Excuse after excuse... Turkey is still part of NATO. Turkey is still a major US ally and regional asset for Washington. Turkey is still in a military alliance with Isra"el".
If the west and zionists are backing terrorist groups against Turkey, and if Turkey doesn't even possess the necessary courage to rescind the defence pacts binding her to these entities, let alone shutting down their spy-infested "embassies" in Ankara, then this tells us something about Turkey's degree of subervience and dependence on those same powers that are hostile to her.
I guess not everyone can be Imam Khomeini, nor can every nation accomplish what Islamic Iran managed to since the glorious 1979 Islamic Revolution. Although our dearest wish, of course, is that other Muslim countries would start following Iran's example and joining Iran in her genuine, legitimate and staunch Resistance against the zio-American empire.
In the Iran Iraq war, after being attacked by Saddam's regime. It's called legitimate defence.
But even then the conclusion would be totally incorrect if one takes into account the millions of Muslims killed as a result of the illegal, zionist-instigated US war on Iraq, the zionist-orchestrated war in Syria, the breaking up of Sudan provoked by the zionist-controlled US regime, and so on and so forth.
Post 9-11, the US and its zionist masters, aided by their regional lackeys, set out to spread chaos all accross the Islamic world.
Zionist authors such as Natan Sharansky, a neocon favorite, even theorized the mindset underlying these policies under the designation "constructive chaos", a concept that draws inspiration from the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Neocon zionist think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) produced tons of literature along those lines.
It is perfectly documented who is responsible. Yet, certain subservient elements will falsely blame Iran so as to deflect the attention from their zionist overlords and whitewash the latter.
Whereas what Iran has been doing all along, is to counteract these zionist-hatched plans and prevent them from reavhing their goals. Such as in Lebanon, where Iran helped set up the Islamic Resistance of Hezbollah which managed to expell zionist occupiers in the early 2000's after decades of armed resistance (an unparalleled feat), and decisively beat back on Isra"el"i aggression in the 2006 war.
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.
And you are hallucinating again.
"Secret ally"? Hahaha, way to dodge your duty to provide evidence for this outlandish, childish fabrication. No evidence = no such thing happened.
You may think this goebbellsian keep copy/pasting of utter gibberish is a smart thing to do, but do not in fact realize that I will keep reiterating my points in response to each and every such post you make in this thread, and that with every one of my replies, numerous forum users will become familiar with undeniable, documented and sourced historic realities they were hitherto unaware of, which will happen to go a long way debunking the propagandistic aura surrounding the Ottoman empire and revealing its mischievious actions.
So by all means, keep this up. You are unwilingly and unknowingly doing your cause a disservice.
For the fact remains that the Ottoman empire pioneered alliance with Christian powers, namely with France, with which the Porte was allied for some two and a half centuries, from 1536 to the start of the Napoleonic campaign in Egypt (1798).
And prior to the masonic revolution of 1789 France was actually known as the Elder Daughter of the (Catholic) Church, i. e. of the Vatican. In other words, the Ottomans used to be the closest Muslim allies of the Vatican's "Eldest Daughter", right from the 16t century onwards.
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.
"Heavy price"? A heavy price is what Islamic Iran has been paying in the form of severe sanctions and boycotts due to her flawless support for the Resistance against zionist occupation in Palestine, Lebanon etc, and for daring to stand up to the criminal American empire.
Reactions to Turkey's mediation in the nuclear dispute with Iran don't even come close to these sanctions and to other acts of aggression against Iran. In fact, in this particular dossier the US took no punitive measures whatsoever against Ankara. Afterall it was nothing more than an attept at diplomatic mediation, which was simply ignored by Washington.
And no, other countries such as Iraq or Lebanon (and many others) didn't and don't have a problem with Iran's peaceful nuclear program either.
Ridiculous. The Brazilian-Turkish mediation effort had ended long before the JCPOA was concluded. There is no relation whatsoever between the two.
By the way, Turkey praised the JCPOA. And nothing was "signed" with the P5+1, it was a mere political agreement with no proper contractual value since no document was actually signed.
You obviously aren't familiar with the subject matter and are just making up grotesque nonsense on the go.
The Ottomans benefitted militarily and economically from their alliance with France, and put to use these benefits in their wars against Musim Iran.
It's great that you simply choose to ignore and obfuscate ample proof to the contrary which I included in my previous reply. You know why? Because thanks to this, I am going to repost it over and over again, and thereofore many more users will become aware of it, uncomfortable as these historic truths may be from the perspective of neo-Ottomanist myth-building.
So here we go again (and hopefully, again and again and again and again and again and again and again every time you repeat the same inaccuracy like a broken record):
There was indeed direct French involvement in favour of the Ottomans during the 1532-1555 Safavid-Ottoman war, such as when French ambassador Gabriel de Luetz, who accompanied sultan Suleiman in his campaign, gave decisive military advise to Ottoman armies, like when he counselled them on artillery placement during the siege of Van in 1548.
