth war going on centuries. You have a very one-sided view of it.

Iran is not at war with any "Turks".


Ankara has various ties with Moscow, is even purchasing high end weapons from Russia. And therefore in no position to whine about Iranian-Russian relations.


Also Iran is not supporting Armenia against Aran. That's nothing but a zionist-concocted myth devoid of factual basis.


In truth Iran is staying perfectly neutral in the Karabakh war, in spite of the secularist Baku regime's direct cooperation with zionist plans to balkanize and break up Iran along fictive, so-called "ethnic" lines.
Sure. Convince Baku, not us.

Exactly what we keep highlighting: the Anatolian and Arani regimes, as well as many of their supporters on this very forum, display a marked preference for zionist criminals over Islamic Iran, and would therefore gladly collaborate with the zio-American project to destroy and disintegrate Iran.


Not realizing how their own countries (Turkey, Pakistan) will be next, should Iran fall (God forbid). Lenin used to designate such unconscious, manipulated types as "useful idiots".


Iran is everyone's bullwark and last hope against universal zio-American-led onslaught, nation-devouring and uprooting of authentic religious tradition.
Turkey is NATO, Pakistan is allied to the US, Azerbaycan sells oil to Israel.

Effective way to dodge criticism against Iran policies against those countries.

However lies repeated again and again lose the efficacy.

No, Iran did not support Armenia against Aran. That's a zionist fabrication repeated by apologists of the zionist entity and by insufficiently informed people buying into it.
I debunked that already, look above.

Turkey, whose military is part of the US-led NATO occupation force in Afghanistan. Turkey has constantly been praised by Washington for its role in Afghanistan.


Iran on the other hand has repeatedly been accused by American officials of granting support to Afghan rebels fighting US occupiers.


At least try to be a tad more subtle with these all too obvious inversions.
Again the NATO card, the only card Iran can play.

As for the Taliban, we all know you are not on good terms. No one knows that better than us Pakistanis.

Myth, libel and blatant historic fabrication.


Iran, termed as a member of a so-called "Axis of evil" alongside Iraq by US president Bush jr., was the only country in the region which vocally condemned the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iran absolutely opposed this illegal invasion in every way.


Iraq was struck from US bases in Bahrein and Qatar, the US infantry entered Iraq via Kuwait.


Iran is where goods that were smuggled into Iraq originated from during the brutal US-imposed sanctions in the 1990's.
So now you believe Bush administration propaganda?

You cooperated fully to depose Saddam Hussein and build radical Shia death squads in Iraq. It made the Sunnis of Iraq live a nightmare, again and again.

This topic deserves its own thread. We need Arab input here. @Falcon29

This user apparently refuses to practice what he unfairly blames others for failing to do. Afterall, it is him who irrupted into the Iranian section of the forum and began spamming it with vulgar, outlandish and overly hostile drivel against Iran. We don't see Iranians doing the same in the Turkish section now, do we? This sort of attitude fuels fitna and thereby directly plays into the hands of the zio-American empire, the biggest enemy and threat to not just the Muslim world but to all nations, established religious traditions and historically rooted civilizations. These provocations only assist the common enemy in the implementation of its sinister designs, exemplified by projects such as the infamous Lewis-Yinon plan.
So are you saying no Iranian was abusing and insulting Turks here? One of your members is currently banned for racism against Turks.

Don't act so innocent.

Syria has been the victim of the same people involved in Afghanistan back in 80s (Saudi, American , the UAE, Pakistan)
What is Pakistan's role in Syria?

the same people whom were involved in Libya in 2011 ((Saudi, American , the UAE, France ) .. in Syria the same people (Saudi, American , the UAE, Turkeyn) did the same thing which again has been repeated recently in Libya ... (Saudi, American , the UAE, Turkey) not Iran ... it wasn't Iran holding conference in Istanbul telling Syria what to do what not to do ... we asked for Referendum, new constitution and so on which was rejected by Turkey ...
Everyone is conniving against Iran (TM.) This kind of rhetoric is remarkably similar to Israel's, don't you think?

Sending terrorists and funding sectarianism in Sunni majority countries, and then feining innocence.

On Kurds .. well you don't remember how Iran thawed Iraq Kurdistan separation supported by American and isreal which was foiled by Iran? in Syria the main goal was defeating isis and other ALQ affiliated groups which has been done except terrorists & ALQ affiliated groups nested in Idlib ....
Today Assad and iran are supporting PKK.

In Iraq we fought isis and there were no Russian ... it was Iraqi people whom defended their lands ...
And carried our gross human rights violations (such as torure, rape, and murder) against Sunnis of Western iraq.


Iraq: Fallujah Abuses Inquiry Mired in Secrecy

New Violations Belie US Reference to ‘Isolated Atrocities’



Neither in Iraq war nor in Afghanistan war we didn't let any troop use our land to invade these countries ... But in Afghanistan we shared a common enemy with American which was Taliban whom killed 11 Iranian diplomats back in 98 + journalist and were attacking our posts in borders ...
You gave maps of Taliban bases to the US to help their bombing campaign, particularly Qasem Solemani.

In the chaotic days after the attacks of September 11th, Ryan Crocker, then a senior State Department official, flew discreetly to Geneva to meet a group of Iranian diplomats. “I’d fly out on a Friday and then back on Sunday, so nobody in the office knew where I’d been,” Crocker told me. “We’d stay up all night in those meetings.” It seemed clear to Crocker that the Iranians were answering to Suleimani, whom they referred to as “Haji Qassem,” and that they were eager to help the United States destroy their mutual enemy, the Taliban. Although the United States and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1980, after American diplomats in Tehran were taken hostage, Crocker wasn’t surprised to find that Suleimani was flexible. “You don’t live through eight years of brutal war without being pretty pragmatic,” he said. Sometimes Suleimani passed messages to Crocker, but he avoided putting anything in writing. “Haji Qassem’s way too smart for that,” Crocker said. “He’s not going to leave paper trails for the Americans.”

