What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

Pakistan had the benefit of being Chinas strategic ally, which initially helped Pakistan to start its program.

Pakistan also had nuclear weapons which made pin-point strike capability and massive production numbers unnecessary.
So both countries missile programs developed differently.

After having received production capabilities for solid fuel short range ballistic missiles, Pakistan levereged China to give it medium range BMs by purchasing North Korean Nodongs.
For Pakistan what was important, was to have tech. transfer of solid fuel BMs.

So the Ghauri/Nodong or liquid program lost its meaning and after having got cruise missile technology these together with Shahin-2 became Pakistans missile force structure.

Iran on the other hand purchased Nodongs and was forced to set up a manufacturing line for it as only conventional warheads were available and high numbers necessary for deterrence. China would also not sell Iran Shahin-2-like technology, because they were not strategic partners.

So Irans missile force was more diverse and mainly liquid based.

Iran needs ever more numbers and improved missiles to create deterrence, while Pakistan with Shahin-2/Ababeel and Babur CMs has all it needs to deliver its nuclear warheads. Pakistans investments are hence towards more nuclear warheads, while Iran trys to increase the number of its missiles and make them more economic by more efficient designs.
Nasr, Babur are also Chinese based?
And you are right about pin point accuracy remark. But still, the precision and accuracy of the missiles in our invertory are formidible. Why make them so when it doesn't matter much if the nuke drops at this end or the other end of the city, lol?

Then comes, Raad and Raad 2 ALCMs.

Liquid fuel missiles are still used despite the cons as they are easier to handle and more manoeuvre than Solid engines. Cruise Missiles uses it for a reason.

I guess Pakistan had to focus on both things, advancing nuclear technology e.g Miniaturization etc, devloping Plutonium and Uranium based warheads , and also developing and acquiring the effective dilivery options. With being blacklisted and under sanctions, which are still in force as far as nuclear and missile related things are concerned, I think Pakistan has worked things out just fine.
NK must also be appreciated for their work in missiles.

Iran was caught and hindered early as far as nuclear capability is concerned. So, Iran was already investing into its missile program, but then, it had to be made a priority and thus, the missile program was supported wholly with resources. Ofcourse, as with Pakistan, it also had to struggle with the severe sanctions and also the get things from the black market which both nations still do.
 
.
Nasr, Babur are also Chinese based?
And you are right about pin point accuracy remark. But still, the precision and accuracy of the missiles in our invertory are formidible. Why make them so when it doesn't matter much if the nuke drops at this end or the other end of the city, lol?

Then comes, Raad and Raad 2 ALCMs.

Liquid fuel missiles are still used despite the cons as they are easier to handle and more manoeuvre than Solid engines. Cruise Missiles uses it for a reason.

I guess Pakistan had to focus on both things, advancing nuclear technology e.g Miniaturization etc, devloping Plutonium and Uranium based warheads , and also developing and acquiring the effective dilivery options. With being blacklisted and under sanctions, which are still in force as far as nuclear and missile related things are concerned, I think Pakistan has worked things out just fine.
NK must also be appreciated for their work in missiles.

Iran was caught and hindered early as far as nuclear capability is concerned. So, Iran was already investing into its missile program, but then, it had to be made a priority and thus, the missile program was supported wholly with resources. Ofcourse, as with Pakistan, it also had to struggle with the severe sanctions and also the get things from the black market which both nations still do.

I think Babur is a Pakistani program based on crash landed Tomahawks, likely with some Chinese assistance for example on the engine.
Raad similarly.

Pakistan to some extend went to cruise missiles after Shahin-2 became available. Shahin-2 is all Pakistan needs against India, its accurate enough for nuclear warheads and is much easier to handle than Nodong/Ghauri.

So cruise missiles were where Pakistani resources went, not ballistic missiles anymore. This lead to the early availability of the Babur and Raad, when China had just got its ground launched CM working and Iran was still years away.
Nasr is of less importance due to its very tactical nature/range.

Pakistans goal is likely:

BM: Already achieved, Shahin-2 upgrade to Ababeel to counter future Indian ABM with heavy decoys.

