I am sure there are iranian traces in central asia too, where those iranic tribes came from in their savage from before they had contact with the superior native civilization of our region. Nobody (not even Richard Frye, who is pro iran iranologist) claim any part of the modern day arab world as "Iranian", or any part of mesopotamia (ahwaz included since it is part of mesopotamia) as Iranian, or any part of the iran's coast as Iranian since persians are a mountain people.
Funny. 5th generation or 17th generation. He was arab whose native language was arabic and who compiled a massive encyclopedia of arabic poetry.
Yet persians were claiming him.
But when we claim Khawarizimi (born in baghdad and spent his entire career in baghdad working under a civilization that we created) those persian nationalists start bitching and fuming.
Darling. You sound silly. A minute ago you were claiming that there were no arabs in Ahwaz. Grow up.
We're not claiming our enemies. You don't even understand that 90% of Abbu Nawwas's poetry which was glorifying persians was for entertainment purposes.
The caliphs enjoyed the entertainment of the clash of the two cultures and two people, more than arabs enjoy debunking persians and bursting their bubbles in this modern era.
ahmad kasravi has clearly explained how arabs appeared in Iran , he says 500 years ago one man from Iraq claimed to be 12th imam ,later he and his followers moved to shia Iran and the fists arab colony in ahvaz area formed , in following coming years , also , there was a sever drought which coused mass arab immigration to eastern area
if ahvaz is arab so who were Lors,Kurds,Bakhtiari ,Qahqaei, ...who has always lived there
Kasravi was nothing but persian fascist and aryan nazi, yet he admitted that Arabestan/Khuzestan was not part of Iran.
Qashqei live in teh fars province and are a nomadic turkic people. Not persias.
Bakhtiari and Lori are mountain people and most are nomadic unsettled people Arabs not only populated ahwaz but virtually the entire eastern coast of the gulf. The only city which was mixed is Bushehr.
lors and bakhtiari , shushtari and despolis , bushehri and bandaris , bastaki and BEHBEHANIS :D , kurds and qashqaeis, vs 500 000 arabs which most of them are shia refugees from SADDAM kingdom
Don't worry darling. In 2050 there will be 350 million pakistanis on your eastern border. And your gonna have to tone down your hatred of pakistanis sooner or later. Arabs are not immigrants to Ahwaz darling. Everything from ancient historic texts, to countless poets, to DNA testing on ancient skeletons proves that they and their race is native to that land. If arabs were immigrants Iran would not have called Khuzestan as Arabestan for 500 years on its official state documents.
arab nationalism was formed when British found out there is no other way to stop Ottoman empire , so British used arabs as a "tool" to stop muslim turks , arab history / nationalism is based on jewish mythical figures such as Sam written and conducted by British in recent centuries. .
Arabs fought for their own interests and independence. While the arabs of the ottoman empire have gained their independence, the arabs who were part of the safavid sphere of influence (Ahwaz) have yet to get their independence.
This, more than anything else, will continue to poison the relationship between arabs and Persians.
Arab nationalism was not created by the british anymore than greek nationalism was created by British.
You seem to think that you have the right to rule over arabs. You don't have that right darling. Not in this modern era of nation states, rights of self-determination etc.
here is no such a thing as arab ahvazi, those arabs who live in Iran were a bunch of homeless who immigrated to Iran in hope of finding better life standards but they encountered a weak government and immediately claimed those fertil lands.
what would hispanic do if US government do not control their behavior , would not they steal TX ,CA, FL, AR , ...and other states ?
arabs did the same , and their 500 year old history is the proof of this fact.
Arabs in Ahwaz are not "immigrants". The persians are the immigrants to the iranian plateau darling.
What makes you think that Mexico does not have a legitimate claim over california and Texas? It is the US who "stole" those lands from Mexico not the other way around.
Your empire means nothing to arabs darling. There are persians, and there is persian territory. Nobody has a problem with persians existing on their persian territory in their persian nation state.
if qajar were a strong government , arab immigrants s*** their pants and wouldn't try to claim anywhere , but RezaShah cut their Harami hands ,don't worry
Starting with Gundishapoor (which was nothing but a christian nestorian arab university) we have people like Girgein bin Yakhtashou', famous physician. There are probably 10 other arab scholars that I can name from Gundishapoor days (pre-islamic) alone
Moving on to abbasid era we have such personalities as Sahl bin Haroun, Abu Nawwas, Ibn Al-Sekkeit, Sahl bin Abdulla, Qirmet (or the qaramita) and the list goes on and on
Gundishapour for the most part was Nestorian, christian, and Arab. The arabs of mesopotamia were christian before islam and ahwaz is part of mesopotamia.
Arabs were not only literate, they had no caste system (like persians) which would restrict knowledge to elite castes.
A persian should thank god day and night that arabs destroyed his caste system. Not a single ancient "primary" historical source on persia was even written by Persians and you're complaining about arab literacy. Everything we know about persia comes from Byzantine monks or islamic scholars.
Who told you that darling? Some persian nationalist website.
This is as funny as persians Qureishi Arabs (e.g. Abulfaraj alasfahani) as persian.
Persians love lying. It is in your blood. I don't know. Is it in the food or something? You can still live fullfilling lives without the silly self-glorification you know!
Sure. He spent a lot of time in Basra. Did he ever call himself persian?
BTW, when I listed people like Sahl bin Haroun and Abbu Nawwas I deliberately listed them. Because those figures are major figures in arab culture brought up in a completely arab environment in Ahwaz.
You seem to think that Syria is not arab. You are mistaken darling.
Ask a syrian and they will tell you that the are arabs and have forever been arabs.
Where do you think ummayads brought up their children (who are some of the most eloquent arabic poets)? They brought them up in the syrian desert.
The difference between the semetic "languages" (syriac arabic etc) is no more than the difference between farsi dialects between khorasan and Tajikistan.
@modallas2 joke again:)) it's true that Summerian were Semitic but it doesn't give arabs thir culture ...ARABs lived in dessert and eat lizard not like Egyption who had grate civilizations...infact Greeks and Persian are both Aryan but Persian can't have credit of Greeks nor Greeks can have credit of Persian
Sumerians were not semetic. They spoke a language isolate. Semites picked up their semetic language from western arabia, from Somalid.
Africans hence the connection of arabic to the afro-asiatic language family. Arabid race is traceable to europe as confirmed by DNA evidence. However our language (semetic) is traceable to africa. All semetic civilizations (every single one of them) came from the arabian heartland. Even today we can understand their language! unlike your Pahlavi!
@modallas2 BS If arabs can get credit by DNA iranian can get credit of RUSSIAN (RB1 25%) and north European (I 25%) and Germans ( RB2 10%) ...BTW that was Egyption DNA that went to Europe not ARABs from ARABISAn dessert... Egyption had their culture long before arabs
Even Greeks resulted from a migration of Arabids into greeks as confirmed by DNA evidence. However this happened prior to Arabids acquiring their semetic language. It happened in neolithic area. Crete (birthplace of greek civilization) is 80% arabid accordin to DNA evidence.
In fact greece is nothing but a mixture of Arabids and Somalid north africans as confirmed by DNA evidence.
Today, a full 35% of the population of Iran is directly descended from Arabia as confirmed by DNA.
SO now you are claiming that Abu Nawwas was homosexual because he is persian.
I agree with you. Persian men are homos. That is why persian chicks would always rather marry outside. And that is why persian whores in LA, whore themselves out to all but persians.
Persian = Gay. Now the persians are bragging about it.
Abbu Nawwas was dacadent. That is why we arabs love his poetry. Even his "anti-arab" poetry is beautiful because it is not really anti arab as much as it is a man mouthing off.
We, full blooded arabs, have anti arab poetry lol. Does that make us persians. Almost everyday some arab poet comes up with a new poem that damns the arabs in one form or another. If anything, that is like a right of passage to arabness in our culture.
As for sahl writings. They can only be explained due to his upbringing in an arab culture darling.
He was probably picked on for having no "nasab" (geneology). Only someone who lives and breathes arabic culture would take offense at that.
In fact, those figures and their behavior (thoroughly understandable to an arabic language native) are even further proof of the arab culture of Ahwaz".
BTW, nobody gives a damn about Reza Shah nazi-educated scholars.
Even iranian scholars are debunking the falsified iranian history, and these quasi intellectuals. They have to, otherwise nobody would take them seriously in the world especially in these days of anthropological DNA testing and DNA atlas which has thoroughly debunked 90% of perso-centric iranian history.
History (including history of ahwaz) was written long before these fascist terrorists appeared on the scene.
whatever American was done for Iran loses its affect when AMERICAN destroyed Iran's diplomatic Government ( called MASHROTE) and the way the helped Iraq and sanctioned Iran for years while whole world helped Iraq... even what they have done to Iran during WW2 can be questioned .... USA treated Iran normally till Iran wasn't against its policies ...Its what every nation does
Dear professor, it seems that you are either so biased that can not see the obvious things or you are totally illiterate about Iran and Iran's history (definitely how the name "Iran" has been chosen).
No offense. However, it seems that you are trying to make some unresisting points. Please be more clear, what are you trying to say?
Dear professor, it seems that you are either so biased that can not see the obvious things or you are totally illiterate about Iran and Iran's history (definitely how the name "Iran" has been chosen).
No offense. However, it seems that you are trying to make some unresisting points. Please be more clear, what are you trying to say?
It is indeed true that the name Iran as the land of Aryans existed for a long time. However, it is not coincidental that Shah Reza Pahlavi renamed the country of Persia officially as Iran on the Persian New Year of 1935. I have read quite a few books about this including by Iranian scholars.
"Dar Al-Fonoun" is an arabic phrase/word. It actually means "House of the Arts" not "Gate"
The idea that Aryanism in Persia (or India) does not have a racist component to it is false. In fact Reza Shah and his intellectuals were fascinated with Hitler's Nazi ideology precisely and exactly because of the inherent racism in Aryanism.
Of course it existed. But it simply was "insignificant".
It also never existed in its current context (ie to refer to a nation state). Qajar era was not a "nation state". If was a loose association of kingdoms some of whom even refused to give allegiance to qajars and were negotiating their own treaties.
The word "Iran" exists. It never existed to mean what it means now. And it was not a significant name either.
The name IRAN was not something that was made up in 1930s.IRAN means land of aryans and it has mentioned in Ferdowsi's book (BOOK OF THE KINGS) about a millinum ago&I'm just guessing there was no USA at that time.