Crocker described sharing information with the Iranians, including getting a map detailing the locations of the Taliban and giving Iran the location of an al-Qaeda facilitator, whom Iran soon detained. Crocker said the negotiator he was working with told him, “Haji Qassem is very pleased with our cooperation.”


Maybe that's because MMM-E, a comical user not taken seriously even by his own countrymen on this forum, likes to copy/paste long debunked drivel like a broken record. Replies to his gibberish will therefore be bound to sound repetitive too. You only have him to thank for this.
Discuss the topic, not the poster.

Oh really? Who wrote that, and where? Please be precise. Either that, or try not to speak untruth. The choice is yours.
That is a perfectly adequate response to someone who tries to pretend Turkey has been confronting NATO and claiming Iran has been "cooperating" with them.
NATO card again.

No, that was a response to the user's accusations against Safavid Iran. Nobody claimed Turkey's past alliances with Christian powers enable Iran to "support Serbia, Armenia, Russians, and others free of conscience". You seem to have immense reading difficulties to come up with such obvious misquotes.


Besides, we're still waiting for your evidence regarding purported but non-existent Iranian support for Armenia in the Karabakh war. Mere slogans won't suffice. Evidence please, or it's nothing but disinformation.
Look above.

Concerning Serbia, you are being genuinely dishonest now. You were shown every proof a person can ask (including from various non-Iranian sources) for the fact that Iran not only sided with the Bosnian Muslims during the 1990's civil war, but that Iranian support for Sarajevo was massive and unparalleled. I expected much higher ethical standards from you. It is meanwhile abundantly clear to me that you are not interested in the truth nor in learning, but only in expressing your disdain for Iran.
Now you grab a point I made and try to misrepresent it.

I am referring to ties with Serbia today, not 30 or so years ago.

By the way, you're still the only person in the world coming up with that outright fabrication. I'm sure you searched the internet in vain to find something to back up that funny claim. At least on the Karabakh dossier, one will find some hollow, empty statements deprived of any semblance of evidence that will clumsily try and incriminate Iran. But when it comes to the Bosnian war, not even the most rabid anti-Iranian sources have dared contradict proven, established, documented, obvious history in this manner. Congrats, you have outdone them all in the science fiction department.
Answer my question: Does Iran have diplomatic with the terrorist, Islamophobic regime of Serbia?

Why did Iran reject Kosovo's independence from an occupier and killer of Muslims like Serbia?

Answer these two questions, then we can talk further on this topic.

@sanel1412 @scimitar19 Take a look at this, brothers. We have someone here who keeps suggesting Iran sided with the Serbs during the Bosnian war. Can you believe that?
Never said that. @sanel1412 I missed your post the first time and read it. Thanks for your insight.

Also thank you for not ignoring Pakistan's help, which some Iranians are trying to minimize.

They think they are the only Muslims left in the world, and everyone of other sects are Non-Muslims.

If they don't say it openly, they try to minimize influence of Turkey, Pakistan, Arabs, and other Muslims.


That would be a lie. As well as a weak attempt to introduce baseless accusations of sectarianism.


Show where we claimed such a thing.
Name one Sunni neighbor of Iran's which has good relations with you.

Your contention is the laughable one, for it is but a mere hollow claim. No evidence to substantiate it, nothing.


Here is however some hard evidence documenting the Iranian origin of the Azar-Badzegani people (even their name is Iranian):
So now a Pakistani is playing the Iranian genetics game to deny Azeris as Turks?

Change your flag to the proper one. No Pakistani cares if Azeris are Turks or anything else. They are our Muslim brothers, end of story.

It's got nothing to do with that. It's just that we literally love to debunk historic fabrication, outlandish drivel, and to call out intellectual dishonesty and petty gibberish.
Show me one place where you have criticized Iran.

If you're calling historic facts such as the 16th-17th century Iranian-Portuguese war or the 17th-19th century Iranian-Russian wars "long-winded propaganda", you are a troll.

And Also look above.


I will reply the rest tomorrow as I am sleepy.
 

Falcon29

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 13, 2013
22,112
-12
18,954
Country
Palestinian Territory, Occupied
Location
United States
Wow, that was quick! So your freshly made resolution to try and keep your composure went down the drain in a matter of what, four or five posts?
Lol, who said anything about composure? I wrote one word and I lost my composure according to you.

I have no relation to any "regime" nor to any government, by the way. So whatever thoughts I share here and elsewhere, are my own.
Yes we're aware of your thoughts and how you view Iran to be a divine country with divine leadership.

US deployment aimed at encircling Iran.
That's your twist, if anything Taliban's rise would have been detrimental to Iran.

Again, in order to encircle Iran and start destabilizing her from accross the borders. "Real men go to Tehran" used to be their slogan back in the day.
Also your twist, the US war on Iraq was intended for regime change and it helped put into power a pro-Iran gov't.


Errrr... you do realize that in the 1950's, Iran was ruled by the Pahlavi monarchy, a major ally of the US regime?
I'm well aware of that.

They most definitely do, in fact.
No they don't.

They see Iran as a giant bullwark disrupting their nefarious designs for Western Asia, and as a prime target to eliminate. Hence their unbelievable degree of hostility and constant destabilization attempts against Islamic Iran.
These are your delusions which are far from the truth.
 

Bahram Esfandiari

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2017
1,096
-2
2,153
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
We own half the aircraft genius ...