Ground launched CM: Babur, needs only improvement on range in the future.

Air launched CM: Raad-2

Submarine launched CM: A future Babur variant, thats what Pakistans missile program is likely working most intensively at the moment.

Tactical battlefield nuclear weapon: Nasr

You only invest and develop to an extend where you have superiority over your enemy: India can't counter all those delivery systems at the moment, so Pakistan does not need to invest heavily in it.

Iran on the other hand needs ever higher payloads delivered at lower cost. hence its forces new and better missiles.

North Korea is in the same situation as Pakistan, only that their main enemy is at intercontinental range and this forces it to develop long range BMs. Plus their Juche ideology forces them to build more or less everything on their own.
 
.
AoA brothers, Hope you are all doing well. Sorry to request out of nowhere, but like would love to see Iran's perspective of the missile program (both ballistic and cruise) of Pakistan (even including similarities with foreign missiles etc) from the end of of last century to the Latest Ababeel and Babur 3 etc.

And also one comparing & contrasting the missiles, their ranges, delivery options etc of both Iran and Pakistan.

It is because Iran and Pakistan are two most prominent Muslim countries with an advanced missiles program.

You both seem relevant so tagging.

@Philosopher @PeeD

Shab Bakhair!

Salam brother,

I think brother PeeD nicely summed it up. Iran and Pakistan certainly have overlaps in their missile programs however the divergence occurs due to the different nuclear postures. One is an overt nuclear power and other a latent one. There are pros and cons for both, however in Iran's case, currently a latent capability is more in its interest. Iran therefore has to make up for this via the quantity of its missiles and great emphasis on accuracy. As the missile expert Uzi Rubin likes to put it, when you have the ability to target enemy's strategic assets in a pin point manner, the need for nuclear weapons diminishes. Another benefit is when a non-nuclear state uses conventionally armed missiles against a nuclear state, you don't have to worry about triggering M.A.D automatically.

This Iranian emphasis on the lethality of conventionally armed ballistic missiles has started to change the way militaries start to view them and even rethink this outdated notion that "missiles don't win wars". I opened a thread about this topic few months ago which is based on an article written by Uzi Rubin:

Iran's accurate ballistic missiles are defining new ways that wars are fought

There is much more to talk about, but if you're looking for few tangible examples of how Iran's doctrine is leading to new levels of missiles different to other nations, then look into Iran's anti-radiation ballistic missiles or its version of tactical missiles. Iran today is fielding tactical missiles that have ranges of up 1800km which are the longest range of this kind of system globally. By comparison, this sort of range is classed as strategic types in other nations. And it's not just a matter of range, the warheads of these systems are not your garden variety ballistic but low tier hypersonic glide likes (HGV) type systems. This sort of posturing is not something Pakistan feels the need for given its nuclear focused doctrine. However as an exception, I can see Pakistan developing conventionally armed anti-ship ballistic (systems similar to Iran) for A2/AD to compliment its CM-400AKG and its other anti-ship solutions.

Generally speaking, in the Islamic world, Iran and Pakistan are certainly far ahead compared to other nations. Others are so far in the distance that they can't even be seen in order to be mentioned.
 
.
yes Curse اhis shitty soul .shitty stupid creature he die 3 days ago and they say he die in arbain .they think he go to paradis they want to deceive god
 
. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana_Neyestani
he is a persian and his father is from kerman.

What is Persian? Why was he able to speak Torki? He was a Tork speaker.

And the bullsh¡t of crybabies destroyed his life and forced him to run away.
If in his cartoon the cockroach spoke persian, would tht have meant that Perisan crybaies should have come out demonstrding too?!

This bullsh¡t of I am of this group and will take offence at the smallest thing has to stop otherwise it will drive Iranians appart.

If anyone puts thier tribal affiliations above Iran, they have to go.
 
.
One nationality, therefore one nation also (rather than multiple ones), no?

Yes one nationality (Iranian), therefore one nation, but Iran is still a multi-ethnic state. There are Persians, Lors, Azeri, Baloch and many more.

That's a highly relative notion in reality.

In the strict sense of the term "ethnicity", over 95% of Iranians tend to share one and the same ethnicity.

See this representation of the genetic map of Iranians:

image


This means that apart from Persian Gulf islanders (a few hundreds of thousands of citizens only), who have African and Semitic roots, those among the Turkmen who do not have strong indigeneous Iranian admixture (again, less than 1% of Iran's population), as well as the Baluch and Sistanis (who are actually closest, genetically speaking, to the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau prior to the settlement of Aryan tribes, though they later adopted a western Iranian language), all other groups in Iran i. e. some 97% of the population, are of a same "racial" or "ethnic" stock.

Therefore one can at best speak of several linguistic communities, but not so much of different "ethnicities".

Now even when it comes to those linguistic communities, you skipped the main point of my aforegone commentary: these communities overlap and do not have clear boundaries, because most Iranians have mixed linguistic backgrounds thanks to overwhelming intermarriage over the course of centuries and millenia between members of the various linguistic groups present in Iran.

So once again, it is impossible to assign some exclusive linguistic affiliation to every single Iranian citizen, because most of them will objectively have their roots in two or more of these communities at the same time!

Hence, the subdivision of the Iranian population into "ethnicities" or more exactly, into linguistic communities, is very problematic to start with.

it is important to charge and prosecute those who want to rile up ethnic tensions and cause Iran to eventually disintegrate along ethnic lines. We've seen what they've done to Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. Balkanization. It's the age old divide and conquer strategy. Keep Syria weak by dividing it, keep Yemen weak by dividing it. If they can't defeat the enemy at the present moment, then they start by dividing them into smaller, more manageable, weaker peices.

Yes, but introducing this sort of laws and jurisprudence is not the proper way to proceed. On the contrary, this would prove to be profoundly counter-productive and would only help the enemy in its attempts to promote so-called "ethnic" divisions among Iranians.

If someone is identified by Iran's security agencies as a provocateur engaged in stirring this sort of trouble, they have to be prosecuted under national security laws (if there is reason to suspect they are agents), under general laws for the protection of public order (if they are just misguided individuals), or for insults.

There is no need to introduce "anti-racism" laws if the aim is to ensure social peace, and in reality such laws are a trap set by Iran's enemies. Here is why:

1) Once you start going down that road and making concessions to such requests, which by the way are mostly formulated by "ethno"-separatists and their liberal (reformist/centrist) backers as well as associated 'nofoozis' working in the interests of Iran's foreign enemies, more and more demands will surface from the same quarters aiming to turn purported "ethnic" communities into legal persons, and then into codified institutional realities, much as was the case in former Yugoslavia.

Namely, they will press for an "ethnic" federalization of the Iranian state, i. e. for the creation of federate provinces defined by purported, fictive notions of "ethnicity" - when in fact, even major federal polities such as the US or Germany took care not to organize federal subdivisions along so-called "ethnic" lines, for they were fully aware that this is a recipe for catastrophy, like witnessed in ex-Yugoslavia.

If the Iranian state were to give in to the first such demand - i. e. "anti-racist" laws promugated with a view to protect not individual Iranian citizens but collective so-called "ethnic" communities whose very existence is largely mythical (see above as to why) and thereby grant a first notion of legal recognition to these widely imaginary groups, it will find itself under tremendous pressure from then on to consent to additional concessions driven by the same logic.

This is an extremely dangerous, slippery slope which Iran's enemies, supported by domestic "ethno"-separatists (pan-Turkists, pan-Kurdists, pan-Arabists etc) and liberal fifth-columnists, have kickstarted. It echoes their initiation of a similarly hazardous spiral for Iran's foreign policy with the nuclear JCPOA - which was always meant as an initial stepping stone for future JCPOA's intended to roll back Iran's ballistic missile arsenal and her regional presence, both of which would have achieved to dismantle Iran's military deterrence, exposing her therewith to acute risks of military aggression.

2) Such laws would not only seal the recognition within the country's legal framework of inexistent "ethnic" dividing lines, but would have a similar impact on the hearts and minds of Iranians, driving wedges between them and weakening their national unity.

Look, for the enemy to be able to turn Iranians against one another using "ethnic" pretexts, it first needs to make Iranians believe in the illusion that each of them does in fact belong to one distinct "ethnic" community, and that there is a major issue of discrimination against minority communities. To this effect, the enemy and its internal collaborators will set out to promote "ethnic" victimhood-mentalities among Iranians receptive to the drivel.

And it is precisely here that "anti-racist" legislation would make life easier for the enemy in pursuit of its sinister program. With such laws in place, the enemy's collaborators and useful idiots inside Iran would trigger trial after trial and turn each one of these into a media sensation. As a result, the fallacious notion that there are inter-"ethnic" issues in Iran would get cultivated and artificially inflated in the minds of Iranians.

If you seek to effectively counter and neutralize the enemy's project for so-called "ethnic" disintegration of Iran and its corresponding social engineering effort, the one thing you do not do is to resort to measures whose net effect it would be to disseminate a so-called "ethnic" type of thinking among Iranians, to put such so-called "ethnic" topics into the spotlight, to make such questions an issue of public debate in society - especially when such was not the prevailing social state of affairs to begin with!

By doing so, you would only manufacture a widely accepted false reality which has no material, objective existence and which hitherto had no place in the minds of Iranians. Indeed, "ethnicity" did not and does not play any role in the daily social interactions of Iranians: in Iran, you are never asked what your "ethnicity" is, be it when you are applying for a job in the private or public sectors, trying to make friends, registering as a candidate in an election. In other terms, there is no "ethnicity"-based discrimination to speak of in Iranian society.

I'm not even delving into the topic of discrimination by state institutions, other than remingding how people in positions as high as the Supreme Leader, various key political decision making posts, high ranking military commanders etc have Azari roots, so clearly, one will find no discrimination whatsoever in this area either.

"Anti-racist" laws would therefore tend to turn a non-issue into an issue in the perceptions of the Iranian people.

So rather than indirectly advertizing, through such laws, the idea that "ethnicity" is a relevant issue in Iran, what you want to do on the contrary is to drive any and all so-called "ethnic" discussions and "ethnicist" types of identitarianism / tribalism to the margins of society and public debate.

As I pointed out, continued promotion of the shared national identity and civilizational heritage, including through all available educational and cultural consumer goods, is one way to go about this.

Another way, and this is too often overlooked, is to widely and insistently inform Iranians (including through TV advertizing etc) about a simple, verifiable truth: that most of them have multiple, not "pure" linguistic-communal backgrounds and that therefore, most Iranians cannot be crammed into a narrow "ethnic" category in the first place.

In Iran luckily, we haven't seen communal violence and discrimination on the same level that we've seen in various other countries. Like you said, that is because most Iranians think of themselves as Iranians first.

This isn't what I said in the post you replied to - although it is true as well.

You seem not to want to pay attention to the central point of my demonstration: upwards of 50% to 60% of Iranians do not belong to a single linguistic community, but to several of these simultaneously, owing to their mixed ancestry. This is the best argument that will completely stop the enmy's plot in its tracks.

And it is nothing but an adequate and truthful reflection of a demographic reality. Be honest: how many Iranians do you know who do not have at least two grandparents hailing from distinct linguistic communities? I have known, talked to or rubbed shoulders with hundreds of Iranians, and every single one of them - and I mean this verbatim - who evoked his family tree, turned out to have ancestors practicing multiple local languages (or belonging to a variety of linguistic communities).

How many Iranians have surnames corresponding to cities and towns located way outside their province of birth and residence?

This is simply a fact, and it is bound to become increasingly pronounced as urbanization nears 80%, since urban settlement directly favors intermingling and inter-marriage in countries like Iran with extremely low levels of social discrimination against minorities.

It should be actively encouraged by authorities - both mixed marriages, and Iranian citizens' consciousness that their ancestors belonged to different national linguistic groups, and not to a single one.

After all, there are some Kurds who want to break away from Iran and join a greater Kurdistan. There are some Azeri people who want to split from Iran and join Azerbaijan or Turkey. These people, their goal is to weaken the sense of unity in the nation by causing communal tension and hatred among various ethnic groups in Iran.

That is why the Iranian government cannot tolerate such behavior. Anyone who tries to belittle or discriminate or poke fun at a specific ethnic group publicly or advocate for the disintegration of Iran must be dealt with decisively.

Not by granting legal recognition to so-called "ethnic groups" or to grievances formulated in artificial "ethnic" terms - that would only play into the hands of provocateurs, and would benefit the enemy's project. If someone threatens Iran's unity, it is equally an issue for all Iranians, not for some specific, purported "ethnic" group.

What needs to be done is to erode, not legitimize or favor the deployment of so-called "ethnic" discourse.

See how I systematically put "ethnicity" / "ethnic" into quotation marks when talking about Iran? This is the way forward. Undermine the very conceptual basis upon which the enemy seeks to operate. Do not commit the fatal mistake of playing in a field defined by the enemy.

Racism and discrimination are outlawed in most industrialized nations that contain various ethnic groups or large minorities.

Iran should never draw inspiration from those failed, slowly crumbling and essentially criminal systems.

Also the analogy is not a valid one, because:

1) While the problematic does reflect certain social realities in the west - although "anti-racist" discourse has a tendency to exaggerate them, this is not the case in Iran. As I showed above, in Iran there's no traditional practice of discrimination against linguistic minorities, neither on the societal nor on the institutional stage.

Also to be fair, in western countries society is confronted with mass immigration originating from very different socio-cultural and economic contexts, which is not the case in Iran - Iran is lucky that the 3 to 4 million Afghan immigrants on its soil hail from areas that formerly belonged to Iran and form part of the Greater Iranian civilizational realm. So there are fewer grounds for such problematics to arise in Iran anyway.

Now I've no doubt that the liberal and globalist Iranian fifth-column harbours distant dreams of opening their country's gates to massive entries of immigrants from all over the planet. Their advocacy of low natality rates and fewer children per woman, which has led to a dangerously low natural population growth and to an increasing aging of Iran's demographic pool, is in line with this. This one's an actual ticking time bomb Iran needs to address and fix as soon as possible.

2) You need to understand what's at stake at the deeper political and systemic level when it comes to the "racism" vs "anti-racism" debate in the west.

In effect, this binary opposition is essentially a politically engineered one, used as an instrument of governance and employed as a means to extend regime survival by governing elites and ruling oligarchies of so-called "secular liberal democracies".

At both ends of the spectrum, western intelligence services have a finger in the pie. This way, they create a formidable spectacle magnified by regime-controlled mainstream media, aimed at generating artificial, perfectly manageable public debates which they let their populations busy themselves with, in order to redirect popular wrath stemming from socio-economic pressures, inequality and exploitation as well as from cultural-anthropological uprooting, onto segments of society itself. It's another "divide to rule" ploy executed by the western ruling class.

Both "racist" grouplets on the far-right and "anti-racist" activists on the far-left are largely controlled and manipulated by regime agencies. Same goes for their patrons at the apparent top of the state pyramid. In other words, both Trump and Biden serve one same system, one same regime. It is in fact their pseudo-dialectic interplay, their fake opposition which fascinates and grips a zombified and uprooted population, that allows the system to survive.

The "anti-racist" thesis corresponds to the globalist ruling elites' persuasions, while the "racist" antithesis and those sporting it, represent a controlled type of dissent that is never going to threaten the system in its foundations. The whole western-zionist order needs to go, "racists" and "anti-racists" alike, for people to have peace.

So the "racist" vs "anti-racist" debate in the west, as well as accompanying "anti-discrimination" laws and daily scandals you read about in the media, are fulfilling a specific function that has no relevance to the Iranian context. The Islamic Republic has no need to legitimize itself through such socially engineered artefacts, which moreover would be detached from Iran's social realities. Guess who would stand to benfit from this if Iran introduced that type of legislation? That's right, the same western regimes, Iran's existential foes, since such a legislation would offer them a practical tool with which to engineer so-called "ethnic" dissensions in Iran, by making it appear as if the topic had any real bearing in people's lives when it doesn't.

Nobody said that we have to learn from the west. Cyrus was arguably the first anti abolitionist and anti racist world leader.

No! The notion that Cyrus was an "anti racist" is just as erroneous as the mythical belief held by many Iranians that Cyrus authored the first "human rights" charter (or that the text of the Cyrus document adorns the entrance to some UN building in New York - this is simply not factual). Indeed, those weren't "rights" that could be claimed in a court of law, but a status consented to by an emperor, building upon which the empire would organize its conquests and dependencies (this principle of organization was indeed a generous one which recognized and protected local customs more than previous empires, that is true). Secondly, so-called "human rights" are individual rights by nature, whereas the status defined by Cyrus concerned comunities, not individuals.

This isn't to say Cyrus was "racist" either. It's just that these notions have a historicity and do not exist in a vacuum. They would have made no sense in the historic context of the seventh or sixth century BC. These are concepts, not timeless common words.

The concept of "human rights", for instance, would have been unconceivable prior to the advent of post-Renaissance modernity, nor outside of the western realm. It is effectively a product of the masonic American and French revolutions. It served and serves the purpose of implementing a secular order in which traditional religion is gradually replaced by substitute-religions, namely these "human rights", which transition from ideology to a dogmatic quasi-religion.

As for the concept and political ideology of "anti racism", it pertains to the post-WW2 world and especially to the period starting from the 1970's economic crises and continuing into the post-modern era.

The idea of tolerance and prohibiting racism or hate speech can be considered a universal concept among humanity or any other sentient being with sufficient intelligence, in the same way that mathematics is universal.

Anti-discrimination laws as found in the west today, as well as their deep function and underlying logic do not have anything universal to them: they are products of a particular history, of a particular type of society with its own problematics, of particular ideologic underpinnings pertaining to given regimes.

Free speech ? Well Iran is not exactly a bastion of free speech. If you open your mouth in Iran and say you want a referendum on the Islamic Republic system, well we all know what would happen to that person.

In most cases nothing much would happen to the average citizen if he expressed this opinion in public. But apart from that, what political system holds referenda on whether to maintain or not the entire existing constitutional order? This is totally unheard of. Referenda on the type of governing system to have, are held in the aftermath of a regime collapse. Not once a system of governance is established.
 
Last edited:
.
What is Persian? Why was he able to speak Torki? He was a Tork speaker.
he is a persian born in tehran from a persian father. i do not know what you are talking about.
And the bullsh¡t of crybabies destroyed his life and forced him to run away.
he and every one like him deserve that.
If in his cartoon the cockroach spoke persian, would tht have meant that Perisan crybaies should have come out demonstrding too?!
Persians could cry if a Turkish newspaper depicted a monkey which people are saying to him in turkish "do this so you be successful" and the monkey replies "chi migin".
This bullsh¡t of I am of this group and will take offence at the smallest thing has to stop otherwise it will drive Iranians appart.
do you want to hear a farsi joke??
If anyone puts thier tribal affiliations above Iran, they have to go.
any time this kind of ideas came to your mind ask a question from yourself "who am i to say that".
 
.
he is a persian born in tehran from a persian father. i do not know what you are talking about.

Yes.... and If his dad was a Persian and His Mother Azari.... what doe tat make him??

Also do you remember when a buch of Azaris had made a stupid childrens programme where someone brushes their teath with a toilt brush?
The crybabies made a lot of noise over that too.... but the crime there was a foreign language was allowed to be spoken on Iran´s national TV.

Would the Turks ever allow Kurdish to be spoken on their national TV?
The Tajziyhtalab scum have had it too easy in Iran.


he and every one like him deserve that.

Then dont come crying when half of Torks end up in prison for their Jokes....I see the Pan-toorks get very sensetive over jokes against them, but have no problems giving out jokes against others....

Persians could cry if a Turkish newspaper depicted a monkey which people are saying to him in turkish "do this so you be successful" and the monkey replies "chi migin".

Not one bit insulting. If this level of childish behavioure upsets you, then it says a lot about you.

do you want to hear a farsi joke??

Yes please......

by the way in my mind a tork in Iranian jokes is always someone from Turkey....not Iran. Now if they say an Azari instead of a Tork, then I would be insulted as much as I get insulted when I hear a Rashti or a Ghazvini joke... not very much cause its a JOKE.


any time this kind of ideas came to your mind ask a question from yourself "who am i to say that".

I am an Iranian and come from a long line of Aryans who have fought for this land....no more no less.
 
. . .
This means that apart from Persian Gulf islanders (a few hundreds of thousands of citizens only), who have African and Semitic roots, those among the Turkmen who do not have strong indigeneous Iranian admixture (again, less than 1% of Iran's population), as well as the Baluch and Sistanis (who are actually closest, genetically speaking, to the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau prior to the settlement of Aryan tribes, though they later adopted a western Iranian language), all other groups in Iran i. e. some 97% of the population, are of a same "racial" or "ethnic" stock.

Just a little correction: Persian Gulf islanders sampled there are neither more Semitic or African. They are a very original unique unmixed people.

As for Pan Turkists: If they stay to the facts, that graphic would tell them how similar Azaris are to the rest of the Iranians and how much their distance is to the even Iranized Turkmens.
Biology would force them to get rid of pan-Turkism and stick to that is measurable in the laboratory.
 
.
Pan Turkism is based on a lie.....even the people of Turkey are not Turks.... the Ottomans openly hated Turks and called Turks idiots and Donkies.....
Do people think that the Ottomans used to call themselves idiots and donkies, or perhaps they never considered themselves as Turks, until Mustafa Pasha created the idea.

Pan Turkism can only work when people are ignorant of historic and scientific facts.

What I will never undrestand though is why Iranian Arabs and Azaris love the language that was forced on them by foreign oppressors.
 
.
The royalty and aristocrats of the Ottoman court and bureaucracy spoke Ottoman Turkish, which was made up of 70% Arabic and Persian vocabulary.

The ancestors of the current Turkish population were a combination of Hittites, Lydians, Greeks, etc.

The first Persian empire of Cyrus ruled over Anatolia for 200 odd years, so they were heavily Persianized. Then after Alexander they became Hellenized, then after the Romans they were Romanized which is why one of the dynasties refered to themselves as the Sultanate of Rum or "ROME" and the currency of Turkey to this day is the Lira, same as Italy.

Then with the Islamic / Arab conquests, they were Islamized and Persianized (again) and finally after Ataturk they leaned much more towards Europe. That's their history but most of them want to believe that they're descended from some mythical Osman character from central Asia. The grandfather of Osman I was Soleiman Shah wasn't it ? Even the "Sultans" of the Ottomans called themselves "Sah" or "SHAH" in their own language.

All the major Turkish dynasties in the middle east and even India and even those around Afghanistan near the Oxus river were Persianized, Iranianized people.

This recent video even confirms that fact if you watch the beginning.


Pan Turkism is based on a lie.....even the people of Turkey are not Turks.... the Ottomans openly hated Turks and called Turks idiots and Donkies.....
Do people think that the Ottomans used to call themselves idiots and donkies, or perhaps they never considered themselves as Turks, until Mustafa Pasha created the idea.

Pan Turkism can only work when people are ignorant of historic and scientific facts.

What I will never undrestand though is why Iranian Arabs and Azaris love the language that was forced on them by foreign oppressors.
 
Last edited:
.
If you go to Istanbul, as I have, you will see the old palaces all have Persian caligraphy and poetery on them.... not Turkish.... which today we Iranians can read while the Turks cannot.

An Azari family of mine actually read out one of the poems to a Tork, and asked him did you undrestand anything?! The guy said no....my family member said if you undrestoor Persia you would have undrestood the poem!

They even try to say that Molana Jalaledine Rumi was a Tork.... while all his poetry is in Persian. Turks think that Rumis poetry is in ancient Turkish, thats why they cant undrestand it.....truley a cultureless people.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom