Yes Iran should took over karabakh and send troops to Yerevan even though that will piss off russia if it was the shah it would be different. Russia just wanted excuse to invade karabakh like they did with Abkhazia and also make Armenia no it limits and be more of a Russian colony than to be close to the west
Iran Summons Turkish Envoy over President Erdogan’s Comments
- Thread starter Blackmoon
- Start date
Ich
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2018
- Messages
- 2,541
- Reaction score
- -26
- Country
- Location
Well, there were civilisations older then these three. Even in europe they found acient cities who trade with other cities, use copper over 8000 years ago. Also acient buildings from up to 15000 years ago, build out of stone monoliths, where some of them weigh up to 30 tons, exists in europe. You even can take a guided tour to them as they are tourist attraction. Even Gobekli Tepke in turkey is older than the three acient civilisation you mention.
Also there were acient cities found, older then 8000 years, all over the world, even in Iran. Some of the remains from acient cities are found under the surface of the oceans near coasts. This means that they must be old as 15000+ years cause at that time the surface of the oceans were around 100 meter lower cause it was ice age and the water was bound in ice on the lands.
"To wave some random maps , is like new kids on the block challenging those who were daddies and much older establishments. Lol"
well...
CatSultan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2020
- Messages
- 1,057
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
WudangMaster
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
This level of infiltration by that evil and dangerous group is very troublesome. Omid Dana mentioned in previous podcasts about how nefarious and entrenched these pan movements are and the blatant weakness the regime in dealing with these abominations on a cultural front for the past decades!
The funny this hajizade scumbag in his article he used to write for al arabiya and on his Facebook and Twitter always say the Turks are oppressed in Iran yet this video he posted from their propaganda is false I mean how come there are Azeri Turks are speaking about their nationalism openly in the Iranian parliament?!
Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
Nothing really. I can't even tell what was the quarrel about. Apparently some of the members wanted to have a speech as well out of the daily agenda and the head of parliament agreed.
They are arguing over whether some MP from bandar anzali had enough time to talk or not. its impossible to make it out what exactly is happening without more context.
though i suspect it to be nothing. No MP in Iran is going to come out in support of erdogan against Iran and not commit at a minimum political suicide... i suspect fake news
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
There is however a marked difference between dispatching forces to allied or friendly countries upon their governments' official request, and denying other countries' territorial integrity or even laying claim to their lands. In this case Iran isn't protesting Turkish military interventionism, but Erdogan's questioning of Iranian sovereignty over its northwestern provinces.
Iran has in fact consistently backed the territorial integrity of those countries where its forces are present. In Iraq for example, Tehran and general Soleimani directly contributed to foiling the Kurdish regional administration's attempts to annex Kirkuk and declare independence from Bahgdad.
Last edited:
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Entirely counterfactual statement. Shah Esmail I, founder of the Safavid dynasty, was a Shia Muslim. One of his first actions when he became ruler of Iran was to institute Shia Islam as the official state religion.
More counterfactual rhetoric. Russia has no infantry manpower of its own in Syria and in this regard Moscow largely depends on forces loyal to Iran. Iranian military outposts dot the entire territory under Syrian government control, from Deir ez-Zour all the way to Aleppo and Damascus. Local Iranian-trained groups are present and expanding. Equally intact are the underground facilities housing missiles and built with Iranian help. So are pro-Iranian Resistance forces in the Golan. So is the land bridge from Iraq to Lebanon, which remains firmly in Iranian hands.
Bilateral relations between Damascus and Tehran are solid as ever. Multiple bilateral economic cooperation accords (in sectors such as construction and real estate, telecommunications, phosphate mining etc) and even new defence treaties (whereby Iran is to modernize Syrian air defences for example) were signed over the last two years.
____
Iran was invited there by the Syrian government to help defend against a western- / zionist-orchestrated "regime change" attempt. Therefore this is a defensive move aimed at safeguarding the status quo. Expansionism however would imply an effort to alter the status quo to one's benefit (which is what all the regimes that sought to topple the government of president Assad were actually trying to do).
Iran didn't support Armenia. Azarbaijan's president Aliyev declared in English on television that before the war, Azarbaijan had purchased arms from Iran. The corresponding video is available online.
In military terms Iran completely staid out of the conflict. On the diplomatic front Iran reiterated that Karabakh is Azarbaijani territory, while stressing that the rights of Armenian residents of the region should also be respected once Azarbaijan takes control.
Turkey itself has solid relations with the Kurdish-led autonomous government in northern Iraq.
The extreme majority of Azari Iranians are loyal to Iran and do not engage in ethno-nationalism. They are also aware that they are an Iranian people. If the regime in Baku creates security problems for Iran, Azari Iranians will naturally side with their homeland Iran. Afterall the current Republic of Azarbaijan used to be Iranian territory until it was occupied by tsarist Russia in the first half of the 19th century.
That's according to Turkish analysts. Watch the corresponding video posted here.
Losing a general in the fight against the zio-American empire doesn't imply that you can't avert coups. In fact the Islamic Republic foiled several well known coup attempts at the beginning of the Revolution (early 80's), such as the Nojeh conspiracy hatched by air force officers loyal to the former regime of the shah. You can look it up. Then in 2009, Iran neutralized a "soft coup" or "colored revolution" attempt, the so-called Green movement. Not many states succeed in standing firm against Soros-funded "color revolutions".
Look how Soros still believed (and hoped) not long after the Green movement that the Islamic Republic's downfall would be imminent... this was around 10 years ago:
Turkey has military-level relations with the zionist entity.
It's unrelated to Armenia. Iran's issue with the Baku regime is their regular use of anti-Iranian separatism as a political tool, and above all the fact that their defence and security ties to the zionist regime are directly playing out to Iran's detriment. For instance, Isra"el"i UAV which overflew Iran (and were shot down) were reported to have taken off from Azerbaijani territory. Likewise, Iran found indications that the masterminds behind the assassination of (some of) its nuclear scientists 10 to 12 years ago were Mossad agents operating from Azerbaijan, and that the assassins travelled to Occupied Palestine via Baku for training, hence why the Azari ambassador was summoned.
This became Turkey's primary objective in Syria only after it failed in its initial goal, that is to topple the government of president Assad. Ankara hosted on its soil a NATO-led "control room" or command center for Syrian anti-government fighters, it let volunteers from every corner of the world through its borders to join anti-government fighters, it assisted such groups with weapons, training, money, political support and logistics. Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously vowed that he would pray at the Umayyad mosque in Damascus alongside Syrian oppositionists.
Assisting a longstanding ally (one of the rare countries to side with Iran during the 1980's Iran-Iraq war) against western- and Isra"el"i sponsored, armed proxy-induced regime change attempt. And securing its land connection to the Lebanese Resistance, a centerpiece of Iran's defensive security architecture and deterrence against potential military aggression by its zio-American enemies. The more allies Iran has on the borders to Occupied Palestine capable of striking the zionist regime, the more this will guarantee Iran's own security against the risk of military aggression by Washington or Tel Aviv.
In a world dominated by a criminal empire (and given how the latter, through its control over the mainstream media, can easily fool the masses by demeaning and demonizing its adversaries), this may rather be seen as a badge of honor.
____
The Indus Valley Civilization covered a considerable part of Pakistan, but didn't extend as far as the Iranian plateau.
The Sumerian civilization in southern Mesopotamia is usually considered the first (Babylon came later), and the city of Uruk is viewed as the first urban civilizational center. That's the prevailing scholarly assessment.
But in any case the first three advanced civilizations were indeed Sumer, the Indus Valley and ancient Egypt.
However, during that period an advanced indigeneous civilization took shape on the Iranian plateau as well, although it is a bit younger than the previous three. Its name being Elam or Elamite empire. Elam was not linked to nor controlled by any empire based outside of Iran.
See: https://www.ancient.eu/elam/
Also, other civilizations from later periods of Antiquity (Greek, Iranian, Chinese etc) still qualify as ancient ones (i. e. they were there before the medieval period).
As said there was an advanced civilization in Iran before the arrival of Aryans, called Elam. Plus numerous high cultures, some of them extremely ancient, existed accross Iran. See sites such as the Zagros culture, Takhte Soleiman, Jiroft, Shahre Sukhte and so on.
In Achaemenid-erascriptures found in Iran (7th to 4th centuries BC), emperors self-identify as Aryans. Linguistics confirm this, given that Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages are branches of the Indo-European language family.
This of course is not to say that no earlier civilization existed prior to the arrival of Aryans on the Iranian plateau or Indus Valley. But that doesn't mean there was no influx of Aryan peoples at some point, nor that these newcomers, after mixing with locals and making use of their achievements, didn't found civilizations of their own.
____
Just a note about the name issue: Iranians themselves always referred to their country as Iran. The name Persia was in use by foreigners, not by locals.
In ancient Zoroastrian texts already, including in the Avesta (the main Zoroastrian religious scripture), the notion of Airyana Vaeja / Airyanam Dakhyunam or "land / domain of the Aryans", from which the current name Iran stems (Iran has the exact same meaning), is mentioned repeatedly. Thus, whether in Central Asia or on the Iranian plateau, Iranian peoples always referred to their land as Iran. The Indo-Aryans used to do the same by the way, since Hindu scriptures include the term Arya Varta.
However Iranians, unlike Hindus, stuck to the term. The Parthians used the names Aryan and Aryanshahr to refer to their land. The Sassassians referred to it as Eranshahr or simply Eran, and this was indeed the official name of the country.
In inscriptions found at the Ka'be-ye Zartosht monument at Naqshe Rostam in southern Iran, as well as on silver coins of that period, Sassanian emperor Ardashir I is referred to as Ardashir Shahanshahe Eran.
See:
The great trilingual inscription of Šāpūr I at the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt in Fārs, here preserved only in Parth. and Greek, but reconstructable with certainty also in Pers., contains for the first time the Pers. word ērānšahr (Parth. aryānšahr), the king declaring in Persian [*ʾNH . . . ylʾnštry ḥwtʾy ḤWHm]/an. . .ērānšahr xwadāy hēm/, Parth. ʾNH . . .ʾryʾnḥštr ḥwtwy ḤWYm/az. . .aryānšahr xwadāy ahēm/, Greek egō . . .tou Arianōn ethnous despotēs eimi “I am lord of the kingdom (Gk. nation) of the Aryans” (ŠKZ, Mid. Pers. [1], Parth. 1., Gk. 1.2; Back, p. 284-85). This formulation, following his title “king of kings of the Aryans,” makes it seem very likely that ērānšahr properly denoted the empire, while ērān was still understood, in agreement with its etymology (< OIr. *aryānām), as the (oblique) plural of the gentilic ēr (Parth. ary < Old Ir. arya-) “Aryan,” i.e., “of the Iranians.”
Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica
The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a comprehensive research tool dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent
Ardašir symbolized his ideology on an imperial coinage (Lukonin, 1965, pp. 165-66; Alram, 1999), which he introduced in silver (Gk. drachma > NPers. derham), and gold (dinār), the latter in imitation of the Achaemenid practice (Göbl, p. 25; cf. p. 27). The obverse shows his bust, wearing a new type of crown, consisting of a diademed headgear surmounted by the korymbos, a fine, bejeweled fabric encasing the top hair in a glob-like fashion; it became the identifying feature of the Sasanian kings (on the symbolism of Sasanian crowns, see Herzfeld, 1938, pp. 91-158; Erdmann, 1951). The legend is also new (Klima, 1956; Sundermann, 1988): mzdysn bgy ʾrtḥštr MLK’n MLK’’yr’n MNW ctry MN yzd’n “Mazda-worshipping divine [=Majesty] Ardašir King of Kings of Iran whose seed is from gods.” Having re-united the Iranians (hence his traditional epithet, “the Unifier”; Maqdisi, III, p. 156), he adopted what appears to have been the old designation of their lands—Ērānšahr “Empire of the Iranians—”to serve as the official name of his country (Shahbazi, “The History of the Idea of Iran,” forthcoming; for a different interpretation, see Gnoli, 1989)
Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica
The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a comprehensive research tool dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent
This has remained so to this day.
The name Persia on the other hand was never used by Iranians back then, not even by local Achaemenid rulers who, before taking over from the Median dynasty and founding the Achaemenid empire, used to rule over the area corresponding to today's Fars province. As apparent from inscriptions attributed to Cyrus I for example, the region was then named Anshan rather than Parsa / Persia.
Also, in ancient times only few Iranian peoples lived outside the realm of Iranian empires - mostly the Scythians to the north (who did not reach similar civilizational levels).
____
This isn't the case. None of Iran's Iraqi allies played any part in the US invasion of that country. In contrast to countries south of the Persian Gulf, where American air power used in the attack was based. Likewise, US troops entered Iraq through Kuwait.
When it comes to Afghanistan, Turkey itself was and is part of the NATO occupation force there, while Pakistan set up a logistical supply line for the US contingent.
Iran and the zio-Americans are on opposite sides and support opposite factions in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. In Afghanistan their interests diverge as well.
What an amazing, inadvertent lapsus linguae. Indeed members of the so-called Shirazi clan, a clerical current formed around grand ayatollah Shirazi, are often qualified as "British turbans" in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Precisely because they engage in vehement postures against Sunni Muslims. Members and sympathizers of the group are well known for their attacks against... the Supreme Leader of Iran, Seyyed Khamenei, against Lebanese Hezbollah and so on. In other words, the Shirazi clan and its British-supported minions like sheikh Yasser al-Habib are eminently hostile to the current ruling establishment of Iran, as well as to Khomeinist ideology, which is essentially pan-Islamic and not sectarian supremacist. The Shirazis very much mind Iran's policies in the region, as said policies go against western (including British) interests. The actual British-sponsored sectarianists are the Shirazis, and the Shirazis hate the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leadership.
____
You are largely correct. It's just that these earlier sites you are evoking did not quite reach the status of what is commonly considered an advanced civilization. However they were high cultures, where most of the defining features of an ancient civilization (some of which you enumerated) were already observable, but lacked the maturity, systematicity and extent they would reach in subsequent civilizations.
Indeed such high cultures were present in Europe, in Iran, in Turkey and other places, many of them predating the first three advanced civilizations of Sumer, Indus Valley and Egypt. The latter three themselves were also preceded by local high cultures (like Mehrgarh in Pakistan etc). Now other high cultures remained at that stage while the three in question developed into full fledged, advanced civilizations.
It's true that the border between high culture and civilization isn't always easy to define, as you alluded to. But if we take Iran as an example, there is still a visible leap of sorts between high cultures such as the Zagros cline or Jiroft - which were perfectly impressive on their own, and the Elamite empire or its Aryan successors, the Median and Achaemenid empires.
Last edited:
yavar
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,988
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
fake news
El Sidd
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 67,583
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
This is just not correct. There is no one who can conquer Iraq without Persian coordination. There is no shame in admitting this.
Afghanistan is similar where Northern Alliance were installed by Americans.
Again this is freedom of expression. You like to believe this as Iran can never be wrong in your mind.
Maulana Sahab I am very careful with my words and i know what i said.
The same shirazis are used as soft power pegs from India to Africa to Suriname no matter how they oppose the current regime in Iran.
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
The US regime invaded a battered, weakened Iraq (ruled by Saddam and where Iran's allies had no say at all) without any help from Iran. Iran played no role in the US invasion of Iraq, that's simply a historic fact.
May I furthermore remind that Bush jr. had just associated Iran with Iraq and North Korea as a member of his so-called "axis of evil", and thus as a prime target for invasion and / or "regime change".
Afghanistan is different in that there was indeed some interaction between Iran and the Americans in ousting the Taleban, as opposed to Iraq's case. But as I reminded everyone of, there was hardly a country in the region that didn't assist the US one way or another in its invasion of Afghanistan. Turkey is part of ISAF, NATO's military mission in Afghanistan. As for Pakistan, well, the government acquiesced to establish the Southern Distribution Network supply line for the US.
Used by Iran's enemies to challenge the legitimacy and popularity of the Islamic Republic amongst Shia Muslims. And in order to stir sectarianist tensions between Muslims.
Pro-IR clerics have their own Khomeinist networks doing religious da'wa etc. In fact Iranian authorities have clamped down on the Shirazis, closing their TV channels' offices in Iran, launching websites and other media against them, prohibiting them from making anti-Sunni sermons, etc. What soft powr pegs? The IR is certainly not going to shoot itself in the foot by supporting its own enemies who keep propagating against it through their UK-based broadcasters. It doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
El Sidd
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 67,583
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Sad Mr. Soleimani is not alive otherwise this discussion would be much much shorter.
State of Iran uses them. There is the State and then there is the government.
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
I used the terms interchangeably. Neither does the state of Iran use them. They are outspoken enemies of the state of Iran and their work consists in propagating against the state of Iran and its allies 24/7.
Similar threads