JF 17 is a JOINT VENTURE if Pakistan doesn't like to sell it to Iran then China can't sell it to you.... the word JF means joint venture we own half the project and if Pakistan wants no one will even give you the landing gear of JF 17 ... keep reverse engineering f5 tiger... Also the export variant of JF 17 block 2 is not the same as the one Pakistan is using its downgraded..... MR know it all better read some facts before howling

When it comes to our reverse engineered F-5s, we have the ability to produce the aircraft from air frame, engines and have added domestically built 4th generation avionics that the standard F-5E/Fs lacked. Much better than producing a joint fighter aircraft with engines sourced from a 3rd party. Again if Iran wants Chinese fighters It will buy the superior J-10C directly from china and not buy a downgraded export model of JF-17. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

Even if Iran wanted to by the JF-17 from Pakistan. In what universe is Pakistan going to sell Iran fighters if it means coming under direct U.S sanctions?
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
367
2
677
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
I didn't say they need to be, however I did say Iran and Israel are not engaged in a existential struggle.
You cited ideology in connection with the East/West confrontation of the Cold War as an illustration for that conflict's existential character. So what is it then that in your opinion sets apart these two sets of antagonistic relationships?

It is apparent to everyone that Israel and the Israeli people, and Iran and the Iranian people do not seek war with each other and find it counterproductive and meaningless as they do not hate each other and both want to build up their nations power and standing and see themselves as similar innovative peoples.
I see several problems with that argument:

1) What a citizenry wants or wishes for, is not necessarily what determines state policy.

2) It is not really apparent as you claim. Never trust zionist-dominated "social media" or internet websites. Unless honest, professional, large scale surveys are conducted following academic methods, no such conclusion can be reached. If you would like to see Isra"el"is raging with hatred for anything Iranian, be my guest for pointing you to a couple hundred if not thousand examples.

Which makes me wonder, since practically every Isra"el"i on this very forum here has been noted for displaying immense hostility towards Iran, up to properly mind-boggling hatred (users such as "500", "Beny Karachun" or the multi-ID zionist user sporting Moroccan and British flags come to mind, among others), how come you choose to selectively brush their cases aside?

3) Again you are committing the same mistake as before, in postulating that only hot, direct war is synonymous with authentic enmity. Like I said, neither the US nor the USSR - whether people or governments, ever longed for war against one another. Yet, through other means, they strived to erase each other out of political existence. Which eventually befell the USSR.

Not sure if you're serious or what. I don't believe in something called freemasonry.
What do you mean, you don't believe in freemasonry? The existence of freemasonry is amply documented. Of course, many sources dealing with the subject are untrustworthy, but to deny its reality would be somewhat out of touch.

I also see Iranian regime fall under that category.
Yet they have nothing much in common and find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Freemasonry was outlawed in Iran right after the 1979 Revolution, by the way.

Also I don't really consider Twelver Shiasm to have universalist dimensions to it, no offense.
Considering how Shia eschathology posits the manifestation of a saviour whose blessing will reach all mankind, it certainly incorporates a universalist dimension, like every branch of Islam. Like every branch of Islam, Shia Islam is also open to converts from every "ethnicity", nation or "race" (and in effect invites people from all such groups to its understanding of the faith).

Not to mention Shia teachings about the universality of the message conveyed by Imam Hussein's struggle
for justice and martyrdom in the path of God, which are said to be accessible even to non-Muslims.

These are very strong universalist characteristics.

Certainly does not, it's just a ploy to get the masses intrigued and renting religion out to justify expansionist policies.
The faith of Iran's religious political and spiritual leaders (at least those who remain loyal to the values of the 1979 Revolution) exhibits all the traits of sincerity and authenticity.

By the way if one was sincerely religious they wouldn't think about Mahdi or try to manipulate events to bring about end times.
Islamic Iranian authorities definitely are not engaging in any of this. This is actually viewed as a complete deviation in the IR's doxa. Iranian political authorities as well as religious figures and activists supportive of the IR or officially representing her, regularly reject and denounce this line of thinking. If you knew Persian and came to watch some of their speeches in this regard, you would be left with no doubts whatsoever as to this fact.

Also there is no proof for the so called Mahdi Iranian regime is talking about.
1) There is really no "regime" in Iran. The term government would be more appropriate. A regime is ruling over America however.

2) Not just Iranian authorities, all Shia Muslims do.

3) Whether or not we believe in this version of Mahdism, isn't relevant to the point. What matters is that Iran operates under an political and religious ideology that is bound to clash with zionism and its various expressions.
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
367
2
677
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
Lol, who said anything about composure? I wrote one word and I lost my composure according to you.
Elsewhere you evoked your decision to revise the parameters of your participation in political discussions online. Parallel to this, a new writing style contrasting with the previous, far more aggressive one, could be noted.

Yes we're aware of your thoughts and how you view Iran to be a divine country with divine leadership.
Hmmm... did I ever attribute this qualification to Iran and its leadership? Or did I, much rather, explicitly refute that contention?

Which begs the question whether you think that putting words in people's mouth, and claiming they said things which they actually never said, is consistent with the values of the Islam you believe in?

The one I was taught insists on avoiding libel against other human beings. I'm sure your Islam taught you the same. So kindly refrain from being libellous, as I never claimed Iran to be a "divine" country nor the Iranian leadership to be of "divine" nature.

That's your twist, if anything Taliban's rise would have been detrimental to Iran.
The Taliban are a far weaker player than the US regime. No "twist" on my part, only statement of obvious fact.

Also your twist, the US war on Iraq was intended for regime change and it helped put into power a pro-Iran gov't.
Against the US regime's plans and will. At every election in Iraq, Washington was supportive of anti-Iranian or Iran-sceptical candidates at the very least. Consistently, the US has put every effort conceivable into trying to sideline pro-Iranian forces in Iraq.

