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.
en.wikipedia.org
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."
en.wikipedia.org
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.
The outbreak of the First World War coincided with a period in Persian history when, following the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1909, the Iranians were poised to refashion the constitutional order and establish an independent, accountable and effective government. The global conflict...
encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net
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.
en.wikipedia.org
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.
en.wikipedia.org
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.
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:
In the early morning of January 3, laser-guided Hellfire missiles burst from an American drone, killing Iranian general Qassem Soleimani as he left the
tcf.org
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?
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’
An Iraqi government investigation into alleged abuses against civilians during military operations to retake Fallujah is being kept under wraps. New reports of serious abuses by the Popular Mobilization Forces and Federal Police compound the summary killings, enforced disappearances, and torture...
www.hrw.org
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.
Intellectual laziness again. Do properly address the thread of the discussion at hand, avoid inoperative slogans.
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.?):
Or do you mean to imply you aren't Pakistani?
Confused now.
