Geopolitics of Iran : caspianreport

[bozorgmehr]

See, that's where you're wrong. It is not the main premise of any one of the videos, it is only a point. Getting one point wrong does not automatically invalidate the entire argument. Saying that 90% of the video is wrong and only pointing out one piece of footage that is invalid does not equal 90%.

I am asking for proof that the map is altered by him. He's the one who made the claim, thus the burden of proof is on him. If he brings me the original map that he altered, then I'll believe him. The burden of proof is on the crown, not the defence.

I'm not hiding behind anything, on the contrary, I've never claimed on this thread that I'm being objective at all. I'm stating that the person in the video is bringing in an objective opinion.

You, like them, are supporting an argument that relies heavily on manipulation of original intent. There is no evidence that the author purposefully was acting against Iran (China too) and was promoting a separatist ideal, nor is there proof of his ill intent towards Iran (and China).

To present such an assumption without proving basic intent is foolish, nothing more and nothing less.

Well, let's see... The guy only starts his piece with: "In the last 500 years the borders of Iran have remained more or less the same..." and then goes on to use geographical facts and historical allegories to further harp on that point and later on contrasts that against simplistically drawn ethnic and linguistic fault lines of the country. So yes, I would call that one of the main premises of the his article.

But I'm not here to discuss the anatomy of an argument with you. You don't like the word premise... fine. My point still stands. Any Joe Shmoe with cursory knowledge of the regional history knows that the borders of Iran have changed wildly in the recent past. Much less an 'analyst' whose own country came about as a result of those changes. If for you that's just a small 'point' that he got wrong, as in mistaking Niger for Nigeria, then you need to be instructed on the difference between sh!t and shinola. So you may want to reflect a wee bit more on the information you are presented by the people who know the subject much better than you, before pressing the next button.

And you didn't claim to be objective yourself. But you like the piece because you consider it as being objective. But when somebody brings you clear and objective evidence to the contrary, you ignore it. You see why some people might find your points a tad contradictory and selective?

 

[That Guy]

Well, let's see... The guy only starts his piece with: "In the last 500 years the borders of Iran have remained more or less the same..." and then goes on to use geographical facts and historical allegories to further harp on that point and later on contrasts that against simplistically drawn ethnic and linguistic fault lines of the country. So yes, I would call that one of the main premises of the his article.

But I'm not here to discuss the anatomy of an argument with you. You don't like the word premise... fine. My point still stands. Any Joe Shmoe with cursory knowledge of the regional history knows that the borders of Iran have changed wildly in the recent past. Much less an 'analyst' whose own country came about as a result of those changes. If for you that's just a small 'point' that he got wrong, as in mistaking Niger for Nigeria, then you need to be instructed on the difference between sh!t and shinola. So you may want to reflect a wee bit more on the information you are presented by the people who know the subject much better than you, before pressing the next button.

And you didn't claim to be objective yourself. But you like the piece because you consider it as being objective. But when somebody brings you clear and objective evidence to the contrary, you ignore it. You see why some people might find your points a tad contradictory and selective?

Again, you're wrong. The rest of the points he made have little to do with the 500 years of border changes to Iran. If you'd bothered to actually examine his points, you'd know that.

For example, he takes the mountainous regions in the south as an example, he is right when he says that those mountains have always been a sort of defensive for Iran. Now what does that have to do with the changing of borders? Besides, Iran wasn't known as Iran until the early 90s, but that's besides the point.

Anyways, I'm not ignoring anything, but like I said, getting one thing wrong doesn't automatically mean the entire video is wrong. You point does not stand against this. Your logic is simply "he's wrong about one thing, thus his entire argument falls apart", which is, let's be honest here, completely and utterly flawed.

I also hate these "I know better than you" claims, because they always fall on their faces.

The only people who find my points contradictory and selective are those that don't understand what contradictory and selective mean.

Again, your argument falls apart at the very beginning. When did a single wrong argument result in an entire argument being wrong?

"cum hoc ergo propter hoc", a basic flawed argument that many people use (and you yourself are using), I suggest you keep it in mind next time you make such an argument.

 

[RangerPK]

I have seen some of his videos, they might give you rough idea, but I think they might not be to accurate.

 

[ASQ-1918]

"Much less an 'analyst' whose own country came about as a result of those changes."

Dissolution of Safavid Empire resulted in creation of Azerbaijani Khanates. Vassals of Nadir Shah Afshar at first (but certain Khanates were always independent from start, such as Shaki and Quba), gained their independence following Nadir Shah's death. And this situation continued until Qajars invaded Caucasus, when that did happen, many Khanates asked for aid from Russian Empire which had already established itself in Georgia and most of North Caucasus. And the proof of that is the Treaty of Kurekchay of 1805, signed between Khanates and Russian Empire, giving Khanates protection from Qajars, but in return making Khanates vassals of Russian Empire. This was accepted by Qajars in the Treaty of Gulustan 8 years later. Thats what it was all about, so stop repeating BS.

 

[MTN1917]

"Much less an 'analyst' whose own country came about as a result of those changes."

Dissolution of Safavid Empire resulted in creation of Azerbaijani Khanates. Vassals of Nadir Shah Afshar at first (but certain Khanates were always independent from start, such as Shaki and Quba), gained their independence following Nadir Shah's death. And this situation continued until Qajars invaded Caucasus, when that did happen, many Khanates asked for aid from Russian Empire which had already established itself in Georgia and most of North Caucasus. And the proof of that is the Treaty of Kurekchay of 1805, signed between Khanates and Russian Empire, giving Khanates protection from Qajars, but in return making Khanates vassals of Russian Empire. This was accepted by Qajars in the Treaty of Gulustan 8 years later. Thats what it was all about, so stop repeating BS.

So you say that SHIA AZERI people of Caucasus had wanted to be ruled by russians not by SHIA AZERI qajars?! it was christian(georgian and armenian) population of Caucasus who wanted to join russia.

The khans were vessel of Qajar kings everyone knows that at the start of war Javad khane QAJAR was governor of ganje who bravely fought against russian invaders, but he was betrayed by armenians there and eventually killed and after that massacre of ganje happened.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Some Khans, like Javad Khan Ziyadoghlu which you mention, aligned themselves with Qajars, but others didn't, like Khanates of Karabakh and Shaki. Similarly Khan of Karabakh fought the Qajar army prior to Treaty of Kurekchay.

In the end, both Russians and Qajars were invaders if you ask me.

 

[Shapur the Second]

guys... calm down... calm down! whats the problem? even a mule can make a video and upload it on youtube that doesnt mean we have to take it seriously! let them believe in whatever they want we know this guy dont know ****

 

[Shah9]

The dude in the first video has a thick Israeli accent. Israelis trying to create instability in Iran once again.

We don't have any problems with Israel do we? Think what they have done to us in the 80s, imaging Israel didn't support us. Our country will be ruined. Our leader doesn't represent our country! Correct?

 

[SOHEIL]

We don't have any problems with Israel do we? Think what they have done to us in the 80s, imaging Israel didn't support us. Our country will be ruined. Our leader doesn't represent our country! Correct?

support !?

 

[BordoEnes]

Guys, he is not Iranian. That makes him automaticly wrong...

 

[Shah9]

support !?

Those Arabs are no friend with us. The Palestinians and the Arabs loved Saddam that showed extreme hatred against us and we expect us to support them? No. We are the one who had histories with Israel and the Jewish people, we have our brothers in Israel and in here. Remember Cyprus the Great and Achaemenid?

They also were the one who saved our capital and theirs by getting rid of Iraq's nuclear facility and look how much they spent on us. Ahmedinejad does not represent our people, nor should run the country. We rallied against Ahmedinejad four years ago man. You know what they did to us, it's a shame the world think our country is a racist country, we have no absolute hate on Jewish root.

What does our country have to do with the Palestinians seriously? We don't follow their religion, their allies nor history which we hate according to our belief. We are using internet to show that we are not enemies with Israel, they are doing the same because the propaganda media are hyprocrite, what they talk about Iran hating Israel is not true. Everything is fine and everyone agreed with it so as the Israeli and the Jews. We should carry on with our lives but...if the world attacks us then we'll die defending our nation and who's that to be blamed? Ahmedinejad for causing a greater risk for us.

Back when we were allied publicity /watch?v=PBi2afAQhSs

 

[SOHEIL]

Those Arabs are no friend with us. The Palestinians and the Arabs loved Saddam that showed extreme hatred against us and we expect us to support them? No. We are the one who had histories with Israel and the Jewish people, we have our brothers in Israel and in here. Remember Cyprus the Great and Achaemenid?

They also were the one who saved our capital and theirs by getting rid of Iraq's nuclear facility and look how much they spent on us. Ahmedinejad does not represent our people, nor should run the country. We rallied against Ahmedinejad four years ago man. You know what they did to us, it's a shame the world think our country is a racist country, we have no absolute hate on Jewish root.

What does our country have to do with the Palestinians seriously? We don't follow their religion, their allies nor history which we hate according to our belief. We are using internet to show that we are not enemies with Israel, they are doing the same because the propaganda media are hyprocrite, what they talk about Iran hating Israel is not true. Everything is fine and everyone agreed with it so as the Israeli and the Jews. We should carry on with our lives but...if the world attacks us then we'll die defending our nation and who's that to be blamed? Ahmedinejad for causing a greater risk for us.

Back when we were allied publicity /watch?v=PBi2afAQhSs

Cyprus the Great !!!

Ah !!! problem solved

 

[ASQ-1918]

So you say that SHIA AZERI people of Caucasus had wanted to be ruled by russians not by SHIA AZERI qajars?! it was christian(georgian and armenian) population of Caucasus who wanted to join russia.

Also, where did I say that Khanates wanted to join Russia or wanted to be ruled by Russians? Khanates still wanted to exist in the form of semi-independence, they would rule their own territories, but as vassals of Russian Empire. Russia in return would provide them protection against external threats. Not quite the same thing as what you describe. You fail to see that Qajars themselves were invaders.

 

[MTN1917]

Also, where did I say that Khanates wanted to join Russia or wanted to be ruled by Russians? Khanates still wanted to exist in the form of semi-independence, they would rule their own territories, but as vassals of Russian Empire. Russia in return would provide them protection against external threats. Not quite the same thing as what you describe. You fail to see that Qajars themselves were invaders.

Yeah right, Azeri Qajars were invaders of Azeri lands! and why would khanates wanted to be vessel of christian russians not vessel of an empire which was ruled by the same people with the same language and the same religion.

These republic of Azerbaijan Azeris are a bunch of russified manqurts themselves.