Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

[crusader1492]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

Guys, "Sattarkhan" is Oslonor. He does the same in various Persian sites, trying despererately to prove his "point" by imaginary dialogues with himself. Just ignore him.



You bloody liar, oslonor.

Can't the moderators track his IP and ban the Turk?

[Armanen]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

The only joke is you, azeri f***, I have spoken with many true Persians, and they would side with an Armenian over a turkic orc anyday.

[skhara]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

Well, actually the Russians did most of the fighting for you! And as long as Iran and Russia are allied in the way they are now (a marriage of convenience), then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Actually, Russians provided weapons -- and really not until 1993. Most of the fighting was done the local Armenian population. In fact, the entire population -- women, men well passed their prime, and teenagers included.

On the other hand, Azeris had major problems with desertion and morale inspite of their numerical superiority in both manpower and heavy weapons. They often abandoned weapons right in the field for Armenians to pick up. None of their behavior indicated that they had or felt any kind of attachment to the land.

Anyway, this conversation is useless. I know for a certain fact, there are plenty of circles within Iran that will be serious opposition to you.

[Lucin]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

I am glad that finally Armenians understood I am telling the truth about these Azeri Turks.

Guys, "Sattarkhan" is Oslonor. He does the same in various Persian sites, trying despererately to prove his "point" by imaginary dialogues with himself. Just ignore him.

(We also had Armenian neighbours in Iran, well actually just one, but never heard them speak Armenian).

You bloody liar, oslonor.

[skhara]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

This Artsakh M-artsakh makes no sense to Iranians.

Artsakh is the ancient name of the land. Conquering empires can give them whatever their own names they want -- Armenians will fight for for their own. The muslims in S Caucasus are invaders. They forced themselves on Armenians. Persians, in general, do not talk with any amount warmness when it comes to turks. "Khanate" is a creation of savages from the east.

[oslonor]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

I have Oghuz Turk ancestors? That would explain why everbody in Turkey thinks I'm Turkish!

I say Persian only because Persian is my mother tongue. I never spoke any Turkish except hearing Turkish from Turkish neighbours. (We also had Armenian neighbours in Iran, well actually just one, but never heard them speak Armenian).

I agree with you but I see in this a very good thing. Iran is a multi-ethnic state, but one where the sense of Iranian identity runs very deep. The Iranian state, not just nation but state, was founded in this form at least 500 years ago by Shah Ismail. No other country in the middle east is like this. Iran is the only country not created by policy makers drawing on maps and coming up with names in Paris, London, or Moscow.

The integration of Persian and Turkish (Azari) Iranians started in 1501 when Shah Ismail established the Safavi dynasty's rule. He in fact forced marriage between noble Persian and Turkish (Qizilbash) families. The result was an awesome empire that lasted until 1925.

Actually you do not know Iran's history. Azeri Turk Saffavids were so scared of Persians that they could murder them, that they imported Georgians from Georgia and married them. As far as I know Persians do not marry any Azeri Turks. Saffavids actually ended up in 1722 with mass murder of Azeri Turks in Isfahan with the alliance of Persians and Afghans. That is how Saffavid dynasty ended.

Many Azeri Turks in Tehran claim they are "Persians". So there is a lot of inter-marriage over "ethnic lines" between Azeri Turks and other Azeri Turks who claim to be "Persians". On this forum, Azeri Turks from Iran could not even tell how a Persian look like!!!!!

[TomServo]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

Oh, nobody ever answered my question: when was the last Armenian state. Did it have a King? Queen? Who was it? Would be nice to know, that's all.

I'm guessing Cilicia?

[oslonor]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

All Armenians should emphasize the following whenever bs such as the above comment by the fake "Persians".

You have a more serious problem than that. There is no way to go back to "good old days" with Azeri regime in Tehran. You should be warned about the rise of Azeri Pan Turkism in Iran.

[Armanen]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

All Armenians should emphasize the following whenever bs such as the above comment by the fake "Persians".

I. First of All, a nation called "Azeri" has NEVER, EVER existed throughout human history, on this planet at least. PLEASE refer to that species of Turkic Human Civilization-deficiency Viruses (HCV) as either Tatars or "Azeris" (in quotation marks) and call their bogus state fake "Azerbaijan". Azerbaboons/Azerbaboonistan are also OK for our private use!

II. When talking about the Turkish speaking Iranians in REAL Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan-Aturpatekan-Aturpayegan-Atropatene), NEVER, EVER use the term "Azeri". They are Turkish speaking Iranians, descendants of Medes who lost their Iranian language, a dialect of Pahlavi, referred to by some Islamic historians as Pahlavi Azari, after the Turkish invasions, a process that took centuries. And, BTW, the use of the term Azari has only been in this context and the people of REAL Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan, always south of the Arax) were ALWAYS called the people of Azarbaijan or Azarbaijani Iranians and NEVER Azari or "Azeri".

III. I like your use of the term Asia Minor for what's also referred to as Anatolia. Turks have misused this word which means east in Greek (east of what?) and call it Anadolu which they attribute to themselves by sticking the bullxxxx definition in their barbaric gibberish "land of many mothers!" ana = mother. So let's refrain from using the term Anatolia as much as we can.

IV. While the former point may not be so serious, the use of the despicable, genocidal term "Eastern Anatolia" must be rebuked severely, so much so because even intellectual people also seem to have an inclination to use this filthy term which means "Eastern East" = bullxxxx supreme. The thing is, the Armenian Highland ends where Asia Minor or Anatolia starts, i.e. Armenia is OUTSIDE Asia Minor. Though this doesn't mean there were no Armenians in that region and in fact as we all know the Armenians were spread through Asia Minor and beyond and Sebastia, Caesarea and especially Cilicia were always inhabited by Armenians, otherwise how could the Armenians set up a kingdom in Cilicia without any protests from the indigenous peoples?

V. Always bring up the issue of the Khachkars and make this the justification for the impossibility of living with the "Azeri" parasites and the demanding of Nakhijevan, illegally given to fake "Azerbaijan" in 1921.

VI. Most important of all: Artsakh is our most important issue, more important than the "recognition" and shedding of a couple of crocodile tears by the Hebrew United Slaves of Israel congress. I have said this a million times and I repeat:

xxxs are using this recognition issue as a lever to emotionally blackmail Turks and Armenians. While we have the arbitration of Woodrow Wilson independent of recognition or not of the AG, the Armenians have been led to believe unless the Armenian Genocide is recognized by the US and Turkey, we are not allowed to demand any form of compensation, let alone that of land. They want us to believe that the Armenian Genocide is like the events of WWII where they got Palestine as a compensation for their self imposed sufferings.

No Artsakh = no Armenia. Turks are only after territory, because they have never tolerated the existence of an Armenia of any shape, size or form. This was the reason "Azerbaijan" was fraudulently counterfeited on Armenian territory in 1918. This is the same policy we know as pan-Turkism. By ceding the liberated territories, Armenia will once again become vulnerable with the tiny (hair of the girl) Siunik as the wedge that protects human civilization from Turkic destruction. Not a square nanometer! We should demand the historic Turk-usurped Armenian territories: Shahoomian, Getashen, Artzvashen, Nakhijevan, Gandzak, Utik and Pytakaran instead.

Tell to all your friends who have been duped by the Turco-Anglo-Zionist propaganda that the liberated territories are bargaining chips, that we have NOTHING to give the genocidal Turks who already occupy 90% of Armenian territory as a result of genocide. Even less so when the sore xxxxing loser, the "Azeri" ordure was the perpetrator of the war after they perpetrated genocide from 1988 to 1991 all over fake "Azerbaijan" which led to the expulsion of about 400,000 to half a million Armenians from their historic homeland.

[oslonor]

Re: Is Iran Developing an Azeri Problem?

First of all, I am Persian.

No educated Iranian will take issue with the fact that Turkic Azeris (usually just knows as Turks, or Torks in Iran) have contributed immensely to the development of Iran. Every Shah from the founder of the Safavi dynasty Shah Ismail to the last Qajar Shah in 1925 was Turkic, i.e his mother tongue was Turkish. That is not to say they differed from Persians in any way, except in their mother tongue. Shah Ismail's poetry was published in Iran around 10 years ago (not for the first time); it's all in the original Azeri Turkish, in its original Persian/Arabic/Ottoman alphabet. This writing may be difficult for someone from Istanbul or Baku to understand, but completely comprehensive to someone from Tabriz. Except for a few crazy pan-Turks, and a few crazy pan-Aryans, all agree that Persians and Azeri Turks are one and the same.

I have met many Armenians and despite some common oriental characteristics (hospitality for example), we have nothing in common. Your language makes absolutely no sense to us. While any Persian can immediately understand at least 30% of Azeri Turkish. I was in Baku for only a few months and was already comfortable understanding if not fully conversing in Azeri. Also, the Armenian community was always very isolated in Iran and their was not much interation, and certainly no intermarriage. The opposite is true among Persians and Azeri Turks (in Iran, not in Repbulic of Azerbaijan). Azeri and Persians are the only majority Shia people in the world (which by the way, we owe to Shah Ismail)

I agree there was no Azerbaijan before 1918, except for the province of Azerbaijan in Iran, with Tabriz as its capital. That name was stolen in some ways. But at the same time, in 1835 the majority of the population in Irvan was Muslim, and Shia Muslim at that. The same for Qarabaq, which is how this land is refered to in Persian. This Artsakh M-artsakh makes no sense to Iranians. As far as I'm concerned both Armenia and Azerbaijan Republic are Bolshevik creations, except that in your case, it is based on old pre-Islamic culture and history, that's referenced in the bible.

Again, I have no problems with Armenia, but don't try your "we're all Aryan stuff." It's laugable. We Iranians have as much common with you, as we have with German Aryans!!
By the way, some time ago I did some research to find out when the last Armenian state existed in the world before the Bolshevik Republic of Armenia. I could not find any post-Islamic (post 622 AD) reference to Armenia. What happend?

Yes. That is for sure. You are a "Tehrani Persian" with Oghuz Turk ancestors. That is a "Neo-Persian"!!!! Why bother to call yourself "Persian". You say "Persians" and "Azeri Turks" are the same people!!!!!

I am glad that finally Armenians understood I am telling the truth about these Azeri Turks.