Even the legendary ROSTAM DASTAN
was named as tha protector of Iran (the Aryan land)in Book of the kings.I would suggest that you read few more books before making comment about a country with 7000 years of history before you suggest that country is there because a 200 years old usa.
3. The association with the Aryan race is not for supramacy. It's a historical fact that during the ice age tribes moved south and some went to Europe, some went to north of India and some tribes settled in Iran. It was only during WWII that the "supramacy" race came to light.
It is true that for a long time the idea of an Aryan race, at least in Persia, had nothing to do with racial supremacy and had everything to do with the historical heritage of where the people came from. But, it is not coincidental that Persia was officially renamed Iran in 1935.
Thank you doctor! I am Iranian and I like to make a few corrections to your nice gesture:
1. The name "Iran" is a historic name and precedes "Persia" which is used outside the borders. The name Iran was officially registered as Iran with the U.N. in the 1930s.
2. There was another American whose name escapes me. Many Iranians have great respect for him where he went to Tabriz to teach and got involved in the fight for a constitutional monarchy and was killed along many other freedom fighters.
I know that the name Iran is a historic name but Shah Reza Pahlavi elected to replace the name Persia with the name Iran. He did this on the Persian New Year in 1935 in large part at the suggestion of the Iranian legation to Berlin which saw advantages in renaming the country to fit in with the Nazi's views of the Aryan race. I
Art Pitz
You are quite right about the other American but I can't at the moment recall his name either.
@artpitz in my opinion, Shah changed the name of Iran because not all Iranians are Persian..there others like Azeris (Turco-Iranian) or other non-Persian Iranians such as Kurds an Lurs... in fact, just 50-60% of Iran are Persian
What about Ahwazi Arabs who were their own kingdom (outside both safavid and ottoman control) for 500 years, and where 100% of Iran's oil originates.
They are neither Iranian, nor Aryan. And they have been fighting persian fascism and annexation of their territory since 1925, much like other the other groups having been fighting persian hegemony.
@modallas2 that was the most dumby comment ever... i think you need to read the history .. 1. even soth part of iraq was part of iran in the time of Safavid and the north part was alwayas a battle between Turks and Iranians ..2.the south of iran has been always under countrl of iranian .. fore example Abbas's Port (Bandar abbas is named after shah abbas" 3. not all of iran's oil is in Khozestan..for example Kermanshah oils..4.. Arabic language is tought in schools
You are the one who is ignorant. What matters is the people on the ground not empires. Otherwise all of Iran would belong to Arabs, or Mongols (etc of the empires that ruled), or even Greeks. The south of Iran (shore) was controlled by Oman for extended periods of time. In fact even a small part of today's coast divided between Iran-pakistan was ceded from Oman to Iran. I think your history is flawed. Persians have no naval achievements. Arabs are pioneers of naval navigation.
@modallas2 hahah first of all there is no Arab between Pakistan and Iran.. they are Baluch ...second of all Iranian had Navy 1500 years before Islam haha Arabs didn't have power in Islamic empire even OMAVID empire was destroyed by ABO MUSLEME KHORASANI who were Iranian from Khorasan ..However Arabs are at the south west part of iran not east.. Baluch are Sonni but they are not Arab
@modallas2 WTF... wasn't that 150 Persian were killed in streets of tehran and 50 in Isfehand and others in Shiraz in 2009? Iran doesn't need terrorists .. if these so called baluch ( Baluch are respected as Iraniani) are really brave , why don't they fight directly ? wasn't that terrorist group defeated by army ? now when they can't fight directly they kill people hahaha what a Brave group .hahahah
@modallas2 WTF? ARABS bought BAHRAIN from Iran.. Give me a link about Oman empire.. they don't even have cost of Arabian island... i can give links of iran' map from 1000 years ago till now and there is no Oman empire in iranian cost... Ottaman even couldn't get land from iran while all Arabs from Egypt to SAudi and European from Greek to Poland were deafeted by Ottaman Turks... Iran ..However the last lost of Iran was afghanistan which was taken by Britain .. Read history
Who said bahrain was sold? I said Bandar Abbas was "at some point" sold to Oman.
Small Oman in its heyday was probably bigger than persian empire ever was. Yet you don't hear arabs day and night talking about reviving the Omani empire. They just move on with their lives.
Only persian retards have their head still stuck up Cyrus's ass.
@modallas2 you go fuck your sister haha Oman empire ? Google it there is noting about it juts a small Wikipedia page which start from 18th century haha .. BTW Arabs had better think about OMAVID ot ABBASID empires (Khalifate) or eve Fatemid ( its african nor fully arab)
there is no Terrorist attacked which has been done by Persian.. all terrorist attackes were done by Arabs and Pakistanians... Persian are not weak to hide and kill innocent people , they fight directly
There was no "islamic terrorism" whatsoever before your khomeini came into power.
Go read a history book. Iran is up to its eye balls funding sunni terrorist groups.
Iran has an agenda. It does not give a damn whether it funds people who are totally opposite of its shia ideology if it helps them create chaos and if it advances their intersts
@modallas2 are you for real ? wasn't that Lebanon who Muslims killed Chiristians ? or wasn't that ..Iraqi who killed Iraqis ( Bassi government) or in Palestine? what u said is a pure shit ... Iran even helped USA to destroy Sunnis in Afghanistan (Taleban.. IRANIAN backed group which had a leader called Massod captured Kabul for USA troops )... that was funny ... everybody know that Lebanon and Palestine is birht place of terrorism even Iranian troops went to Lebanon for training
@modallas2 iranian arabs has shown their rouyality in iraq-iran war and they fought for iran... i think you are daydreaming...hahaha persian hegemony? iranian govenment is advertising arabic culture with Islam...i think you have mental problem haha
@modallas2 yeah.. at least 1/4 of my classmate in Tehran were Azeri or half Azeri(+ my best friend) and a lot of my teachers were azeri too ( EXP my history teacher from grade 7-9).. I have had teachers from Kudistan, Mazandaran, Lurestan, Khozestan... BTW wasn't that Iraq who accepted to be the guilty for war and pay Iran? funny if iraq hadn't been supported by west and east iran would have eaten iraq in first 6 month.. BTW Iraq even didn't wanted to pay Kuwait and attacked it .haha
@modallas2 you had better to check statement number 596 of United nations organization which was accepted by Khomeini ... it directly says Iraq is guilty and must pay for all damages of war to Iran.. and Saddam had accepted it 1 year before Khominie did... go read history...
This is bullshit. Is that why khomeini wanted to drink poison at the end of the war? If iraq was gonna end up paying why drink poison?
Khomeini wanted to drink poison because he lost. he wanted to drink poison because he prolonged the war for 7 unnecessary years where he achieved nothing at the end of it. IN other words he caused 95% of the casualties and achieved nothing ... hence wanting to drink the poison.
@modallas2 first of all , its a wirtten statment you can check any source you want ( statment number 596 of UN in 1987) ... Iran won the war agianst iraq , but it was insuccesful agianst USA and USSr. if USA navy didn't attacked iran in 1987 and USSR ( russia) didn't helped iraq ( 30,000 russian military adviser + new equipment in1987) Khomeini didn't accepted the statement.. However, iran was at war with USA and USSR ( forexample fighting with USA troops in Lebanon and helping afghans )
@modallas2 BTW it 's clear khomeini didn't get whaf it wanted which was defeating west and east technology by just wave of human , but iran won the war agianst iraq and the reason is statrment of 596 .khomeini never wanted any thing for iran ,,he wanted power for Islam which benefited Mullahs..BTW you'r right iran fought for 7 years for nothing ,, in fact after recapturing Khoramshar and getting some iraqi territory in 1981 , govenmret must have stoped war bacause of lack of equipment and money
Iran did not win the war. Precisely because it prolonged the war for 7 unnecessary years, caused 95% of the casualties (most of whom iranian) and ended up with precisely and exactly nothing!.
At the end of the war saddam's forces were on BOTH sides of the Shatt el-arab waterway which was the reason why the war started. The war was caused by Iran. Iran twisted the with the kurdish insurgency at a moment of weakness in 1975. Saddam attacked Iran at its moment of weakness.
@modallas2 are u ok ? if Saadam were both side of Shat Al arab and captured it why Iran had forces there in 1989? Sadam accepted the statement of 596 which gave iran the Shat-alarab and forced iraq to pay Iran.. BTW wasn't that saddam who said he would capture Tehran in 3 days? hahah you must be drunk..go check any source iran 1987 pulled out of iraq and just left 12,000 second hand (basiji) there who were defeated by 100,000 iraqi forces and iraqi army reached the internation borders of 1972
1. Saddam failed to gain what it wanted even by massive help according to statmen # 596 (Shat-al Arab and Khozestan+iran)
2. Iraq accepted to pay iran
3.Iraq accepted to be guilty SEARCH IT ANYWHERE YOU WANT....
BTW about end of the war and when iran pull out of Iraq check 2nd Al-Faw battle which 100,000 well equipped Iraqi Gaurd were fighting with 12,000 second hand Basigis .. iraq didn't even got shat-al arab haha
@modallas2 iran knew that with massive support of iraq, it can't continue fighting ,so iran just left 12,000 soldiers in iraq and pulled out the rest ( ran had 500,000 troops in iraq in 1987) and its cleary stated in any sources .BTW Saddam tried to go to iran territory in 1988 but it failed and accepted the 596 ( after iran left iraq in 1987 Saddam said he would refuse the statement ( 596 was written when Iran was near Bassra in early 87) but when he failed he again accepted it
598 only called for a return to pre-war status if I am not mistaken. Iraq accepted but iran refused until ultimately khomeini came to the conclusion that he better accept and drink the poison
Facts say this:
1) Iran refused the arab offer which would have given iran victory
2) Iran prolonged the war for 7 unnecessary years
3) Those years caused 95% of the casualty
4) Iran kept thinking it will achieve victory, refused UN resolution, only until khomeini decided to accept finally.
Iran military that crossed into iran was always pushed back by military force
Iraqi forces on the other hand withdrew voluntarily once it became obvious that the war is futile and that khomeini was already smacked in the face enough to prevent him from interfering in Iraq's internal affair.
US supported the iraq with satellite info later on and guaranteed freedom of navigation in the gulf later on. But they supported Iran initially with real weapons.
@modallas2 did you check the battle called 2nd AL-FAW ? it cleary shows 12,000 Iranian troops agianst 100,000 iraqi troops which casued that iraq army to reach Iran boarders.. BTW in the time of after Khomeini accepted the resolution, Iranian army were in Iraq territory at north west of iran ( north east of Iraq) ( Al-faw was just in south part)... are for real ?Iraq always used satellite info and the most famous one is Karbala 4 in 1885..BTW what about French pilots and Russians?
@modallas2 i think it was Saddam who was smacked by his joke " capturing Iran in 4 days" hahaha.. USA has putted iran under sanctions .. which means 80% of iranian equipment were not working .Are u HIGH? iran couldn't by a Tank from outside.. in fact one of the reasons that iraq attacked iran was sanctions becasue iran army was 80% American and by Islamic revolution non of them were operative ..still iran have to tank syria who sold iran some second hand weapons . Iran couldn't sell oil normally
@modallas2 BTW if iraq was vining the war why it didn't captured why Saddam wanted ? why it accpeted to pay iran? why it accepted to be guilty ? the answer is Iraq couldn't do any thing and accepted defeat ( its so embarrassing for saddam that failes to achive what he said even shat-al arab.. he even accepted to pay :)))) BTW if iran had had or used chemical weapons that Iraq did, i would have gotten whole Iraq+ISrael.. thatch a shame having support of two superpowers and still failing
Iraq was winning the war by not loosing. Iraq is a quarter the size of iran. Iran is rugged territory. Iraq is flat at undefensible from a military standpoint.
I don't know what the hell are you talking about man when you say "Iraq agreed to Pay". Iraq agreed to nothing man. The only one who "agreed to pay" was Abdelaziz el-hakim and that is when his party lost all its previous popularity in Iraq!
I am sure your mullas are lying to you by telling you Iraq lost the war. How else they can justify the millions killed?
Iraq is widely considered to have "won". By the end of the war they war far stronger militarily than iran. It was saddam's adventurism in kuwait that killed saddam, certainly not his war on Iran.
chemical weapons have yet to be investigated forensically (ie by scientists not politicians etc).
@modallas2 no they are not lying .. iraq attacked iran and iran took back all parts .. and Iran didn't lose any land .. and iraq acceopted to be guilty of war and pay.. i think its youe govenment trying to lye lie that iraq wont ... becasue there is no sign of it ..BTW iraq had bigger army since beggining of the war ... but with all supports did nothing.. BTW chemicals bombs are directly said in 598 resolution are ok ?
Saddam captured "almost" what he wanted. His troops were on both sides of shatt el-arab.
Some baathists were ambitious and wanted to capture part of khuzestan too. Not saddam though. Saddam's goals were limited to shatt el-arab even though other baathists were claiming much more territory.
4 days or 40 days and such pompous declarations can be found on all sides (e.g. crossing to jerusalem through karbala etc). You don't judge a war based on this BS.
Saddam did not even want to start the war as was recently revealed from declassified American documents. Saddam was literally "tricked" into starting this war by Americans who told him it was going to be cakewalk. Saddam was very opposed and all internal iraqi documents (declassified after invasion) show that.
@modallas2 Saddam wanted revenge because Iran before 1979 ( at the full power ) forced what ever it wanted to iraq.. but after revolution when Iran got vwery weak , Saddam thought it was a good time to caoture some land which he failed and was forced to accept it ... BTW iraq has accepted to be guilty for war offically
Sure. So don't blame the war on Iraq then. Blame it on your people.
When Khomeini came into power, he did not say "oh let's fix relationship with Iraq". He said "let's export the revolution to iraq" and starting destabilizing iraq.
The war is 100% caused by Iran's action, and its persian supremaicst and fascist attitude which does not even recognize that arabs exist in the region.
@modallas2 that was again iraq who wanted to start the war before the 1970 .. you have to read history man... but in that time Iran was so strong and Iraq immediately gave up ... BTw that was Iraq who droped the forst bomb and that was iraq who accepted to be guilty
@modallas2 "According to Paragraph 6 of the Resolution 598 regarding the determination of the party which initiated the war, Javier Perez de Cuellar, the then Secretary General of the United Nations in his report to the Security Council on December 11, 1991, declared that Iraq was the initiator of the war between Iran and Iraq."
When did Iraq accept to be "guilty of the war". This is news to me.
I told you man. Go search for the text of 598. Even iraqi government today (which is full of iranian agents) does not accept responsibility for the war. What are you talking about man?
Show me one neutral reference that considers Iran to have won the war. All you will find is political propagandists or islamic regieme agents. This islamic regieme is the biggest tragedy that ever came to Iran.
You don't have to prove to me that Iraq crossed in the int'l line in 1980. I know that.
You need to prove that 598 orders Iraq to pay reparations to Iran which is what you claimed earlier. You need to read a neutral book about the war. At the beginning of the war, Iraqi military was nowhere near the strength of iranian military. At the end of the war, Iraq enjoyed superiority in every category. Iraq mainly used russian equipment. Iran mainly used superior American equipment
"According to Paragraph 6 of the Resolution 598 regarding the determination of the party which initiated the war, Javier Perez de Cuellar, the then Secretary General of the United Nations in his report to the Security Council on December 11, 1991, declared that Iraq was the initiator of the war between Iran and Iraq."
Yes but this is not in resolution 598. THis is some report that happened in 1991 (ie after iraq's invasion of kuwawit).
UN secretary general could have declared that in 1988. But he didn't. When khomeini accepted 598 (and drank the poison) it had zero blame pinned on iraq.
All you have to do is search for the text of 598, not some report that happened later on and after iraq invaded kuwait.
@modallas2 are you ok ? it was declared in 1991 .. but resolution is 598 .. which was written in 1987.. the crassefire was in 1988 which means iraq had accepted the resolution 598,.,, go check the line in resolution 598... go check it ....
Good so you answered yourself by yourself. BTW, Iraq accepted 598 (which called for cease fire) long long before Khomeini accepted.
It was khomeini who declared that he was drinking poison. The reason is very simple. He (khomeini) caused so much killing and he achieved nothing. The only thing he achieved was eleminating the iranian opposition and turnin iran into a mulla state.
@modallas2 you answered yourself by your self .. Iraq and arabs were baging ro iran to stop the war and pay iran.. not 1 times not 2 times , but 3 times...... ( which happened by 598)Khomeini wanted Power just by power from by spending no money ( human waves ) ..and he didn't get that.. but iran took back all its land and didn't lose even a meter of its soil .... Iran government killed Khomeini because he was a problem himself ...
@modallas2 BTW the precondition that iran started negotionions was that iraq accepts its aggressor ( which means paying according to UN) and Iraq did that.. if iraq didn't accepted the 598 iran never even negotiated
Precondition for what man? The war ended in a ceasefire with Iraq paying nothing. The arabs offered Iran in 1981 $75B and effective victory of iraq and Iran refused. How can iran demand reparations when they themselves chose to prolong the war ?
Some mullas may demand that of course. But from a legal and historic perspective its worthless. Arabs (specifically saudi) offered you victory and you REFUSED. You chose war, and killing a million people. And you failed.
@modallas2 iran had preconditions for negotiation which was accepting iraq as aggressor ( check the websites i gave you) .. BTW iran wasn fighting was fighting with west technology not Iraq... if they putted iraq under sanction for 2 weeks iran captured whole iraq
You seem to think that international relations are not part of wars. Iraq was more accepted by international community because it did not behave like a terrorist expansionist state which wants to export its revolution.
BTW, it was arab countries too (Libya, Syria, Algeria) who were immensely helping Iran with weaponry. But your hatred for arabs as a whole prevents you from seeing that. How hypocritical indeed!!
@modallas2 i don't hate all arabs , for example Iranian Arabs who fought for Iran.. i hate the won who hate Iran ( which all helped Iraq) and its not just crabs i hate all who were against Iran.. even Islamic government
Iranian arabs these days are definately not interested in being part of iran. I can assure of you that. Neither are baluch etc. They have been terrorized and oppressed by fascist policies since 1925.
I don't know why you think iranian arabs would not fight for their country at a time of war. Did they ever tell you that the arab people are not honorable people? You think that just because saddam reminds them that they are arab that they will fight for him. This is nonesense.
Rumi, Saadi and Hafez not only had reverence for the arabs. They invented poetic styles where they intermix persian with arabic. They have all written arabic poetry in addition to persian poetry, not Aryan sanskrit poetry. Hating arabs is the exception not the rule among Iran's literary giants. Only ferdowsi is the arab hater. Naser Khusrow even wished he were Arab in his poems. So did Biruni, because they recognized that iran achieved nothing under aryan caste system & culture.
OH MY GOD!!! who ever you called lived under rule of Azeris or Ottoman Turks... they didn't live under Aryan control .... you must be HIGH BTW just show me the peom that the guy whishes to be ARAB ... everything must have a source
"I would rather be insulted in arabic, than praised in Persian". This is a famous quote from his history book on Iran.
Do you want me to give you more. Do you want me to give how Hafez was even quotin the poems of non other than Yazid bin Muawiyyah?
Listen man. I know iranian literature very well. Only ferdowsi is the arab hater. Read Safarnameh (famous nasser khusrow book) if you wanna read what he thinks of arabs.
Not really. Not yet fluent but i am learning on my own time. I will send you the Safarnameh book and provide you the quote. It is not infront of me right now.We have great translations of Farsi literature literature though. Hafez is our most beloved persian poet. Followed by Saadi and khayyam. Strangely, Rumi is not that well known because there are weak translations of his work. We like his arabic poetry though. Rumi,Hafez and Saadi have all poemed significant poems in arabic
@modallas2 you don't know Persian and you talk about all Persian literature ?
are you ok .. it seems you are paid to do that ... to make Iranian enemy of each other... be sure you send a link becasue i have whole Persian literature books on CD so i'm goona check .. BTW just write the peom in Persian then give it to me
I don't know it well enough no. It is better to say "I do not know" than make bogus claims or lie. Too bad persians (addicted to lying and cunning politics) cannot appreciate that lol.
If you want I will send you the Hafez ghazal where he uses arabic verse (its called mulamma style). I don't have safarnameh in front of me though.
Of course persians are addicted to lying. Arabs are the most transparent (in your face) ppl on earth. Persians are the most cunning political and manipulative people on earth. Both traits have their pros and cons lol.
I am not the only one who thinks that. Those persians who preferred to insulted in Arabic (e.g. Biruni) preferred that for exactly this reason. An arabic insult means just that (an insult). A persian praise on the other hand maybe nothing but concealed insult lol.
@modallas2 you make me laugh. you Arabs even trick each other (Palestine) or attack of Iraq to Kuwait or Saudi arabia which supposed to be enemy of israel but is friend or Egypt that closes its boarder to GAZA people ... BTW your famous of that ...even your famous of killing innocent people by bomb , go be proud of being terrorist.. thank God there is no Iranian terrorist
Nobody tricked anybody. Arabic politics is simply messy and very regieme has its own interests and alliances. We're discussing arabic mentality here. Arab people (as people) are not liars. An arab will always tell you what is in his heart. That is the way we are. We cannot hide what is in our heart or manipulate people. That is why all those abbasids had persian politicians. Put two arabs in a room and they will instantly start shouting at each other lol.
Sure. Ever read the poems of Ibn Arabi (equivalent of Rumi in Arabic). Insulting god is part of loving god.
We have tons of poetry ridiculing god too. We have a great deal of pornographic poetry too in case you did not know. And ridiculous amounts of it were written by arab women who, unlike persian women, contributed immensely to our vast poetric heritage.
You seem to think that arabs are nothin but tents and lizards (typical persian Reza Shah fascist view).
The only iranian literature that is hateful of arabs is this:
1) Shahnameh
2) Other minor shuubi literature
3) Modern iranian literature, post the Reza-Shah state.
Everything else is nothin but reverence for the arabs, copying their literature (e.g. Nezami kanjawi on majnun leyla etc), copying their poetry (all iranian poetry styles except quatrians is invented in Arabia) and the long list goes on.
You may jump on fires every year. But your culture is 90% arabic lol.
@modallas2 Iranian talked about nationalisim which as always against Turks but not Azeris ( forexample Azeris helped Farsi a lot ) Arabs weren't problem in the time of Safavid or other after Abbasid empire collapsed .... they didn't need to aim Arabs for nationalisim..... However there more nationalistic peom from others like Shamse tabrizi
In fact the greatest iranian poet of the modern era (Shamlou) refused to hate Arabs and instead condemned the nationalists and their fascism.
The same is true with Simin Behbahani (the old iranian poet who still lives, god bless her soul).
Persians differ from arabs in mentality, and temperment. The two are diametrically opposed on so many things. Yet persian culture is 90% derived from semitic arab culture. All anthropolgists and historians and scholars agree on that.
@modallas2 no its not driven from ARABS ... just tell me except 40% of language what is driven from arabs ? SHite Islam i made to opposing arabs and Turks.. do we have the same clothes ? do we have the same myths? do we have the same agriculture? so we have the same beliefs? do we have the same types of buildings ? even mosque are different ? do we celebrate the same new year? and so on
Yes you do. Your beliefs are islamic and monotheistic. You prophet is arab and your religion is arab and all your saints are arab. Your clothes are even different within Iran itself so don't attach too much importance to that. You even went way beyond arabs in glorifying arab descendents (e.g. black turnban ayatollas).
Iran has its somewhat different architecture but the islamic art in them is the same except Nastaaliq. Point is this: Iran is much similar to us than hindu aryans.
@modallas2 iranian religioun is Shite which make fun of Mohammad and make Ali and others even GOD, IRANIAN have no idea what is Islam about becasue they don't understand what it says ( BTW after revolution no body beleive in Islam anymore) ..our costum is different whic shows it's not arab and why not getting credit of that? Art of Islam is from iran arab in this case arab culture is Persian.. Iranian made Islamic Goverment by mistake , it wasn't suppose to haappen so arabs can't get credit
I know tat after revolution iranians are leaving islam. That is a good thing btw lol.
Do you think that Iraqi shia (home of shia) does not glorify ali hussein etc. Where do you live man? Do you think arab shia do not bleed themselves in ashura? Its all arab culture man. Maybe with an iranian spin on it.
As for islamic art being persian. This is a joke. Nobody in the world thinks that the dome of the rock or alhambra are persian. except persian nationalist of course.
@modallas2 BTW arab are getting credit of african and egyptions too, but just look at mosque in Turley,Iran and the one in Saudi arabia... you'll see the difference in art... at least Irainan art is every where even in India (Taj mahal) or mosque of Turkey ( Turks has adopted Iranian culture).... Shite was made by Iranian to just oppose Arabic ISlam.. even worshiping and other stuuf is copy of Persian traditions before Islam, they have just changed the names
Sure. Arabs invented the civilization that mixed all these influences together.
Prior to arabs, sassanids were sassanids and romans were romans, and egyptian were egyptian and everyone had their own architecture.
You seem to want to deny arabs their accomplishment. Arabs glued all these achievements together in a civilization that was totally of their invention.
BTW, sassanids have very little achievments. Persopolis should rightfully be called Babylopolis lol.
What are the sassanid works before Islam. Can you name them to me?
You will not be able to name one work. Gundishapoor was a nestorian christian arab university as I posted earlier.
Everythin we know about sassanid Iran, we know either from islamic sources or byzantine monks. Do you have anybody like Herodotos (greek historian). Do you have any works of scholarship before islam? No.
And please don't give me that BS that arab burned library. Why not burn greek literature?!
Comment removed
parandehdarya 1 year ago
I meant abu sahl ...
claim abbasid was 100% arab, hurry up ...yallah
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Of course abbasids were arab. Do you seriously think they were fireworshipping zoros from the Yazd province?
You are a funny girl. They were short sighted arabs though because they treated persians honorably lol.
Even your seyyid mullas consider themselves arabs. I hope DNA testing will be required of them soon.
modallas2 1 year ago
your comments are sign of your stupidity , I dont waste my time arguing with you , I have more important stuff do to , and
stay tuned for a clip of Iranian traces not only in Iran but also in Iraq , syria, bahrain,dubai, q8 and elsewhere ...
from historical monuments to hero's and personalities and OF COURSE their cultural influences
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
I am sure there are iranian traces in central asia too, where those iranic tribes came from in their savage from before they had contact with the superior native civilization of our region. Nobody (not even Richard Frye, who is pro iran iranologist) claim any part of the modern day arab world as "Iranian", or any part of mesopotamia (ahwaz included since it is part of mesopotamia) as Iranian, or any part of the iran's coast as Iranian since persians are a mountain people.
modallas2 1 year ago
abul faraj isfahani was the 5th arab generation .
oh gosh ,he was not yet iranians after at least 500 years of living in Iran
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Funny. 5th generation or 17th generation. He was arab whose native language was arabic and who compiled a massive encyclopedia of arabic poetry.
Yet persians were claiming him.
But when we claim Khawarizimi (born in baghdad and spent his entire career in baghdad working under a civilization that we created) those persian nationalists start bitching and fuming.
Darling. You sound silly. A minute ago you were claiming that there were no arabs in Ahwaz. Grow up.
modallas2 1 year ago
let me call americans by their Great grand fathers ethnicities.
they are not mixed with other nations , they are still have coulombs blood
parandehdarya 1 year ago
so arab nationalist are even claiming their enemies lol
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
We're not claiming our enemies. You don't even understand that 90% of Abbu Nawwas's poetry which was glorifying persians was for entertainment purposes.
The caliphs enjoyed the entertainment of the clash of the two cultures and two people, more than arabs enjoy debunking persians and bursting their bubbles in this modern era.
modallas2 1 year ago
arabs in Iran are like Pakistanis in London , no difference .
today , muslims ( mainly arab/ pakis) want to have their own islamic government in london if not , they want UK accepting Sharia law .
sharia law or semi autonomous government !!!
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Even Ahamd Kasravi (one of the Reza Shah fanatics) admitted that Ahwaz/Arabestan was never part of Iran.
modallas2 1 year ago
ahmad kasravi has clearly explained how arabs appeared in Iran , he says 500 years ago one man from Iraq claimed to be 12th imam ,later he and his followers moved to shia Iran and the fists arab colony in ahvaz area formed , in following coming years , also , there was a sever drought which coused mass arab immigration to eastern area
if ahvaz is arab so who were Lors,Kurds,Bakhtiari ,Qahqaei, ...who has always lived there
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Kasravi was nothing but persian fascist and aryan nazi, yet he admitted that Arabestan/Khuzestan was not part of Iran.
Qashqei live in teh fars province and are a nomadic turkic people. Not persias.
Bakhtiari and Lori are mountain people and most are nomadic unsettled people Arabs not only populated ahwaz but virtually the entire eastern coast of the gulf. The only city which was mixed is Bushehr.
modallas2 1 year ago
lors and bakhtiari , shushtari and despolis , bushehri and bandaris , bastaki and BEHBEHANIS :D , kurds and qashqaeis, vs 500 000 arabs which most of them are shia refugees from SADDAM kingdom
parandehdarya 1 year ago
if UK government stops controlling arabs and PAKISTANIS , would not they claim British land especially LONDON?
at least 3 pakistani generations are living in London and IF uk gov was AS WEAK AS qajars ,
england was called " northern pakistan " today.
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Don't worry darling. In 2050 there will be 350 million pakistanis on your eastern border. And your gonna have to tone down your hatred of pakistanis sooner or later. Arabs are not immigrants to Ahwaz darling. Everything from ancient historic texts, to countless poets, to DNA testing on ancient skeletons proves that they and their race is native to that land. If arabs were immigrants Iran would not have called Khuzestan as Arabestan for 500 years on its official state documents.
modallas2 1 year ago
500 years ? yeah , that sever drought was happened 500 years ago which lead arab tribes move to turkey, iraq and Iran.
so sad
parandehdarya 1 year ago
arab nationalism was formed when British found out there is no other way to stop Ottoman empire , so British used arabs as a "tool" to stop muslim turks , arab history / nationalism is based on jewish mythical figures such as Sam written and conducted by British in recent centuries. .
parandehdarya 1 year ago
professor ,
plz talk about arab nationalism which was created by "British" to stop Ottoman expansion.
arabs fought bravely with Turks for British favor , did not they ?
do not let oil cover the truth !
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Arabs fought for their own interests and independence. While the arabs of the ottoman empire have gained their independence, the arabs who were part of the safavid sphere of influence (Ahwaz) have yet to get their independence.
This, more than anything else, will continue to poison the relationship between arabs and Persians.
modallas2 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Arab nationalism was not created by the british anymore than greek nationalism was created by British.
You seem to think that you have the right to rule over arabs. You don't have that right darling. Not in this modern era of nation states, rights of self-determination etc.
modallas2 1 year ago
here is no such a thing as arab ahvazi, those arabs who live in Iran were a bunch of homeless who immigrated to Iran in hope of finding better life standards but they encountered a weak government and immediately claimed those fertil lands.
what would hispanic do if US government do not control their behavior , would not they steal TX ,CA, FL, AR , ...and other states ?
arabs did the same , and their 500 year old history is the proof of this fact.
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Arabs in Ahwaz are not "immigrants". The persians are the immigrants to the iranian plateau darling.
What makes you think that Mexico does not have a legitimate claim over california and Texas? It is the US who "stole" those lands from Mexico not the other way around.
Your empire means nothing to arabs darling. There are persians, and there is persian territory. Nobody has a problem with persians existing on their persian territory in their persian nation state.
modallas2 1 year ago
US government plz do not control immigrants ,
let
asians , africans, Hispanic , ...claimed your land .
parandehdarya 1 year ago
if qajar were a strong government , arab immigrants s*** their pants and wouldn't try to claim anywhere , but RezaShah cut their Harami hands ,don't worry
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
It has nothing to do with Qajars being strong. Qajars were not a perso-fascist entity hellbent on Persianizing Iran.
If I start listing the names of Arab poets who come from Ahwaz in the Ummayad and Abbasid eras we won't finish until tomorrow.
modallas2 1 year ago
begin your list by arab poets, arab monuments ,arab heros , arab kings, arab.... from ahvaz...yallah
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
OK Let's start.
Starting with Gundishapoor (which was nothing but a christian nestorian arab university) we have people like Girgein bin Yakhtashou', famous physician. There are probably 10 other arab scholars that I can name from Gundishapoor days (pre-islamic) alone
Moving on to abbasid era we have such personalities as Sahl bin Haroun, Abu Nawwas, Ibn Al-Sekkeit, Sahl bin Abdulla, Qirmet (or the qaramita) and the list goes on and on
Do you want me to go on?
modallas2 1 year ago
goudi"shapour" as its names says was a Sssanid institude run by Assyrians ,greeks,indians,persians and so on .
no arab was educating there on that time due to there illiteracy , only 12 men could read/write in mohamed era
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Who cares about its name? What a silly argument.
Gundishapour for the most part was Nestorian, christian, and Arab. The arabs of mesopotamia were christian before islam and ahwaz is part of mesopotamia.
modallas2 1 year ago
in whole "jaziratolarab" 12 men or less could read / write ,dont forget
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Who told you that darling? This is rubbish.
Arabs were not only literate, they had no caste system (like persians) which would restrict knowledge to elite castes.
A persian should thank god day and night that arabs destroyed his caste system. Not a single ancient "primary" historical source on persia was even written by Persians and you're complaining about arab literacy. Everything we know about persia comes from Byzantine monks or islamic scholars.
modallas2 1 year ago
abu nawwas ,haron al rashid , mamoon , were half farsi.
Musa al-Sahl ibn-Harun also was a ultra Persian nationalist,anti-arab and Pahlavi expert..
so they are your proof ?LOL
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Who told you that darling? Some persian nationalist website.
This is as funny as persians Qureishi Arabs (e.g. Abulfaraj alasfahani) as persian.
Persians love lying. It is in your blood. I don't know. Is it in the food or something? You can still live fullfilling lives without the silly self-glorification you know!
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2
Univ of Oklahoma Press. Chpt. 5 about anti-arab ,pahavi expert ABU SALH is written by Rezashah ghost
parandehdarya 1 year ago
kasravi was son of azerbayjan but he never admitted to be a mongul but an ancient median azari/kurd
parandehdarya 1 year ago
move to abbasid era ,
Iran was part of abbasid empire and even haron al rashid ,mamoun ,Abu Nawwas.. were half farsi.
there were also lots of PERSIANS studying in BAGHDAD , let us claim back our SASSANID baghdad !
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
God so all of iran was part of the arab empire (ummayad then abbasid). Does that give arabs a right to call iran an "indivisible part of arabia".
Grow up darling. There are arabs and there are persians. Everybody's territory is very well known and very thoroughly documented throughout history.
Abu nawwas was half Khoozi not farsi. Khoozi language has long been extinct. No record of persians whatsoever in Ahwaz.
modallas2 1 year ago
abu nawwas knew persian and his mother name was " gol ban" , does not gol means flower is persian ? her name meant like flower keeper or something...
he had both persian / arabi poetry and pahlavi expert , his father was not arab , he was from syria
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Where abu nawwas did he grow up and acquire his native arabic tongue?
You guessed it. It was in the city of Ahwaz.
modallas2 1 year ago
omg ..how he could not learn arabic after all these years living in basrah ,baghdad and among other arabs?
he was living in basrah from his childhood
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Sure. He spent a lot of time in Basra. Did he ever call himself persian?
BTW, when I listed people like Sahl bin Haroun and Abbu Nawwas I deliberately listed them. Because those figures are major figures in arab culture brought up in a completely arab environment in Ahwaz.
modallas2 1 year ago
so abu nawwas homosexuality was part of his arabic nature and
anti-arab behavior of abu sahl also due to his pure arabic culture
non of the guys you mentioned were not arab , they were syrian,persian ,....or just half arab
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
You seem to think that Syria is not arab. You are mistaken darling.
Ask a syrian and they will tell you that the are arabs and have forever been arabs.
Where do you think ummayads brought up their children (who are some of the most eloquent arabic poets)? They brought them up in the syrian desert.
The difference between the semetic "languages" (syriac arabic etc) is no more than the difference between farsi dialects between khorasan and Tajikistan.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 joke again:)) it's true that Summerian were Semitic but it doesn't give arabs thir culture ...ARABs lived in dessert and eat lizard not like Egyption who had grate civilizations...infact Greeks and Persian are both Aryan but Persian can't have credit of Greeks nor Greeks can have credit of Persian
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Sumerians were not semetic. They spoke a language isolate. Semites picked up their semetic language from western arabia, from Somalid.
Africans hence the connection of arabic to the afro-asiatic language family. Arabid race is traceable to europe as confirmed by DNA evidence. However our language (semetic) is traceable to africa. All semetic civilizations (every single one of them) came from the arabian heartland. Even today we can understand their language! unlike your Pahlavi!
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 BS If arabs can get credit by DNA iranian can get credit of RUSSIAN (RB1 25%) and north European (I 25%) and Germans ( RB2 10%) ...BTW that was Egyption DNA that went to Europe not ARABs from ARABISAn dessert... Egyption had their culture long before arabs
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Even Greeks resulted from a migration of Arabids into greeks as confirmed by DNA evidence. However this happened prior to Arabids acquiring their semetic language. It happened in neolithic area. Crete (birthplace of greek civilization) is 80% arabid accordin to DNA evidence.
In fact greece is nothing but a mixture of Arabids and Somalid north africans as confirmed by DNA evidence.
Today, a full 35% of the population of Iran is directly descended from Arabia as confirmed by DNA.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 BS agian .. Greeks have RB1 and RB2 mostly which shows they are not ARAB :)))))))))funny you make me laugh ....
danielkachal 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
SO now you are claiming that Abu Nawwas was homosexual because he is persian.
I agree with you. Persian men are homos. That is why persian chicks would always rather marry outside. And that is why persian whores in LA, whore themselves out to all but persians.
Persian = Gay. Now the persians are bragging about it.
modallas2 1 year ago
his last comment means he was OWNED for the 14th times
(yes ,im counting his failure )
abu nawwas was not arab because he was gay , forget him .
only 12 men could read and write in WHOLE arabia 1400 years ago xDDDD
it was also too much for JAHILIYAH golden era . WOW 12 men !!!
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
So there are no gay arabs.
Abbu Nawwas was dacadent. That is why we arabs love his poetry. Even his "anti-arab" poetry is beautiful because it is not really anti arab as much as it is a man mouthing off.
We, full blooded arabs, have anti arab poetry lol. Does that make us persians. Almost everyday some arab poet comes up with a new poem that damns the arabs in one form or another. If anything, that is like a right of passage to arabness in our culture.
modallas2 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
As for sahl writings. They can only be explained due to his upbringing in an arab culture darling.
He was probably picked on for having no "nasab" (geneology). Only someone who lives and breathes arabic culture would take offense at that.
In fact, those figures and their behavior (thoroughly understandable to an arabic language native) are even further proof of the arab culture of Ahwaz".
modallas2 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
BTW, nobody gives a damn about Reza Shah nazi-educated scholars.
Even iranian scholars are debunking the falsified iranian history, and these quasi intellectuals. They have to, otherwise nobody would take them seriously in the world especially in these days of anthropological DNA testing and DNA atlas which has thoroughly debunked 90% of perso-centric iranian history.
History (including history of ahwaz) was written long before these fascist terrorists appeared on the scene.
modallas2 1 year ago
how do you explain 9 to 11 century Iranian poetry in which hero's of "Iran"zamin are the main part ?
why kings of several dynasties (Afshar, Safarid, Qajar, Mughals (mongols) ,...) used to call themselves " shahanshah-e- Iran zamin"??
parandehdarya 1 year ago
whatever American was done for Iran loses its affect when AMERICAN destroyed Iran's diplomatic Government ( called MASHROTE) and the way the helped Iraq and sanctioned Iran for years while whole world helped Iraq... even what they have done to Iran during WW2 can be questioned .... USA treated Iran normally till Iran wasn't against its policies ...Its what every nation does
danielkachal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear professor, it seems that you are either so biased that can not see the obvious things or you are totally illiterate about Iran and Iran's history (definitely how the name "Iran" has been chosen).
No offense. However, it seems that you are trying to make some unresisting points. Please be more clear, what are you trying to say?
Iransinblood 2 years ago
Dear professor, it seems that you are either so biased that can not see the obvious things or you are totally illiterate about Iran and Iran's history (definitely how the name "Iran" has been chosen).
No offense. However, it seems that you are trying to make some unresisting points. Please be more clear, what are you trying to say?
Iransinblood 2 years ago
Comment removed
danielkachal 1 year ago
It is indeed true that the name Iran as the land of Aryans existed for a long time. However, it is not coincidental that Shah Reza Pahlavi renamed the country of Persia officially as Iran on the Persian New Year of 1935. I have read quite a few books about this including by Iranian scholars.
Art Pitz
artpitz 2 years ago
@artpitz
Correctoin Dr. Pitz:
"Dar Al-Fonoun" is an arabic phrase/word. It actually means "House of the Arts" not "Gate"
The idea that Aryanism in Persia (or India) does not have a racist component to it is false. In fact Reza Shah and his intellectuals were fascinated with Hitler's Nazi ideology precisely and exactly because of the inherent racism in Aryanism.
modallas2 1 year ago
so you mean the term of "Iran" has never existed before and it was Nazi Germany who invented this title and proposed that to the Reza Shah?!!!
if so , how you can explain the term of "Iran" on the Qajar ( or Kajar,..) era currencies,postal stamps ,etc ?
why the first middle eastern Bank established in 1885 was called " bank shahi-e- Iran " ???
why the first Iranian newspapers in 18 century carried the title of Iran?
parandehdarya 1 year ago
@parandehdarya
Of course it existed. But it simply was "insignificant".
It also never existed in its current context (ie to refer to a nation state). Qajar era was not a "nation state". If was a loose association of kingdoms some of whom even refused to give allegiance to qajars and were negotiating their own treaties.
The word "Iran" exists. It never existed to mean what it means now. And it was not a significant name either.
modallas2 1 year ago
why the ambassador of this "Aryan nazi" government saved the life of 10000's of JEWS in France and did not let Hitler kill them ???"
parandehdarya 1 year ago
The name IRAN was not something that was made up in 1930s.IRAN means land of aryans and it has mentioned in Ferdowsi's book (BOOK OF THE KINGS) about a millinum ago&I'm just guessing there was no USA at that time.
Even the legendary ROSTAM DASTAN
was named as tha protector of Iran (the Aryan land)in Book of the kings.I would suggest that you read few more books before making comment about a country with 7000 years of history before you suggest that country is there because a 200 years old usa.
cyrus1348 2 years ago
"Dar" or دار doesn't mean gate it means house...
badem 2 years ago
You're right. I apologize for the error.
Art Pitz
artpitz 2 years ago
3. The association with the Aryan race is not for supramacy. It's a historical fact that during the ice age tribes moved south and some went to Europe, some went to north of India and some tribes settled in Iran. It was only during WWII that the "supramacy" race came to light.
mihantour 2 years ago
It is true that for a long time the idea of an Aryan race, at least in Persia, had nothing to do with racial supremacy and had everything to do with the historical heritage of where the people came from. But, it is not coincidental that Persia was officially renamed Iran in 1935.
Art Pitz
artpitz 2 years ago
Thank you doctor! I am Iranian and I like to make a few corrections to your nice gesture:
1. The name "Iran" is a historic name and precedes "Persia" which is used outside the borders. The name Iran was officially registered as Iran with the U.N. in the 1930s.
2. There was another American whose name escapes me. Many Iranians have great respect for him where he went to Tabriz to teach and got involved in the fight for a constitutional monarchy and was killed along many other freedom fighters.
mihantour 2 years ago
You're welcome.
I know that the name Iran is a historic name but Shah Reza Pahlavi elected to replace the name Persia with the name Iran. He did this on the Persian New Year in 1935 in large part at the suggestion of the Iranian legation to Berlin which saw advantages in renaming the country to fit in with the Nazi's views of the Aryan race. I
Art Pitz
You are quite right about the other American but I can't at the moment recall his name either.
Thanks for your comments.
artpitz 2 years ago
@artpitz in my opinion, Shah changed the name of Iran because not all Iranians are Persian..there others like Azeris (Turco-Iranian) or other non-Persian Iranians such as Kurds an Lurs... in fact, just 50-60% of Iran are Persian
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
What about Ahwazi Arabs who were their own kingdom (outside both safavid and ottoman control) for 500 years, and where 100% of Iran's oil originates.
They are neither Iranian, nor Aryan. And they have been fighting persian fascism and annexation of their territory since 1925, much like other the other groups having been fighting persian hegemony.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 that was the most dumby comment ever... i think you need to read the history .. 1. even soth part of iraq was part of iran in the time of Safavid and the north part was alwayas a battle between Turks and Iranians ..2.the south of iran has been always under countrl of iranian .. fore example Abbas's Port (Bandar abbas is named after shah abbas" 3. not all of iran's oil is in Khozestan..for example Kermanshah oils..4.. Arabic language is tought in schools
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
You are the one who is ignorant. What matters is the people on the ground not empires. Otherwise all of Iran would belong to Arabs, or Mongols (etc of the empires that ruled), or even Greeks. The south of Iran (shore) was controlled by Oman for extended periods of time. In fact even a small part of today's coast divided between Iran-pakistan was ceded from Oman to Iran. I think your history is flawed. Persians have no naval achievements. Arabs are pioneers of naval navigation.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 hahah first of all there is no Arab between Pakistan and Iran.. they are Baluch ...second of all Iranian had Navy 1500 years before Islam haha Arabs didn't have power in Islamic empire even OMAVID empire was destroyed by ABO MUSLEME KHORASANI who were Iranian from Khorasan ..However Arabs are at the south west part of iran not east.. Baluch are Sonni but they are not Arab
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Thank god for our Baluch brothers. If Iran is gonna become free its gonna come from these brave Baluch.
Now go and die in your persian hate. What a bunch of pathetic hateful bigots. Do you think Baluch wanna be part of Iran or your Islamic republic?
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 WTF... wasn't that 150 Persian were killed in streets of tehran and 50 in Isfehand and others in Shiraz in 2009? Iran doesn't need terrorists .. if these so called baluch ( Baluch are respected as Iraniani) are really brave , why don't they fight directly ? wasn't that terrorist group defeated by army ? now when they can't fight directly they kill people hahaha what a Brave group .hahahah
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
The only terrorists in Iran are the persians. When did hte Baluch choose to be part of your Iran?
"why don't they fight directly?"
Are you a moron. If they had an army and rockets and fire power I am sure they'll b e more than happy to take on persians.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 Oh BTW Oman is not in in Iranian side ... its on the other side of Persian Gulf
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Sure but Omani Empire controlled Iran's coast and almost all of eastern africa.
I bet you persian teachers taught you that in school.
Bandar Abbas was even "sold" to Oman at some point.
Go read some history book dude. This is the date and age of nation states, not persian imperialists and expansionist chauvinistic terrorists.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 WTF? ARABS bought BAHRAIN from Iran.. Give me a link about Oman empire.. they don't even have cost of Arabian island... i can give links of iran' map from 1000 years ago till now and there is no Oman empire in iranian cost... Ottaman even couldn't get land from iran while all Arabs from Egypt to SAudi and European from Greek to Poland were deafeted by Ottaman Turks... Iran ..However the last lost of Iran was afghanistan which was taken by Britain .. Read history
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Dude. Go masterbate with your sassanid sister.
Who said bahrain was sold? I said Bandar Abbas was "at some point" sold to Oman.
Small Oman in its heyday was probably bigger than persian empire ever was. Yet you don't hear arabs day and night talking about reviving the Omani empire. They just move on with their lives.
Only persian retards have their head still stuck up Cyrus's ass.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 you go fuck your sister haha Oman empire ? Google it there is noting about it juts a small Wikipedia page which start from 18th century haha .. BTW Arabs had better think about OMAVID ot ABBASID empires (Khalifate) or eve Fatemid ( its african nor fully arab)
danielkachal 1 year ago
there is no Terrorist attacked which has been done by Persian.. all terrorist attackes were done by Arabs and Pakistanians... Persian are not weak to hide and kill innocent people , they fight directly
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
There was no "islamic terrorism" whatsoever before your khomeini came into power.
Go read a history book. Iran is up to its eye balls funding sunni terrorist groups.
Iran has an agenda. It does not give a damn whether it funds people who are totally opposite of its shia ideology if it helps them create chaos and if it advances their intersts
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 are you for real ? wasn't that Lebanon who Muslims killed Chiristians ? or wasn't that ..Iraqi who killed Iraqis ( Bassi government) or in Palestine? what u said is a pure shit ... Iran even helped USA to destroy Sunnis in Afghanistan (Taleban.. IRANIAN backed group which had a leader called Massod captured Kabul for USA troops )... that was funny ... everybody know that Lebanon and Palestine is birht place of terrorism even Iranian troops went to Lebanon for training
danielkachal 1 year ago
@modallas2 iranian arabs has shown their rouyality in iraq-iran war and they fought for iran... i think you are daydreaming...hahaha persian hegemony? iranian govenment is advertising arabic culture with Islam...i think you have mental problem haha
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
They drank the khomeini koolaid. And they all regret it btw. Have you ever talked with these people or the other non persian minorities in Iran?
Have you ever talked with a Baluch or an Azari?
Iran is the next USSR. Perso-fascism cannot rule over all those people for too long in the future.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 yeah.. at least 1/4 of my classmate in Tehran were Azeri or half Azeri(+ my best friend) and a lot of my teachers were azeri too ( EXP my history teacher from grade 7-9).. I have had teachers from Kudistan, Mazandaran, Lurestan, Khozestan... BTW wasn't that Iraq who accepted to be the guilty for war and pay Iran? funny if iraq hadn't been supported by west and east iran would have eaten iraq in first 6 month.. BTW Iraq even didn't wanted to pay Kuwait and attacked it .haha
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
OK. I did not realize I was dealing with a typical persian.
I have news for you. There are separatist movements everywhere in Iran and they are all pretty united in their despise of Persians.
Iraq never accepted guilt. Maybe iraqi militias that were trained in Iran but Iraq certainly did not accept.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 you had better to check statement number 596 of United nations organization which was accepted by Khomeini ... it directly says Iraq is guilty and must pay for all damages of war to Iran.. and Saddam had accepted it 1 year before Khominie did... go read history...
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
This is bullshit. Is that why khomeini wanted to drink poison at the end of the war? If iraq was gonna end up paying why drink poison?
Khomeini wanted to drink poison because he lost. he wanted to drink poison because he prolonged the war for 7 unnecessary years where he achieved nothing at the end of it. IN other words he caused 95% of the casualties and achieved nothing ... hence wanting to drink the poison.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 first of all , its a wirtten statment you can check any source you want ( statment number 596 of UN in 1987) ... Iran won the war agianst iraq , but it was insuccesful agianst USA and USSr. if USA navy didn't attacked iran in 1987 and USSR ( russia) didn't helped iraq ( 30,000 russian military adviser + new equipment in1987) Khomeini didn't accepted the statement.. However, iran was at war with USA and USSR ( forexample fighting with USA troops in Lebanon and helping afghans )
danielkachal 1 year ago
@modallas2 BTW it 's clear khomeini didn't get whaf it wanted which was defeating west and east technology by just wave of human , but iran won the war agianst iraq and the reason is statrment of 596 .khomeini never wanted any thing for iran ,,he wanted power for Islam which benefited Mullahs..BTW you'r right iran fought for 7 years for nothing ,, in fact after recapturing Khoramshar and getting some iraqi territory in 1981 , govenmret must have stoped war bacause of lack of equipment and money
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Iran did not win the war. Precisely because it prolonged the war for 7 unnecessary years, caused 95% of the casualties (most of whom iranian) and ended up with precisely and exactly nothing!.
At the end of the war saddam's forces were on BOTH sides of the Shatt el-arab waterway which was the reason why the war started. The war was caused by Iran. Iran twisted the with the kurdish insurgency at a moment of weakness in 1975. Saddam attacked Iran at its moment of weakness.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 are u ok ? if Saadam were both side of Shat Al arab and captured it why Iran had forces there in 1989? Sadam accepted the statement of 596 which gave iran the Shat-alarab and forced iraq to pay Iran.. BTW wasn't that saddam who said he would capture Tehran in 3 days? hahah you must be drunk..go check any source iran 1987 pulled out of iraq and just left 12,000 second hand (basiji) there who were defeated by 100,000 iraqi forces and iraqi army reached the internation borders of 1972
danielkachal 1 year ago
@modallas2 iran won the war against Iraq...
1. Saddam failed to gain what it wanted even by massive help according to statmen # 596 (Shat-al Arab and Khozestan+iran)
2. Iraq accepted to pay iran
3.Iraq accepted to be guilty SEARCH IT ANYWHERE YOU WANT....
BTW about end of the war and when iran pull out of Iraq check 2nd Al-Faw battle which 100,000 well equipped Iraqi Gaurd were fighting with 12,000 second hand Basigis .. iraq didn't even got shat-al arab haha
danielkachal 1 year ago
@modallas2 iran knew that with massive support of iraq, it can't continue fighting ,so iran just left 12,000 soldiers in iraq and pulled out the rest ( ran had 500,000 troops in iraq in 1987) and its cleary stated in any sources .BTW Saddam tried to go to iran territory in 1988 but it failed and accepted the 596 ( after iran left iraq in 1987 Saddam said he would refuse the statement ( 596 was written when Iran was near Bassra in early 87) but when he failed he again accepted it
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
598 only called for a return to pre-war status if I am not mistaken. Iraq accepted but iran refused until ultimately khomeini came to the conclusion that he better accept and drink the poison
Facts say this:
1) Iran refused the arab offer which would have given iran victory
2) Iran prolonged the war for 7 unnecessary years
3) Those years caused 95% of the casualty
4) Iran kept thinking it will achieve victory, refused UN resolution, only until khomeini decided to accept finally.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 check it agian .. it clearly says Iraq is guilty of war
BTW why do you think it was 7 years of war for nothing ?
1.Islamic republic united people with that war
2. killed .5 million young man who may caused problem for govenment
3. killed all Mojahedin ( iranian who were opposing Islamic government 12,000 people were killed)
4. Govenment got control of economy
5. Sepah got stronger than Iran's army
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Every source says this:
Iran military that crossed into iran was always pushed back by military force
Iraqi forces on the other hand withdrew voluntarily once it became obvious that the war is futile and that khomeini was already smacked in the face enough to prevent him from interfering in Iraq's internal affair.
US supported the iraq with satellite info later on and guaranteed freedom of navigation in the gulf later on. But they supported Iran initially with real weapons.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 did you check the battle called 2nd AL-FAW ? it cleary shows 12,000 Iranian troops agianst 100,000 iraqi troops which casued that iraq army to reach Iran boarders.. BTW in the time of after Khomeini accepted the resolution, Iranian army were in Iraq territory at north west of iran ( north east of Iraq) ( Al-faw was just in south part)... are for real ?Iraq always used satellite info and the most famous one is Karbala 4 in 1885..BTW what about French pilots and Russians?
danielkachal 1 year ago
@modallas2 i think it was Saddam who was smacked by his joke " capturing Iran in 4 days" hahaha.. USA has putted iran under sanctions .. which means 80% of iranian equipment were not working .Are u HIGH? iran couldn't by a Tank from outside.. in fact one of the reasons that iraq attacked iran was sanctions becasue iran army was 80% American and by Islamic revolution non of them were operative ..still iran have to tank syria who sold iran some second hand weapons . Iran couldn't sell oil normally
danielkachal 1 year ago
@modallas2 BTW if iraq was vining the war why it didn't captured why Saddam wanted ? why it accpeted to pay iran? why it accepted to be guilty ? the answer is Iraq couldn't do any thing and accepted defeat ( its so embarrassing for saddam that failes to achive what he said even shat-al arab.. he even accepted to pay :)))) BTW if iran had had or used chemical weapons that Iraq did, i would have gotten whole Iraq+ISrael.. thatch a shame having support of two superpowers and still failing
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Iraq was winning the war by not loosing. Iraq is a quarter the size of iran. Iran is rugged territory. Iraq is flat at undefensible from a military standpoint.
I don't know what the hell are you talking about man when you say "Iraq agreed to Pay". Iraq agreed to nothing man. The only one who "agreed to pay" was Abdelaziz el-hakim and that is when his party lost all its previous popularity in Iraq!
modallas2 1 year ago
@danielkachal
I am sure your mullas are lying to you by telling you Iraq lost the war. How else they can justify the millions killed?
Iraq is widely considered to have "won". By the end of the war they war far stronger militarily than iran. It was saddam's adventurism in kuwait that killed saddam, certainly not his war on Iran.
chemical weapons have yet to be investigated forensically (ie by scientists not politicians etc).
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 no they are not lying .. iraq attacked iran and iran took back all parts .. and Iran didn't lose any land .. and iraq acceopted to be guilty of war and pay.. i think its youe govenment trying to lye lie that iraq wont ... becasue there is no sign of it ..BTW iraq had bigger army since beggining of the war ... but with all supports did nothing.. BTW chemicals bombs are directly said in 598 resolution are ok ?
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Saddam captured "almost" what he wanted. His troops were on both sides of shatt el-arab.
Some baathists were ambitious and wanted to capture part of khuzestan too. Not saddam though. Saddam's goals were limited to shatt el-arab even though other baathists were claiming much more territory.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 no he didn't ... 1 Saddam wanted whole Khozestan and Iran ( he said " iran in 4 days"
2.saddam never got Shat-al arab as you can see from maps of 1988 ...
3. Iran was in iraq territories in north west at the same time
4. iraq army after accepting 598 by Khomeini were not in iran ( they tried by help of Mujaheddin organization "Mersad battle: but failed
5. show me a map form 1980s till now that Saddam had shat-al arab
6. Iraq accpeted to be gulty and pay iran
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
4 days or 40 days and such pompous declarations can be found on all sides (e.g. crossing to jerusalem through karbala etc). You don't judge a war based on this BS.
Saddam did not even want to start the war as was recently revealed from declassified American documents. Saddam was literally "tricked" into starting this war by Americans who told him it was going to be cakewalk. Saddam was very opposed and all internal iraqi documents (declassified after invasion) show that.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 Saddam wanted revenge because Iran before 1979 ( at the full power ) forced what ever it wanted to iraq.. but after revolution when Iran got vwery weak , Saddam thought it was a good time to caoture some land which he failed and was forced to accept it ... BTW iraq has accepted to be guilty for war offically
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Sure. So don't blame the war on Iraq then. Blame it on your people.
When Khomeini came into power, he did not say "oh let's fix relationship with Iraq". He said "let's export the revolution to iraq" and starting destabilizing iraq.
The war is 100% caused by Iran's action, and its persian supremaicst and fascist attitude which does not even recognize that arabs exist in the region.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 that was again iraq who wanted to start the war before the 1970 .. you have to read history man... but in that time Iran was so strong and Iraq immediately gave up ... BTw that was Iraq who droped the forst bomb and that was iraq who accepted to be guilty
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Iraq may have been the first country to cross the international border in 1980. But it hardly was the first country to "drop a bomb".
Khomeini resorted to dirty terrorism which Iran is so famous for historically (ever heard of the order of assasins and Alamut).
Iraq never accepted guilt or paying reparations. It did so with Kuwait but not Iran.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 "According to Paragraph 6 of the Resolution 598 regarding the determination of the party which initiated the war, Javier Perez de Cuellar, the then Secretary General of the United Nations in his report to the Security Council on December 11, 1991, declared that Iraq was the initiator of the war between Iran and Iraq."
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
When did Iraq accept to be "guilty of the war". This is news to me.
I told you man. Go search for the text of 598. Even iraqi government today (which is full of iranian agents) does not accept responsibility for the war. What are you talking about man?
Show me one neutral reference that considers Iran to have won the war. All you will find is political propagandists or islamic regieme agents. This islamic regieme is the biggest tragedy that ever came to Iran.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2
i send the websites to your mail go check non Iranian sources... just search the Iraq aggressor of war in Google
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
You don't have to prove to me that Iraq crossed in the int'l line in 1980. I know that.
You need to prove that 598 orders Iraq to pay reparations to Iran which is what you claimed earlier. You need to read a neutral book about the war. At the beginning of the war, Iraqi military was nowhere near the strength of iranian military. At the end of the war, Iraq enjoyed superiority in every category. Iraq mainly used russian equipment. Iran mainly used superior American equipment
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 and i gave it too you
"According to Paragraph 6 of the Resolution 598 regarding the determination of the party which initiated the war, Javier Perez de Cuellar, the then Secretary General of the United Nations in his report to the Security Council on December 11, 1991, declared that Iraq was the initiator of the war between Iran and Iraq."
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Yes but this is not in resolution 598. THis is some report that happened in 1991 (ie after iraq's invasion of kuwawit).
UN secretary general could have declared that in 1988. But he didn't. When khomeini accepted 598 (and drank the poison) it had zero blame pinned on iraq.
All you have to do is search for the text of 598, not some report that happened later on and after iraq invaded kuwait.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 are you ok ? it was declared in 1991 .. but resolution is 598 .. which was written in 1987.. the crassefire was in 1988 which means iraq had accepted the resolution 598,.,, go check the line in resolution 598... go check it ....
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Good so you answered yourself by yourself. BTW, Iraq accepted 598 (which called for cease fire) long long before Khomeini accepted.
It was khomeini who declared that he was drinking poison. The reason is very simple. He (khomeini) caused so much killing and he achieved nothing. The only thing he achieved was eleminating the iranian opposition and turnin iran into a mulla state.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 you answered yourself by your self .. Iraq and arabs were baging ro iran to stop the war and pay iran.. not 1 times not 2 times , but 3 times...... ( which happened by 598)Khomeini wanted Power just by power from by spending no money ( human waves ) ..and he didn't get that.. but iran took back all its land and didn't lose even a meter of its soil .... Iran government killed Khomeini because he was a problem himself ...
danielkachal 1 year ago
@modallas2 BTW the precondition that iran started negotionions was that iraq accepts its aggressor ( which means paying according to UN) and Iraq did that.. if iraq didn't accepted the 598 iran never even negotiated
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Precondition for what man? The war ended in a ceasefire with Iraq paying nothing. The arabs offered Iran in 1981 $75B and effective victory of iraq and Iran refused. How can iran demand reparations when they themselves chose to prolong the war ?
Some mullas may demand that of course. But from a legal and historic perspective its worthless. Arabs (specifically saudi) offered you victory and you REFUSED. You chose war, and killing a million people. And you failed.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 iran had preconditions for negotiation which was accepting iraq as aggressor ( check the websites i gave you) .. BTW iran wasn fighting was fighting with west technology not Iraq... if they putted iraq under sanction for 2 weeks iran captured whole iraq
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
You seem to think that international relations are not part of wars. Iraq was more accepted by international community because it did not behave like a terrorist expansionist state which wants to export its revolution.
BTW, it was arab countries too (Libya, Syria, Algeria) who were immensely helping Iran with weaponry. But your hatred for arabs as a whole prevents you from seeing that. How hypocritical indeed!!
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 i don't hate all arabs , for example Iranian Arabs who fought for Iran.. i hate the won who hate Iran ( which all helped Iraq) and its not just crabs i hate all who were against Iran.. even Islamic government
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Iranian arabs these days are definately not interested in being part of iran. I can assure of you that. Neither are baluch etc. They have been terrorized and oppressed by fascist policies since 1925.
I don't know why you think iranian arabs would not fight for their country at a time of war. Did they ever tell you that the arab people are not honorable people? You think that just because saddam reminds them that they are arab that they will fight for him. This is nonesense.
modallas2 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Rumi, Saadi and Hafez not only had reverence for the arabs. They invented poetic styles where they intermix persian with arabic. They have all written arabic poetry in addition to persian poetry, not Aryan sanskrit poetry. Hating arabs is the exception not the rule among Iran's literary giants. Only ferdowsi is the arab hater. Naser Khusrow even wished he were Arab in his poems. So did Biruni, because they recognized that iran achieved nothing under aryan caste system & culture.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2
OH MY GOD!!! who ever you called lived under rule of Azeris or Ottoman Turks... they didn't live under Aryan control .... you must be HIGH BTW just show me the peom that the guy whishes to be ARAB ... everything must have a source
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Biruni said this:
"I would rather be insulted in arabic, than praised in Persian". This is a famous quote from his history book on Iran.
Do you want me to give you more. Do you want me to give how Hafez was even quotin the poems of non other than Yazid bin Muawiyyah?
Listen man. I know iranian literature very well. Only ferdowsi is the arab hater. Read Safarnameh (famous nasser khusrow book) if you wanna read what he thinks of arabs.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 it seems you can speak farsi , so give me the Farsi quot of that so i can check it
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Not really. Not yet fluent but i am learning on my own time. I will send you the Safarnameh book and provide you the quote. It is not infront of me right now.We have great translations of Farsi literature literature though. Hafez is our most beloved persian poet. Followed by Saadi and khayyam. Strangely, Rumi is not that well known because there are weak translations of his work. We like his arabic poetry though. Rumi,Hafez and Saadi have all poemed significant poems in arabic
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 you don't know Persian and you talk about all Persian literature ?
are you ok .. it seems you are paid to do that ... to make Iranian enemy of each other... be sure you send a link becasue i have whole Persian literature books on CD so i'm goona check .. BTW just write the peom in Persian then give it to me
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
I don't know it well enough no. It is better to say "I do not know" than make bogus claims or lie. Too bad persians (addicted to lying and cunning politics) cannot appreciate that lol.
If you want I will send you the Hafez ghazal where he uses arabic verse (its called mulamma style). I don't have safarnameh in front of me though.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 "Persians addicted to lying " funny i think Arabs are addicted of lying Specilay the type of them from south cost of Persian gulf
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Of course persians are addicted to lying. Arabs are the most transparent (in your face) ppl on earth. Persians are the most cunning political and manipulative people on earth. Both traits have their pros and cons lol.
I am not the only one who thinks that. Those persians who preferred to insulted in Arabic (e.g. Biruni) preferred that for exactly this reason. An arabic insult means just that (an insult). A persian praise on the other hand maybe nothing but concealed insult lol.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 you make me laugh. you Arabs even trick each other (Palestine) or attack of Iraq to Kuwait or Saudi arabia which supposed to be enemy of israel but is friend or Egypt that closes its boarder to GAZA people ... BTW your famous of that ...even your famous of killing innocent people by bomb , go be proud of being terrorist.. thank God there is no Iranian terrorist
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Nobody tricked anybody. Arabic politics is simply messy and very regieme has its own interests and alliances. We're discussing arabic mentality here. Arab people (as people) are not liars. An arab will always tell you what is in his heart. That is the way we are. We cannot hide what is in our heart or manipulate people. That is why all those abbasids had persian politicians. Put two arabs in a room and they will instantly start shouting at each other lol.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 you have aleady said that your not about that Qour ..see who is domb right now
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
OK. This is from the arguably greatest hafez ghazal
الا یا ایها الـساقی ادر کاسا و ناولـها
که عشق آسان نمود اول ولی افتاد مشکلها
and ends with... حضوری گر همیخواهی از او غایب مشو حافظ
مـتی ما تلق من تهوی دع الدنیا و اهملـها
I can go on and on. The arabic verses here belong to Yazid btw.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 so what ? i knew he uses Arabic sometimes .. but you need to read all Hafez poem he actually insults GOD sometimes
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Sure. Ever read the poems of Ibn Arabi (equivalent of Rumi in Arabic). Insulting god is part of loving god.
We have tons of poetry ridiculing god too. We have a great deal of pornographic poetry too in case you did not know. And ridiculous amounts of it were written by arab women who, unlike persian women, contributed immensely to our vast poetric heritage.
You seem to think that arabs are nothin but tents and lizards (typical persian Reza Shah fascist view).
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 what happened to you link?
danielkachal 1 year ago
@modallas2 إBTW i think Biruni is a mathematician not a Poet
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Biruni was a universal scholar. He wrote in everything from religion to math to philsolphy to anthropology to history.
modallas2 1 year ago
@danielkachal
The only iranian literature that is hateful of arabs is this:
1) Shahnameh
2) Other minor shuubi literature
3) Modern iranian literature, post the Reza-Shah state.
Everything else is nothin but reverence for the arabs, copying their literature (e.g. Nezami kanjawi on majnun leyla etc), copying their poetry (all iranian poetry styles except quatrians is invented in Arabia) and the long list goes on.
You may jump on fires every year. But your culture is 90% arabic lol.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 Iranian talked about nationalisim which as always against Turks but not Azeris ( forexample Azeris helped Farsi a lot ) Arabs weren't problem in the time of Safavid or other after Abbasid empire collapsed .... they didn't need to aim Arabs for nationalisim..... However there more nationalistic peom from others like Shamse tabrizi
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
In fact the greatest iranian poet of the modern era (Shamlou) refused to hate Arabs and instead condemned the nationalists and their fascism.
The same is true with Simin Behbahani (the old iranian poet who still lives, god bless her soul).
Persians differ from arabs in mentality, and temperment. The two are diametrically opposed on so many things. Yet persian culture is 90% derived from semitic arab culture. All anthropolgists and historians and scholars agree on that.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 no its not driven from ARABS ... just tell me except 40% of language what is driven from arabs ? SHite Islam i made to opposing arabs and Turks.. do we have the same clothes ? do we have the same myths? do we have the same agriculture? so we have the same beliefs? do we have the same types of buildings ? even mosque are different ? do we celebrate the same new year? and so on
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Yes you do. Your beliefs are islamic and monotheistic. You prophet is arab and your religion is arab and all your saints are arab. Your clothes are even different within Iran itself so don't attach too much importance to that. You even went way beyond arabs in glorifying arab descendents (e.g. black turnban ayatollas).
Iran has its somewhat different architecture but the islamic art in them is the same except Nastaaliq. Point is this: Iran is much similar to us than hindu aryans.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 iranian religioun is Shite which make fun of Mohammad and make Ali and others even GOD, IRANIAN have no idea what is Islam about becasue they don't understand what it says ( BTW after revolution no body beleive in Islam anymore) ..our costum is different whic shows it's not arab and why not getting credit of that? Art of Islam is from iran arab in this case arab culture is Persian.. Iranian made Islamic Goverment by mistake , it wasn't suppose to haappen so arabs can't get credit
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
I know tat after revolution iranians are leaving islam. That is a good thing btw lol.
Do you think that Iraqi shia (home of shia) does not glorify ali hussein etc. Where do you live man? Do you think arab shia do not bleed themselves in ashura? Its all arab culture man. Maybe with an iranian spin on it.
As for islamic art being persian. This is a joke. Nobody in the world thinks that the dome of the rock or alhambra are persian. except persian nationalist of course.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 BTW arab are getting credit of african and egyptions too, but just look at mosque in Turley,Iran and the one in Saudi arabia... you'll see the difference in art... at least Irainan art is every where even in India (Taj mahal) or mosque of Turkey ( Turks has adopted Iranian culture).... Shite was made by Iranian to just oppose Arabic ISlam.. even worshiping and other stuuf is copy of Persian traditions before Islam, they have just changed the names
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
Sure. Arabs invented the civilization that mixed all these influences together.
Prior to arabs, sassanids were sassanids and romans were romans, and egyptian were egyptian and everyone had their own architecture.
You seem to want to deny arabs their accomplishment. Arabs glued all these achievements together in a civilization that was totally of their invention.
BTW, sassanids have very little achievments. Persopolis should rightfully be called Babylopolis lol.
modallas2 1 year ago
@modallas2 hahah that as a funny one
1. arabs were part of Sassanian empire (Yaman)
2.Prespolise is for First Persian empire not Sassanian
3.Egypt were part of Roman empire and before it was part of the first Persian empire
4.iranian had human right 1400 year before Mohammad
5.the only achievement of arabs is Islam which is totaly anti-civilization
6.Sassanian had university and Roamn went to sasanian empire for studing
7. they had their own religion but they didn't force it like Barabrs
danielkachal 1 year ago
@danielkachal
What are the sassanid works before Islam. Can you name them to me?
You will not be able to name one work. Gundishapoor was a nestorian christian arab university as I posted earlier.
Everythin we know about sassanid Iran, we know either from islamic sources or byzantine monks. Do you have anybody like Herodotos (greek historian). Do you have any works of scholarship before islam? No.
And please don't give me that BS that arab burned library. Why not burn greek literature?!
modallas2 1 year ago