Greatest Persians in history

[Surenas]

You will live together with your Taliban Afghan brethern in Afghanistan, back to where you came from (I'm just giving your own propaganda dose, if you guys continue, thats how I will continue aswell).

Lets continue this way then. Let's talk about the mighty Persians who are educationally superior to Azerbaijanis in foreign countries, where in the country I live, Holland, and many other countries like the US, Sweden, Germany, France, etc. we are higher educated than the native people, and higher educated than Azerbaijanis. And even in the region, we completely dominate you guys scientifically, culturally and morally. That's why your phony culture is based on elements we have produced thousand years ago, and you backward Caucasians try to imitate it.

Get the phuck out of here.

 

[Targon]

A general answer to that idiocy which keeps popping everywhere even though I explain everytime

While I respect that those rulers from different ethnicities were part of the history of modern Iran, I have to disagree on associating them to modern Iranian nationality as such thing isn't existed, ASQ is essentially right in the ruler of Iran issue, even if it was an English dynasty, they would be still the rulers of Iran, because the land was Iran, thats doesn't means they had the stance of modern Iranian nationality

Same can be told to Rumi, he was of Persian ethnicity, but he lived in Anatolia(Rum) called Rumi, learned Turkish and become an important part of our history.

Also one think still irriates me, some certain people stubbornly insists on bringing blood and culture sh.t again, when I explained in other threads, same people just kept disappearing without answering but appeared in other threads again by bringing same sh.t, are you guys aren't men enough to stand in back of your claims ?

 

[Surenas]

This quasi-Azerbaijani Turk, who is actually nothing but a Turkified Caucasian, is the most obsessed guy I've ever met. Azerbaijanis doesn't exist. Genetically they are closer to Armenians than to Turks, and Azeris in Iran are genetically closer to other Iranians.

 

[ASQ-1918]

The same way that you guys are Elamites.

If you think this is retarded, this is exactly your logic and arguments. So if you claim that, then you should accept your Elamite roots.

 

[Surenas]

You were first dwelling in caves of Afghanistan, you only became camel riders in Dasht-e Lut less than 1000 years ago.

How you ever tought why there is such a high concentration of your ethnic kins to east of Iran? Even Kurds are most closely related to Baluches and are assumed to came from east of Iran.

Oh, and if you think this is trolling, then think about your own posts, it is no different. Not that these facts aren't true...

Actually, genetically Baluch are more related to Indic people than to Iranian people, in despite of their language.

I don't feel ashamed to acknowledge that many Afghanis have Iranian ancestry. Afghans are an proud people, and I have seen what they are capable of here in the west, where Iranians and Afghans are extremely high educated, unlike Turks. Their country have been ruined by foreign influences, and back in the old days, Kabul was a modern, prosper and liberal city.

I've more regard for Afghan capabilities, than Azerbaijani capabilities.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Believe it or not, the closest people related to Baluches are Kurds. Kurds try to create fake origins that they are heirs to Media (no evidence exists other than partial geographical connection, but up until modern times it was largely accepted that their origins lie in east of Iran and their relation to Baloch people proves this.

The Iranic group is not less diverse than Turkic one, you guys don't understand that the arguments you bring are only and only a result of the geography, and this is also very well observed among your own kins.

Would you claim any other origin than Iranic for Ossetias? But they are actually North Caucasians in outer resemblence of their culture and so on...And you claim Balochis are more related to Indic people, but they are still Iranians, and geographically a close one. And like said, they are related to Kurds.

I see when it comes to your own kins, the same arguments that you use about Turks do not hold any truth?

 

[Surenas]

The same way that you guys are Elamites.

If you think this is retarded, this is exactly your logic and arguments. So if you claim that, then you should accept your Elamite roots.

First of all, if we would be Elamites, I would not be ashamed of that. Elamites had a civilization long before Turks even knew what a city was. When they build ziggurats, you guys were living in Yurts.

Second, Elamites weren't semites. Their language is a isolated language, and genetic tests show that Iranians are not related to semites. Period.

 

[Targon]

I'm suprised that instead of running away you decided to ignore and continue this time.

 

[Surenas]

I see when it comes to your own kins, the same arguments that you use about Turks do not hold any truth?

I refuse to call you a Turk. You are not a Turk, but a Turkified Caucasian.

 

[ASQ-1918]

First of all, if we would be Elamites, I would not be ashamed of that. Elamites had a civilization long before Turks even knew what a city was. When they build ziggurats, you guys were living in Yurts.

Second, Elamites weren't semites. Their language is a isolated language, and genetic tests show that Iranians are not related to semites. Period.

How do you know that? What is the "semitic genetic"? A good example of semites in Iran itself would be Assyrians. Are they like Saudis?

So if there wasn't a Turkic migration, than there wasn't a "Aryan" migration, period.

 

[Surenas]

How do you know that? What is the "semitic genetic"? A good example of semites in Iran itself would be Assyrians.

Their language was completely different than the Semitic languages at that time. I would say that's a hard evidence to conclude that Iran was never inhabited by Semites.

So if there wasn't a Turkic migration, than there wasn't a "Aryan" migration, period.

There was a Aryan migration. The Assyrians spoke about the 'Parsua' when the Persians arrived.

 

[Targon]

So you're determined to continue this stupidty...

 

[ASQ-1918]

Their language was completely different than the Semitic languages at that time. I would say that's a hard evidence to conclude that Iran was never inhabited by Semites.

There was a Aryan migration. The Assyrians spoke about the 'Parsua' when the Persians arrived.

It had stuck in my mind as Semites, but I see that the claim is that they spoke Dravidian, so you guys are Indians then.

And we have even better evidence and mention of Oghuz migrations, are you acting like a retard on purpose? Up until modern times our population identified themselves within these different tribes. Plus our population were also nomads for the large part up until 19th century, and such nomadic tribes still exist.

 

[Surenas]

It had stuck in my mind as Semites, but I see that the claim is that they spoke Dravidian, so you guys are Indians then.

They did not spoke Dravidian either. Actually, there is no agreement between scientists where the Elamites came from.

And we have even better evidence and mention of Oghuz migrations, are you acting like a retard on purpose?

Science is pretty clear on this matter; Azerbaijanis are Turkified Caucasians, and Azeris in Iran are Turkified Iranian.

 

[ASQ-1918]

They did not spoke Dravidian either. Actually, there is no agreement between scientists where the Elamites came from.

Science is pretty clear on this matter; Azerbaijanis are Turkified Caucasians, and Azeris in Iran are Turkified Iranian.

The claim is that they did.

So your saying that the same people are in fact different? Is Persians of Shiraz and Isfahan two different peoples? Same logic.

Is science also pretty clear that this would not be possible as there were never any nomadic Caucasian population or pre-Turkic nomadic populations northern Iran for that matter? Even if there would be, that would be few thousand years ago.