Also, let's not forget the 600+ US occupation troops killed by pro-Iranian groups in Iraq.

Let's not forget the raid, abduction, detention and torture of Iranian diplomats based in northern Iraq by US occupation forces.

Let's not try to sweep under the rug the Quds Force operation resulting in the arrest of US troops in the middle of an American base (!) in southern Iraq.

And so on, and so forth.

No, the history of Iran-US relations in Iraq is one of endless animosity, conflict and war.

No they don't.
They most certainly do.

These are your delusions which are far from the truth.
In truth, these are factual statements grounded in observable and documented reality.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
367
2
677
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
Your rhetoric proves otherwise.
My commenting in and by itself "proves" things about Iranian state policy? This can't be serious.

Following Armenia’s independence (1991), the warmth of the Irano-Armenian reunion was genuine, after a long period of separation since 1828. Flights between Tehran and Yerevan were introduced in 1992. Likewise, a temporary bridge (1992-1994), and then a permanent one (1995), called ‘the Bridge of Friendship’ by the Armenians, was built over the Araks at Meghri, enabling goods to be trucked into Armenia from Iran9. Genuine though the Irano-Armenian friendship was, it was still primarily determined by the two partners’ national interests. The border with Iran was the only route by which Armenia could receive supplies, subject as it was to a Turko-Azeri blockade due to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
...
On Tehran’s side, thegoal was to engage in active diplomacy towards the new independent states of the post-Soviet Caucasus. The decision to ally with Christian Armenia was therefore in line with Iran’s national interests, given that, over the border, the leaders of the new Azeri state were in favour in the wake of independence of creating a Greater Azerbaijan including the Azeri provinces in the north of Iran. It therefore made sense for theauthorities in Tehran to seek to preserve the integrity of Iranian territory by supporting Armenia in its war against Baku over the Nagorno-Karabakh question.
...
In 1992, Iran became Armenia’s second-largest trading partner after Russia. This situation has continued, and in 2007, with annual trade worth 200 million dollars, Iran was still one of the country’s leading economic partners.

This proves nothing of the sort, I'm afraid. Quite significantly, it manages to provide concrete elements of evidence as long as the focus is on Iran's diplomatic, cultural and economic relations with Armenia. Now do you want me to post the list of all Muslim countries having established these types of ties with Erevan? And why did Pakistan participate in joint wargames with Armenia shortly before the Karabakh war?

However, as soon as the claim about purported support for Armenia's war effort is made, there's no longer any evidence to back it up. Which really says it all, if you ask me.

And like I said earlier, one-liners and standalone claims are not going to cut it. Had I deemed such content to be sufficient, I would have accepted the Turkish newspaper sources you submitted before, which also offer nothing but a claim and a claim only, but sadly fail to substantiate it. No wonder, since the claim has no connection to reality.

Looking for issues where there are none. I can tell you loving spinning stories. Reminds me of a certain "Nigerian."
Oh there most definitely is an issue.

You cannot on the one hand boast about Iran having been "ruled by Turks for 900 years" and brandish this as some sort of an argument against Iran from a Turkish perspective, and on the other hand accuse those same, supposedly "Turk" rulers of Iran of every possible mischief.

If you cannot see the obvious logical contradiction therein, I won't be able to help you.

Ungratefulness also seems to be in lines with iranian policies in relation with their neighbors who have stood with them through difficult times.
What do you mean by "also"? How is the JCPOA a sign of Iranian "ungratefulness" towards earlier, inconclusive Turkish-Brazilian mediation attempts? Care to elaborate or will you try to portray a comical statement as factual?

Turkish bankers went to jail to help Iran,
And this exemplifies purported Iranian "ungratefulness" how, exactly? Was it Iran that jailed them? No, it wasn't. Did these bankers act out of altruism or in search of personal profit? In search of personal profit.

The "logic" you display is flawed through and through.

and Pakistan's head nuclear scientist went into house arrest.
This proves what, exactly? Please enlighten us.

Both countries have backed iran during Iran-Iraq war, for example, and established ties early after the revolution.

However Iran did not appreciate any gesture.
Hollow contention. Iran too has been helpful to Turkey or Pakistan in a variety of instances. Not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Persia (it was not Iran at the time)
This is blatantly untrue and historically inaccurate. The name Iran has been in official use since Sassanid times and is documented in Sassanid-era archeological sites. This was also the case during the Safavid dynasty, as proven by documents from that time.

You were already shown evidence to this effect by user QWECXZ, but choose to ignore it (as per a habit of yours), insisting instead on rehashing an untruth.

During the reign of the Persian Shah Ismail, exchanges occurred between him and Charles V, and Ludwig II of Hungary in view of combining against the Ottoman Turks.

inally, on 18 February 1529, Charles V, deeply alarmed by the Ottoman progression towards Vienna, again sent a letter from Toledo to Shah Ismail, who had died in 1524 and had been replaced by Shah Tahmasp, pleading for a military diversion. His ambassador to the Shah was the knight of Saint John de Balbi, and an alliance was made with the objective of making an attack on the Ottoman Empire in the west and the east within the following year. Tahmasp also responded by expressing his friendship to the Emperor. A decision was thus taken to attack the Ottoman Empire on both fronts, but Balbi took more than one year to return to the Persian Empire, and by that time the situation had changed in Persia, as Persia was forced to make peace with the Ottoman Empire because of an insurrection of the Shaybanid Uzbeks.
...
Meanwhile, King Francis I of France, enemy of the Habsburgs, and Suleiman the Magnificent were moving forward with a Franco-Ottoman alliance, formalized in 1536, that would counterbalance the Habsburg threat. In 1547, when Suleiman attacked Persia, France sent him the ambassador Gabriel de Luetz to accompany him in his campaign. Gabriel de Luetz was able to give decisive military advice to Suleiman, as when he advised on artillery placement during the Siege of Vān.