Source:
William Bayne Fisher in
William B Fisher,
Ilya Gershevitch,
Ehsan Yarshater,
Richard Nelson Frye,
John Andrew Boyle,
Peter Jackson,
Laurence Lockhart,
Peter Avery,
Gavin Hambly,
Charles P. Melville (eds.), The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968-1989, p.384ff
Then again in the early 20th century, 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 like 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.
Ottoman-Iranian wars were kickstarted by Ottoman ruler Selim I, who marched on Iran in 1514. This is after some court jurist declared the Qizilbash and Iranian shah Esma'il as "unbelievers and heretics" (i. e. made takfir on them).
Then again in 1532, the Ottoman 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.
Define "fighting Christians for Islam". If by that you are simply referring to a Muslim state being at war with a Christian one, then I already showed this contention to reflect ignorance of a series of important historic events.
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.
View attachment 680999
I also pointed to the numerous wars fought between Iran and Russia from the 17th to the early 19th centuries.
View attachment 681003
Obviously, you have some catching up to do when it comes to the history of Iran.
Ottomans were allied to the Elder Daughter of the Church i. e. Catholic France for some 250 years, making them the Vatican's closest Muslim ally during all that period.
Show us some evidence for the ludicrous claim about Iran and the Vatican... Nah sorry, you already indirectly admitted you have none, meaning this is therefore a mere figment of your colorful, wild imagination.
Muslim Iran fought the Orthodox Christian Russian empire several times from the mid 17th to the early 19th centuries. Muslim Iran fought the Catholic Portuguese empire in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Iran and Russia had been at war prior to that too.
And this only goes to disprove your previous claims.
No they didn't.
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 claims made by British-controlled "human rights" offices according to which practically "all" civilian victims of the war fell victim to governmental 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 and mostly 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.
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.
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 in order to occupy and try to annex northwestern parts of Iran.
Ottomans attacked Iran and stole Iranian lands. Iran defended herself and tried to recover what is hers. It's called 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.
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. Iran is neutral in the Karabakh war, despite the secularist Baku regime's direct cooperation with zionist plans to balkanize and break up Iran along fictive, so-called "ethnic" lines. That's nothing but a zionist-concocted myth devoid of factual basis.
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 onslaught, nation-devouring and uprooting of authentic religious tradition.
No, Iranian did not support Armenia against Aran. That's a zionist fabrication repeated by apologists of the zionist entity.
The Ottoman empire.
The zio-American empire, itsEuropean allies and its regional clients (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan) are responsible for the destabilization of Syria and the subsequent civil war.
To eliminate terrorists aided by the zionist apartheid entity, by the US, French, British regimes.
Not Iran. Only zionists, their apologists and useful idiots claim otherwise.
Iran saved the Anatolian-Pontic regime from the planned FETÖ coup by transmitting key intelligence to Anatolian authorities.
Supporters of the Anatolian-Pontic and Arani regimes are thanking Iran by making up comical accusatory fables against Islamic Iran and by lending support to the zio-American project for the destruction of every western Asian nation (including their own ones).
Iran has been backing the will of the Yemeni people and their revolution. Today Iran is supporting the Yemeni nation against foreign aggressors aided by Isra"el" and NATO.
The west and their regional lackeys, by installing and keeping in power a subservient, treasonous puppet dictatorship in Bahrein.
Turkey, which 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 insurgents fighting US occupiers.
At least try to be a tad more subtle with these all too obvious inversions.
Myth, lie 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 were smuggled into Iraq from during the brutal US-imposed sanctions in the 1990's.
Hahahaha, what's this, a bad joke? Turkish humor? Though I'm sure our Anatolian and Pontic friends generally have a better sense of humor than this. This is outright subpar.
Show evidence of this "Joint Committee" (what the heck?) or back off. You are increasingly outing yourself as someone who simply invents fairy tales for the sake of it.
Since when do ordinary visits from officials imply alliance to fight wars against others?
Pope Francis on an official visit in Turkey:
In a meeting with Turkish Muslim ulema, the Pope calls for dialogue between Muslims and Christians:
Pope Francis has stressed on the importance of dialogue between leaders of different religions during his landmark visit to the Turkish capital - Anadolu Ajansı
www.aa.com.tr
Apostolic journey of Benedict XVI to Turkey, meeting the president of the Turkish Religious Affairs Directorate (Diyanet), looking forward to "carry forward their dialogue as a sincere exchange between friends":
Religious Affairs Directorate, Turks, Giuseppe Roncalli, Grand Muftis of Ankara, Ankara, Istanbul, Grand Muftis of Istanbul, Turkish people, Turkey, Apostolic Journey
www.vatican.va
No sane mind will cite harlmess meetings such as these, held both by Turkey and Iran with Vatican officials, as "proof" for some secret conspiracy targeting Muslims.
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.