The Persians effectively entered into conflict with the Ottoman Empire on five occasions in the Ottoman–Persian Wars, weakening the Ottoman Empire considerably every time, and effectively opening a second front when the Ottoman Empire was in conflict in Europe, to the rejoicing of Habsburg Europe. It was a great relief for the Habsburgs, and appeared as the realization of the old Habsburg–Persian alliance stratagem.

Ok, let's go through this, seeing how you are trying to obfuscate the exact manner in which my discussion with MMM-E unfolded in order to score a gratuitious point.

1) There is nothing "unfair" in debunking a patently false statement.

Let me simplify the steps of my discussion with user MMM-E:

* MMM-E : The Ottomans never allied with a Christian power against a Muslim one.

* SalarHaqq : Wrong dear sir, they pretty much did so in the mid-16th century, when the French ambassador accompanied and advised sultan Suleiman in his campaign against Safavid Iran.

2) Had I been the one to bring this up in an accusatory manner against Turkey, you might have argued I was being unfair for not mentioning certain other events. However, all I did was to correct the user's specific claim, which not only was factually inaccurate, but through which he implied to defame Iran. In such cases, you're not requested to go off on a tangent.

Do you understand?

You are dishonest. The French alliance with Turks was in reaction to the prior Hapsburg alliance of Safavid Persia.
1) This amounts to historic revisionism. The motivation behind the Ottoman decision to enter an alliance with the French was first and foremost the intention of both parties to combine their forces against the common Austrian-Hungarian adversary. Not to counter Safavid-Habsburg alliance (it's Habsburg by the way, not Hapsburg).

2) I never stated anything to the contrary, so I was far from being "dishonest".

Look at the lies of this poster and deliberate omissions of important facts.
I did not invent anything, but rectified an incorrect statement. Nothing wrong with that.

Another lie. British and Russians used Persian territory to attack the Ottomans. Qajars were not able to defend against the invasion and occupation.

How is Turkey at fault for that?

In the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1907 the imperialist governments of Russia and Britain agreed to divide Persia between themselves, with the Russians having laid claim to northern Persia, the part adjacent to their previously conquered territories in the Transcaucasia, and the British claimed the south which bordered British India.

The Ottoman Empire's military strategic goal was to cut off Russian access to the hydrocarbon resources around the Caspian Sea. Aligned with the Germans, the Ottoman Empire wanted to undermine the influence of the Entente in this region, but for a very different reason. The Ottoman Minister of War, Enver Pasha, claimed that if the Russians could be beaten in the key cities of Persia, it could open the way to Azerbaijan, to Central Asia and to India. Enver Pasha envisioned an extended cooperation between these newly establishing nationalistic states, if they were to be removed from western influence.
...
In 1914, Enver Pasha ordered Lt. Col. Kâzım Bey, commander of the 1st Expeditionary Force (11 December) and Lt. Col. Halil Bey, commander of the 5th Expeditionary Force (25 December): "Your duty is to move with your division towards Persia and proceed through Tabriz to Dagestan, where you will ignite a general rebellion and repulse the Russians from the shores of the Caspian Sea."

Either your reading difficulties are far deeper than I thought, or there is perhaps a slight issue with your sight, or you simply enjoy posting drivel.

Where in the Wikipedia excerpts you included, does it say Ottoman incursions into Iran were triggered by British and Russian attacks from Iranian soil? On the contrary, they reveal expansionist designs in Iran and the Caucasus.

Also, if you're going to quote me, do so correctly:

1) I was referring to Ottoman policy in relation to the British instigated genocide. Which took place in the later years of the war. The material you posted about events taking place in 1914 is resoundingly off topic.

2) I specifically mentioned the renewed Ottoman invasion of early 1917, which took advantage of the Russian February Revolution, as a consequence of which Russian troops evacuated Iran.

The Ottomans therefore swept into northwestern Iran virtually unopposed by that time. There were no longer any Russians for you to invoke as a pretext. That was also a period when the British genocide was in full swing.

As for the expansionist motivations of the Ottomans:

While the spirit of Communism was spreading over the Caucasus and northern Iran, the Ottomans, disenchanted with their sponsored pan-Islamism, especially following the Arab Revolt of 1916, adopted a more ethnic dimension in their war propaganda. By 1917, they launched a new campaign calling all Turkish people to congregate around pan-Turkism and pan-Turanism rather than marching behind the old tattered banner of pan-Islamism. Concerned with the Ottoman irredentism in the northern province of Azerbaijan, such a shift in Ottoman war policy caused major bewilderment and remonstration in the Iranian political sphere during the last year of the war.
Nice job omitting certain key excerpts from the Wikipedia article by the way:

In 1918, about half of the Assyrians of Persia died of Turkish and Kurdish massacres and related outbreaks of starvation and disease. About 80 percent of Assyrian clergy and spiritual leaders had perished, threatening the nation's ability to survive as a unit.[22]

After Selim I's successful struggle against his brothers for the throne of the Ottoman Empire, he was free to turn his attention to the internal unrest he believed was stirred up by the Shia Qizilbash, who had sided with other members of the Dynasty against him and had been semi-officially supported by Bayezid II. Selim now feared that they would incite the population against his rule in favor of Shah Isma'il leader of the Shia Safavids, believed by some of his supporters to be descended from the Prophet. Selim secured a jurist opinion that described Isma'il and the Qizilbash as "unbelievers and heretics"
Yes, and? So you're insinuating that the subjective "fears" of a 16th-century ruler who fought his own brothers for the throne somehow constitute a legitimate casus belli? Mind you, there is no evidence for the accuracy of these suspicions either.

Oh, and you realize how you just included in that citation the part dealing with the Ottoman jurist who excommunicated Muslims (performed takfir against them), right? Are you going to use that as an argument in defense of the Ottoman empire as well? Just so you know, I had not omitted that particular detail.

The fact that it does not seem to bother you, however, is actually rather disturbing.

Domestic dynastic squabbles and reciprocal backing of rival princes by either side used to be common. Outright invasion however is something entirely different.

My point stands: had the Ottoman empire wished not to have to fight Iran at the same time as it was busy battling some European states, it should have refrained from kickstarting the Ottoman-Safavid wars under Suleiman I. Therefore, MMM-E's accusation against the Safavids isn't justified. Nothing of what you copy/pasted above invalidates this.

As for 1552-1536 war

The war was triggered by territorial disputes between the two empires, especially when the Bey of Bitlis decided to put himself under Persian protection. Also, Tahmasp had the governor of Baghdad, a sympathiser of Suleiman, assassinated.


On the diplomatic front, Safavids had been engaged in discussions with the Habsburgs for the formation of a Habsburg-Persian alliance that would attack the Ottoman Empire on two fronts.

The Safavid-Ottoman wars were started by the latter. Therefore the fact that the Safavid empire battled the Ottomans while these were engaged in wars against Europeans, is a correlation of the initial Ottoman invasion on Iran. You have not disproved any of it.

Portuguese were also defeated by the Mughals during the same time. They were a second-rate power.
1) They weren't really that much of a second rate power.

2) It's wholly irrelevant how powerful they exactly were. I was responding to the fabrication that Iran never fought any Christian power, and I succesfully disproved that. My claim did not go beyond that. So spare us these attempts to muddy the waters and to shift the focus.

This is a particularly disgusting post,
Many would tend to disagree, as it cites concrete facts and figures, in addition to adequately putting them into perspective.

All hypotheticals.
Turkey being a NATO member is a "hypothetical"? Iran being an adversary of the same NATO as well?

The West cannot exclude Turkey due to its bases and strategic location, especially against Russia.
What are you talking about, I can't follow you...?

Who asked the west to exclude Turkey? We're asking why Turkey is not leaving NATO and expelling them.

It is an uneasy relation, that much is obvious.
On one hand an "uneasy" relation but characterized by military alliance nonetheless, on the other hand fully blown enmity.

These semantic games aren't going to distract people from the stark contrast that exists between Turkey's and Iran's respective relationships with the west and the zionist entity.

I guess Iranian conspiracy theory about secret Turkish ambitions is needed to defend its increasingly self-destructive policy vis-a-vis neighbors.
Any example for such an "Iranian conspiracy theory"? Another unfounded accusation added to a long list.

Now the only conspiracy theory I've seen peddled prominently in this thread, is the one that you validate through your "likes", and which claims Iran is not in a fully fledged confrontation with the US and Isra"el".

You ignored the Hapsburg alliance Persia had, which led to this one. Also the interference of Persians in Ottoman internal succession disputes.
The Ottoman-French alliance was motivated by the desire to counter a mutual enemy, Austria-Hungary.

There is no evidence for the supposed interference you're mentioning. Suleiman's "fears" do not equal "evidence".

Besides, even this won't change the fact that the wars were kickstarted by the Ottomans, not by Iran. Justification for wars of conquest can always be cooked up afterwards.

It was a back and forth war going on centuries. You have a very one-sided view of it.
So does MMM-E, and he flooded the thread with it - although it is off topic. Therefore it was a necessity to show that there is another side to the story.

However two distinguishing factors remain:

1) There were no factual errors in my posts. Unlike those I was compelled to rectify.

2) These wars had been initiated by the Ottomans, not by Iran.

Sure. Convince Baku, not us.
I'll do that, do not worry. The second after you convinced Iran that the secularist, pro-Isra"el"i Aliyev regime is not in fact cooperating with the zionists in their unholy efforts to destabilize Iran and threaten her territorial integrity.

Turkey is NATO, Pakistan is allied to the US, Azerbaycan sells oil to Israel.

Effective way to dodge criticism against Iran policies against those countries.
That's a perfectly baseless statement.

"Effective way of countering the interjection, "Iran is worse than Isra"el"", would be more like it. Read what it is you are replying to.

Nor did the paragraph of my response, which you quoted here, actually contain any of these sentences you now claim to paraphrase. Are you really certain your sight is in order?

However lies repeated again and again lose the efficacy.
You surely mean dozens upon dozens of lies repeated on a daily basis about Iran in this and other threads? Well no, I disagree: lies will lose their efficacy if and only if they are systematically debunked. Which is why my presence here is so unsettling to some who would prefer certain untruths not to be called out for what they are.

I debunked that already, look above.
You did nothing of the sort. An unsubstantiated assertion and "debunking" are two different pairs of shoes.

Again the NATO card, the only card Iran can play.
User Pan-Islamic-Pakistan's way of reasoning:

- Identifies the word "NATO" from afar in a sentence or paragraph.

- Decides the rest is not worthy of being read.

- Repeats the mantra "again the NATO card", supposed to invalidate what he is responding to.

So let me guide you through that part of the discussion, since you seem incapable or simply too lazy to do the work by yourself:

* MMM-E : Who supported the US in Afghanistan?

* SalarHaqq : Turkey among others, given that as a NATO member, Ankara contributed troops to the US-led occupation force.

If you find anything wrong with that reply, let me know. It doesn't, by the way, focus on Turkey's NATO membership at all, but on the fact that Turkey has been participating in the US-led occupation of Afghanistan.

Got it now? I really can't make this any easier for you.

As for the Taliban, we all know you are not on good terms. No one knows that better than us Pakistanis.
* MMM-E : Who supported the US in Afghanistan?

* SalarHaqq : The criminal US regime has been full of praise for Turkey's role in Afghanistan, while repeatedly accusing Islamic Iran of aiding anti-US rebels.

Any problem with that statement, let me know. Or try to complain with US regime authorities, you seem to stay over there. Unless of course, it's the "secret alliance between Iran and the US against Muslims" theme again...

So now you believe Bush administration propaganda?
Yes, you are right. Bush's declaration of hostility to the so-called "axis of evil" members was mere "propaganda". Which is why he actually never ordered the invasion of Iraq.

You cooperated fully to depose Saddam Hussein
Me? Are you ok?

If you're referring to Iran then no, you have no idea what you're talking about and are rehashing a blatant falsehood spread by zionists, their footsoldiers as well as their useful idiots.

There was no cooperation whatsoever, absolutely nothing, zilch, between Iran and the US regime when it comes to the illegal invasion of Iraq and to deposing Saddam.

In reality Iran was the only country in the region to vocally condemn the illegal US aggression.

and build radical Shia death squads in Iraq.
Iran did not "build" any "radical Shia death squads", neither in Iraq nor anywhere else.

Another fabrication, nothing more.

It made the Sunnis of Iraq live a nightmare, again and again.
Any and all inter-communal violence in Iraq was triggered by the so-called "Islamic State"'s 2006 bombing of the Al-Askari shrine holy to Shia Muslims. This was then followed by daily bombings in busy market places and other civilian areas, turning the daily lives of Iraqis, including huge numbers of Shia Muslims, into blank horror. Revenge killings were out of anyone's ability to prevent.

Islamic Iran neither directed any of her allies to commit such actions, nor supported these. On the contrary, Iran and Iraqi figures friendly to Iran such as grand ayatollah Sistani (who used to live in Iran until 2003) constantly called for inter-communal peace and requested Iraqis to focus their war effort solely on IS / ISIS terrorism, countless fatwas were issued to that effect.

Had Iran sought to wage war on Sunnis of Iraq via her Iraqi allies, she would not have waited for three years (from 2003 to 2006). Had Iran pursued any sort of a sectarianist agenda, she would not have gone out of her way to make sure her Sunni Muslim brothers in Iraq are integrated into the PMU.

Here's a comprehensive academic research paper about Sunni PMU members:


One of its paragraphs bears the title:
Sunni PMU Sympathizers: Not Just a PR Stunt

The author is neither Iranian nor pro-Iranian, by the way (have you ever seen a pro-Iranian think tank or major research center in the USA? I know, I know. That - and much, much more, is what you get for resisting zio-American designs in the region, but Iran considers the cost to be certainly worth it, since to Iran, struggling for justice and in the path of God is priceless).

You should really read it. It will represent a welcome change from the vulgar and low grade anti-Iran propaganda you are usually exposed to.

This topic deserves its own thread. We need Arab input here. @Falcon29
Call them all over. I will be here to debunk falsehood and inaccuracy.

So are you saying no Iranian was abusing and insulting Turks here? One of your members is currently banned for racism against Turks.
What I am saying is very clear. Must I spoon feed you at every turn?

Don't act so innocent.
I can return the suggestion. Suffice to see who suddenly popped up in the Iranian section and started to provoke Iranians with off topic, copy/pasted one liners.

You don't want to compare the amount of unprovoked abuse Iranians have gotten here versus the amount they dished out. It would yield very unbalanced results.

Everyone is conniving against Iran (TM.) This kind of rhetoric is remarkably similar to Israel's, don't you think?
I see no similarity at all. Iran has many allies and partners accross the region and globally.

Even this forum tends to reflect the social dimension of this reality. Can you name a nation with, proportionally speaking, as many foreign supporters here? Doesn't that tell you anything?

That said, if you're going against the world's acting superpower and its underlying oligarchy, i. e. the US empire and international zionism, then of course you're going to have lots of powerful and influential enemies, capable of orchestrating massive propaganda and psy-ops campaign against you all over the world and all over the internet. That's a no-brainer, really.

In the zionist entity's case however, such claims amount to a victimization strategy. For they are actually the most powerful, the most influential ones.

Sending terrorists and funding sectarianism in Sunni majority countries, and then feining innocence.
You're confusing Iran with zio-American criminals whom you end up whitewashing by focusing your entire rage on Iran. Iran has consistently and staunchly been opposing and countering any and all forms of sectarianism in Muslim lands.

Iran's not "feining innocence", you are making up libellous accusations against her, and thereby parroting a zio-American-concocted psy-ops line.

Today Assad and iran are supporting PKK.
No, they aren't. Iran is at war with the PKK organization, which has set up a specific anti-Iranian branch known as PJAK.

And carried our gross human rights violations (such as torure, rape, and murder) against Sunnis of Western iraq.
No, it didn't.

Iraq: Fallujah Abuses Inquiry Mired in Secrecy

New Violations Belie US Reference to ‘Isolated Atrocities’


HRW = Soros-funded globalist organization with a marked anti-Iranian agenda (among others).

Similar groups have accused Pakistan of carrying out multi-million fold rape (actually of pioneering rape as a tool of warfare in the modern era) and effective genocide in Bangladesh.

By the way, I looked at that link and Iran wasn't mentioned even once in it.

I don't think you will want to take these type of sources seriously. I wouldn't.

You gave maps of Taliban bases to the US to help their bombing campaign, particularly Qasem Solemani.
The Taliban had committed the mistake of beheading Iranian diplomats and journalists, and of unnecessarily attacking Iranian border posts.

Discuss the topic, not the poster.
I did. Apparently you cannot read nor comprehend what it is you read.

NATO card again.
Intellectual laziness again. Do properly address the thread of the discussion at hand, avoid inoperative slogans.

Look above.
There was nothing of substance above. Again no evidence. Just a one-liner statement with nothing to substantiate it.

Now you grab a point I made and try to misrepresent it.

I am referring to ties with Serbia today, not 30 or so years ago.
You qualified evidence presented to you about Iranian support for Bosnian Muslims during the 1990's civil war as "Iranian propaganda" in the other thread. I added links showing this in my aforegone comment. Everyone can look and convince themselves. So don't try to claim otherwise all of a sudden.

There's nothing special about Iran's relationship with Serbia today. A Bosnian user trashed that feeble attempt at misrepresentation already.

Answer my question: Does Iran have diplomatic with the terrorist, Islamophobic regime of Serbia?
Here's some diplomatic ties with the "terrorist, Islamophobic regime of Serbia" for you (leavig aside the fact that the Serbian regime which conducted the war in Kosovo is no longer in power):



Why did Iran reject Kosovo's independence from an occupier and killer of Muslims like Serbia?
Already answered by both me and user scimitar19 . Don't repeat the same things over and over again.

They think they are the only Muslims left in the world, and everyone of other sects are Non-Muslims.
Libel against forum users and baselessly calling them takfiris. You stooped extremely low with falsehoods and ad hominems today. What happened? I struck a nerve?

Some time ago, you argued that claiming person X has performed takfir against Muslims, when person X in fact never did such a thing, is akin to performing takfir oneself, didn't you? If so, I guess you know what to do now.

By the way, you're not going to have any impact on sanel1412's views about Iran and Iranians. Unlike you, he knows them well and won't buy into baseless anti-Iran talking points.

Name one Sunni neighbor of Iran's which has good relations with you.
I am a private person. I don't have any relations to states.

Besides that, Iran has quite normal ties with every country she shares a land border with.

So now a Pakistani is playing the Iranian genetics game to deny Azeris as Turks?
Truth is truth, whether told by a Pakistani, an Iranian, an Arani, a Turk or a Martian.

Change your flag to the proper one. No Pakistani cares if Azeris are Turks or anything else.
You, my amnesiac friend. You do (remember point 5.?):

1.jpg


Or do you mean to imply you aren't Pakistani?

Confused now.
 
Last edited:

mike2000 is back

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 12, 2015
7,196
16
7,978
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I would suggest an under the table ToT of engines.
That's unrealistic and not fair to judge Russia's relations based on this dude . NO COUNTRY AND I REPEAT NO COUNTRY will ever sell or transfer their jet engine technology to another. Not even among western countries much less others, no matter how much you offer to pay for it. If not China would have gotten jet engine technology from Russia decades ago , same with India. In fact even though India has been willing to pay billions for full jet engine technology transfer western powers have still stayed away from providing such a deal to India. When it comes to jet engine TOT it's a NO NO. Any country that wants to develop that has to rely on their own like China is doing. In fact not even China will agree to help Iran on this aspect.
At most a foreign power can offer to help in processes/design and others like we offered to help Turkey for its new fighter engine tech, however there's no way we are going to provide them the highly guarded/classified secrets about the core technology of our fighter jet engines. They will have to do that on their own and it will take decades (that's if they persist on it and don't give up along the way in the first place).
 

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 28, 2018
13,214
5
28,317
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
@SalarHaqq you basically prove you are a lying and dishonest person. Literally all your points read like this.

Turkey was worse, so don't condemn Iran. NATO, NATO, NATO.

It is obvious that you have alot of time on your hands to defend Iranian propaganda on a Pakistani forum, yet when your Iranian friends insult Pakistan, you completely ignore them.

I am pretty sure now that you are a false flagger and I will take it up with Moderation.

Let me make my points as concise as possible for the viewers. Long-winded posts are just a waste of time, especially if they are half insults as yours are.

The Safavi had a nasty habit of interfering in Ottoman internal power struggles. So once an Ottoman sultan ascended the throne. Safavi empire had to be given payback.

I have provided sources to prove that the Hapsburg-Persia alliance preceded the French-Ottoman alliance, which was in response to it.

You chose to stick to your lies and accuse me of the same. Re-read my sources, paying special attention to dates.

The other point is that Russia and Britain occupied Persia, which was then used to attack the Ottomans from the East. Naturally as WW I was going on, the Ottoman (specifically Enver Paşa) had to neutralize that Russian and Britiah threat.

@MMM-E @Turcici Imperium @Turan09 @Hakikat ve Hikmet

Turkish members can shed further light on your lies.

I will endeavor to respond to your posts, in the order they were written.

As you have a habit of dogpiling, your latest posts will be answered last.

I have already proved your manipulations and lies regarding Ottoman history, I will aspire to do the same regarding your pther points.
 

PAKISTANFOREVER

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 15, 2015
12,638
-2
20,486
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Pakistan
Pakistan will never sell a single bullet to Iran let alone JF-17s because of the threat of U.S sanctions.

Well hopefully we will not stoop as low as Pakistan and just repaint some Chinese tanks and Jets and call them our own!



So what makes you say they are repainted Chinese M-11 missiles? Please be specific and provide the credible evidence.
 

Turcici Imperium

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Sep 24, 2020
75
0
354
Country
Turkey
Location
Turkey
Came here due to tag.

Apologies, Iran is such an irrelevant entity to the region that, i really don't care whether they are under weapon embargo or not. I wish happiness and prosperity to Iran's citizens, but i see nothing in Iran's potential to pull my interest on.

Best regards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom