Iranian Chill Thread

[Mamajama]

UAE is called little sparta for a reason. Iran has been barking for ages against Israel but Israel bombs them every single day. NOT ONCE they did they reply. Your bluff is called many times and all you do is bark. Take some action and see how it unfolds for you otherwise stay silent

Stop talking like a retard, it is not in the UAEs interest to focus on Iran. The focus on Iran was an effort by KSA, UAE is focused on taking on Turkey. UAE has nothing to gain from conflict with Iran, whereas it has much to gain in the Mediterranean, and Libya. In fact, the tied between both countries are actually getting better. UAE has already achieved what it needed to achieve in Yemen which was propping up STC and access to Socotra, and Aden port.

 

[SalarHaqq]

An Azari commentator from Aran, Mr. Rasulgholiov, debunks pan-Turkist fantasies. Good to see some people north of the Aras river are at least realistic when it comes to gauging the feasability of pan-Turkist dreams vis a vis Iran.

A quick translation of some of the highlights among Mr. Rasulgholiov's statements in this discussion:

Rasulgholiov tells the interviewer, "I wanted to inform you that Azaris from Iran consider themselves Iranian."

When the latter suggests Azari Iranians were therefore "assimilated", Rasulgholiov replies:

"No, this is not assimilation. Their motherland is Iran. What assimilation? They've been living on those lands for 5000 years and their country's name today is Iran."

"Where do you get this from that they were assimilated? Their motherland is Iran, this is the truth."

"Russia occupied us and we became part of their territory. If Russia hadn't occupied this place in 1813 and 1828, we would have been part of Iran."

"Those among us who say we need to go and liberate "South Azarbaijan", this is really imbecility and foolishness. That "South Azarbaijan" thinks the opposite. They think, "when will this Republic of Azarbaijan become an integral part of Iran again? And when will this right which was violated two centuries ago, be restituted to its bearer?"

"We are an interesting people. Do you remember how at the time of the Popular Front (editor's note: pan-Turkist party which ruled in Baku from 1992 until its overthrow in a coup in 1993), we were saying "we'll go to Tabriz and raise our flag there?" Dear, you can't go to Khankendi (Stepanakert) and raise your flag there, what Tabriz? What Tabriz are you talking about?"

 

[Hormuz]

UAE is called little sparta for a reason. Iran has been barking for ages against Israel but Israel bombs them every single day. NOT ONCE they did they reply. Your bluff is called many times and all you do is bark. Take some action and see how it unfolds for you otherwise stay silent

here is your sparta:

they can't even fight against yemen the poorest but the bravest arab country where the fighters have only a AK47 and sandals. thats why they pulled out of the coalition with saudi arabia cause they will be destroyed.

 

[Surenas]

I know and don't disagree with you on this at all. I was referring to the objective reality of those festivals and landmarks, irregardless of what the Baku regime claims. If they take pride in Noruz and pre-Islamic Iranian landmarks, then it is correct to say they are in effect taking pride in their Iranian roots - even if the regime is trying to erase these by reattributing fake origins to these cultural markers.

Not if they refuse to acknowledge the cultural roots of the festivities they celebrate. In fact, they outright deny it.

Here I would however respectfully disagree. No entity poses a greater and more dangerous threat to Iran - and to all nations, for that matter, than the zionist regime supported by its international lobbies and networks.

Firstly, do not doubt for a second that the "ethnic" disintegration of Iran is Tel Aviv's staunchly pursued goal. Just look at the Oded Yinon and Bernard Lewis plans, and cross check that with their policies. In effect, you have a Isra"el"i hand in virtually every separatist or confessionalist crisis in the region - be it pan-Kurdism, pan-Turkism or etc. It is the zionist regime that has empowered and keeps empowering Baku, too (60% of Azarbaijan's arms imports originate from there). It is US and zionist support that allows the corrupt leadership in Baku to dream of "unification" with Iranian provinces (Turkish backing alone would probably not be enough).

When it comes to cultural policy, international zionism with its messianist globalist element has been busy uprooting all nations with the decadence of liberal modernity it promotes (destruction of the nuclear family structure, globalist ideology against patriotism, etc - I'm sure you're aware of the problematic).

Secondly, and this is what makes zionism so dangerous, is its disproportionate, enormous influence and power accross the planet. This power stems from the fact that zionists beholden to Tel Aviv occupy key positions in global finance, industries, media, in the cultural sector as well as in governmental decision making positions of all major western powers. The Republic of Azarbaijan's reach is a sad joke compared to this.

To get the Schmittian hierarchy of foes wrong would be a major mistake, and a trap. I'm not saying this to be apologetic towards the Azari regime, not at all, but because underestimating the zionist threat, or not acting according to the fact that zionism is the top of the pyramid of Iran's enemies, i. e. the one enemy all others are in fact subordinates of, would be hazardous for Iran.

The leadership of the IR knows this perfectly well. I remember how at the height of the ISIS onslaught, the enemy was activating its sectarianist assets (Shirazi clan and so on), in order to influence patriotic and IR-loyalist segments of Iranian public opinion into no longer viewing Isra"el" but Sunni Muslims as the major threat. Thankfully their attempts failed miserably. IR-authorities stuck to their principled line and thanks to Iranian state-owned media coverage and thanks to the IR's public discourse, Iranian society did not fall into this trap. Iranians realized who had been behind ISIS from the beginning (namely, the zionist-controlled US regime). The same should apply when dealing with these "ethno"-separatist elements inside or outside the country.

Israeli hostility to Iran solely dependents on Tehran's strategic posture. The day that Iran gives hints of pro-Israeli sentiment, is the day that Tel Aviv would immediately prioritize Tehran over every other country in the Middle East. They would be willing to drop the likes of Saudi instantly if that would bring them into Iran's favour.

At the heart of the conflict between Iran and Israel lies no cultural enmity, in contrast to Azerbaijan. That alone makes the latter a more significant threat to Iran's territorial integrity than Israel will ever be.

 

[SalarHaqq]

My guess he's Turkish.

I doubt it, brother.

Now you motivated me to dig up from my "archives" some possible hints as to the subject's background.

Have a look at this:

The subject sure seems to know a thing or two about the Hebrew language... how many Turks are as familiar with Hebrew, I wonder?

Elsewhere he was enthusing over a "Jewish pal" of his for having had extra-marital sexual relations with blonde Danish females... User TruthHurtz called him out on that one, if I remember correctly. But sadly I have no screenshot of the episode. Perhaps some reader might be able to help me find the post in question (would be greatly appreciated). Let's put it that way: it's unusual for some radical iranophobe of Muslim background to celebrate a Jewish acquaintance's sexual conquests (not saying it's impossible of course, but it would be somewhat odd for sure).

Other than that, 99.9% of the subject's posting activity consists, via utterly provocative comments, in trying to incite Pakistani and other Muslim users to adopt positions that legitimize extreme violence, including gross violations of international and humanitarian law, against Iran and her allies, as well as civilian populations.

See for instance:

Here the subject is advocating the opening of "concentration camps" for Zeynabioun fighters. He is also using the phrase "round them up". Why so many lexical references to WW2? Is the symbolic focus on WW2 most typical of Turks and Muslims? Of course, it could be just a coincidence, who knows.

The above is an example of his explicit calls not to bother about killing civilians.

Another one, where the subject advocates that Saudi Arabia should cause Yemeni people to starve to death. This was posted during a period where "500" was inciting forum users on a near daily basis with mantras such as "atheist dictator filth Assad is starving out his own people". In certain circles, they call this sort of brazenness "chutzpah" (I cannot be certain that our subject is part of these circles, but let's say that I for one wouldn't be overly surprised if some day it turned out he is).

In a nauseating combo with Turkish user MMM-E, the subject is wishing death upon a fellow forumer from Pakistan.

And to conclude, the subject under scrutiny is attempting to advertize the idea to his Pakistani audience, that Islamabad would gain in waging war and trying out WMD such as chemical weapons on Iran. This, according to the subject, would allow Pakistan to grab land and oil resources "with ease". Notice his assessments about Iran's military strength, ridiculous as usual.

Now it is said of a certain group that they have historically been masters at engineering triangulated conflicts between third parties, i. e. at luring and trapping them into waging war against one another.

Add that to the "Z"-type stylized letter in his profile picture...

Again, not drawing conclusions here (perhaps he's really just a particularly weird Muslim Dane), just pointing to some documented peculiarities.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Not if they refuse to acknowledge the cultural roots of the festivities they celebrate. In fact, they outright deny it.

Their denials won't change historic facts. I was referring to those facts, exclusively. Is this to suggest their fabrications affect and alter historic reality? I'm under no delusions as to what their policies consist of.

Israeli hostility to Iran solely dependents on Tehran's strategic posture. The day that Iran gives hints of pro-Israeli sentiment, is the day that Tel Aviv would immediately prioritize Tehran over every other country in the Middle East. They would be willing to drop the likes of Saudi instantly if that would bring them into Iran's favour.

Saudi Arabia is a vassal regime deprived of genuine sovereignty. That's the only sort of a regime Tel Aviv will show itself favorable towards. And even the Saudis themselves are slated for dismantling (see Oded Yinon plan, Ralph Peters map, etc), but at a later point in time, since for now they are useful to Tel Aviv in its attempts to destroy Iran.

Prevailing conditions under the shah regime, when Isra"el"i and pro-zionist networks (Zeytoun, Haifan Bahai organization, freemasonry, SAVAK networks loyal to Tel Aviv such as Parviz Sabeti's stay-behind structure) had effectively undermined Iranian sovereignty, are characteristic of what "friendship" with neighboring nations entails in the eyes of Tel Aviv, and it's everything but a relationship on equal footing.

Heck, even western allies of Isra"el" end up under the zionist thumb. Read Mearsheimer and Walt's (no "conspiracy theorists" but respected academic scholars) "The Israel Lobby" to get a notion of how zionist encroachment has led to a situation where US policy in the Middle East is no longer dictated by America's own interests. The same can be witnessed all over Europe.

Zionist hostility and propensity for domineering is not a consequence of the IR's policies. That's what Isra"el"i officials would like people to believe. It runs far, far deeper than that and is of a civilizational, existential type. We're talking about a regime and a ruling oligarchy with a particular mindset, which is staunchly pursuing a messianist agenda of global domination, tolerates no roadblocks on the path to the realization of its goals, and tends to view every sort of engagement in strict zero sum terms.

This is no ordinary kind of enmity:

At the heart of the conflict between Iran and Israel lies no cultural enmity, in contrast to Azerbaijan. That alone makes the latter a more significant threat to Iran's territorial integrity than Israel will ever be.

I would suggest to gather additional information on zionist globalism. Globalist zionist elites are definitely hostile to every historical tradition, to every civilization with ancestral roots. The projected messianist one-world government they seek to implement, is synonymous not just with the end of nation-states, of national identity, of territorial integrity, but also with traditional cultural specificity and diversity.

The intent is to gobble up, subsume and dilute all cultures (except one) into a unified, undifferentiated universal synthesis.

Simply put, there's no room for any sort of Iranian culture in the zionist project.

What we can witness here on the religious level, also applies on the political, cultural and economic levels:

Abu Dhabi: A synagogue,mosque and church, will be in one location

Historic project dubbed the “Abrahamic Family House” to be completed by 2022

gulfnews.com

Besides, as said, Isra"el" is the one empowering Baku. Isra"el" is not just backing all sorts of anti-Iranian separatisms, it is outright engineering these currents through its US-based, pro-zionist think tanks. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of those anti-Iranian cultural policies conducted by Baku were initially coined in Tel Aviv, or if Aliyev was being assisted by zionist consultants in these endeavours. Zionist efforts to uproot and destroy Iranian society in an irreversible manner are all too apparent.

This is not simply done because Iran "decided" to antagonize Tel Aviv out of the blue, for at the core of the Islamic Republic's hostility towards Tel Aviv resides the zionist treatment of Iran prior to 1979. Now had the pre-revolutionary experience been an "accident of history", it would be a different matter. Problem is that this domineering behaviour is a recurrent pattern displayed by zionist elites accross the board. It betrays a political project defined by hegemonist designs, and those who delve into the topic will find enough evidence in support of this.

We saw how Iraq was obliterated for good in what was essentially a zionist-concocted war of aggression. After 1991, Saddam no longer represented an objective threat to Tel Aviv whatsoever. Hence the true motives underlying Iraq's destruction can't be explained away by invoking things like Saddam's strategic posture against Isra"el". The truth is that Tel Aviv has an agenda of wrecking nation-states in the region.

Speaking of cultural issues, the celebration of the supposed mass slaughter of 75.000 Iranians on Purim, including of entire Iranian tribes that were wiped out of existence, doesn't strike me as a sign of positive cultural-historic bonds.

I completely sympathize with calls to counter the pan-Turkist threat. Much less so, I'm afraid, with apologetic stances towards Isra"el", in the absence of which Iran would hardly be facing threats so intense from totally insignificant (on their own) second- and third-tier players to begin with. No powers on earth are more dangerous to Iran, whether in the short or in the long term, than international zionism and Isra"el".

 

[viewer]

( at least it shows in this way ) you said it ..and i know its a show . all I'm saying is Arminians blood is as red as the Azaries ,we should not favor another country just because they share the same Religion.. BTW the islamic Azerbaijan is getting more cocky thanks to israelis Direct Military support .

Your logic is very wrong. According to your logic, we should not have liberated the areas occupied by Iraq in the war, because the blood of all human beings is equally red and the war is a bad thing. Or we should not have helped Iraq against ISIS because the blood of all human beings is equally red. Well, I agree with you that the blood of every human being is precious.
But here are two things:
1- There are double standards here: because we do not help a Shiite country that defends itself and fights for its legal land, but we help Syria, Yemen, Palestine and Lebanon. We are even helping Qatar in the face of sanctions. We even help Venezuela.

2- We have always claimed and claim that we are on the side of the right and we have deafened the ears of the world with this slogan and we claim that we support the side of the right in every dispute. But here we are silent


About the Israelis:

Every occupied country will look for friends who can help them to be free. Iran left them alone so this gap was filled by Israel. (We got help from the United States and Israel and Gaddafi and North Korea in the war with Iraq).
On the other hand:
We have helped and are helping Iraq, not because their government is an ally of the United States or a puppet or obedient to the United States, but because of their nation.
We did not help Kurdistan because their government is an ally of the United States and listens to the United States, not because of their extensive ties with Israel.
We helped Lebanon, not because of their government
We helped the Palestinians, not because of their government
We helped Qatar in the face of sanctions and we are doing it
We also help Venezuela.
But we are silent on the issue of Azerbaijan and even worse, we help Armenia as much as we can.
This is unjustifiable.

 

[HAIDER]

I doubt it, brother.

Now you motivated me to dig up from my "archives" some possible hints as to the subject's background.

Have a look at this:

View attachment 676730

The subject sure seems to know a thing or two about the Hebrew language... how many Turks are as familiar with Hebrew, I wonder?

Elsewhere he was enthusing over a "Jewish pal" of his for having had extra-marital sexual relations with blonde Danish females... User TruthHurtz called him out on that one, if I remember correctly. But sadly I have no screenshot of the episode. Perhaps some reader might be able to help me find the post in question (would be greatly appreciated). Let's put it that way: it's unusual for some radical iranophobe of Muslim background to celebrate a Jewish acquaintance's sexual conquests (not saying it's impossible of course, but it would be somewhat odd for sure).

Other than that, 99.9% of the subject's posting activity consists, via utterly provocative comments, in trying to incite Pakistani and other Muslim users to adopt positions that legitimize extreme violence, including gross violations of international and humanitarian law, against Iran and her allies, as well as civilian populations.

See for instance:

View attachment 676715

Here the subject is advocating the opening of "concentration camps" for Zeynabioun fighters. He is also using the phrase "round them up". Why so many lexical references to WW2? Is the symbolic focus on WW2 most typical of Turks and Muslims? Of course, it could be just a coincidence, who knows.

View attachment 676717

The above is an example of his explicit calls not to bother about killing civilians.

View attachment 676724

Another one, where the subject advocates that Saudi Arabia should cause Yemeni people to starve to death. This was posted during a period where "500" was inciting forum users on a near daily basis with mantras such as "atheist dictator filth Assad is starving out his own people". In certain circles, they call this sort of brazenness "chutzpah" (I cannot be certain that our subject is part of these circles, but let's say that I for one wouldn't be overly surprised if some day it turned out he is).

View attachment 676722

In a nauseating combo with Turkish user MMM-E, the subject is wishing death upon a fellow forumer from Pakistan.

View attachment 676729

And to conclude, the subject under scrutiny is attempting to advertize the idea to his Pakistani audience, that Islamabad would gain in waging war and trying out WMD such as chemical weapons on Iran. This, according to the subject, would allow Pakistan to grab land and oil resources "with ease". Notice his assessments about Iran's military strength, ridiculous as usual.

Now it is said of a certain group that they have historically been masters at engineering triangulated conflicts between third parties, i. e. at luring and trapping them into waging war against one another.

Add that to the "Z"-type stylized letter in his profile picture...

Again, not drawing conclusions here (perhaps he's really just a particularly weird Muslim Dane), just pointing to some documented peculiarities.

interesting finding about this guy ... seems he is shy to disclose his identity, or this is his job..

 

[Caspian Parsi]

I don't think you understood my point of view :
our discussion was about azerbaijan and armenian conflict . this two ex-iranian states are fighting each other and we are not at war with them .Iran should not take side now ,in my opinion this is another geopolitical maneuver by Turkey to gain access to Azari energy resource ,, Russia will stepp in way before Iran gets in to the fight . Iran already have fingers in many pies in west Asia

with regards to Iraq : we had a all out war ...Of course we defend our land by killing the invaders just like we always done so we are on the same page on Iraq.

Isis came too fast to quick to our Borders , Iran reacted and neutralized the threat and gained control over Iraq and syria thanks to G Solimani ,this was a massive geopolitic win for Iran , the same goes for ,Yemen . Mostly we are helping them because of where they are not who they are ,By helping the Houthis Iran is now have presence in the Red sea ,

thats takes us to Islamic Republic "Double standards" as you mentioned .
Iran is on the side of the right when its in Iran's Interest otherwise they should support muslims in CHINA /India and myanmar the same way they support Hamas and HEZb ,

but we both know that's not happening , clear hypocrisy and bias .

Your logic is very wrong. According to your logic, we should not have liberated the areas occupied by Iraq in the war, because the blood of all human beings is equally red and the war is a bad thing. Or we should not have helped Iraq against ISIS because the blood of all human beings is equally red. Well, I agree with you that the blood of every human being is precious.
But here are two things:
1- There are double standards here: because we do not help a Shiite country that defends itself and fights for its legal land, but we help Syria, Yemen, Palestine and Lebanon. We are even helping Qatar in the face of sanctions. We even help Venezuela.

2- We have always claimed and claim that we are on the side of the right and we have deafened the ears of the world with this slogan and we claim that we support the side of the right in every dispute. But here we are silent




About the Israelis:

Every occupied country will look for friends who can help them to be free. Iran left them alone so this gap was filled by Israel. (We got help from the United States and Israel and Gaddafi and North Korea in the war with Iraq).
On the other hand:
We have helped and are helping Iraq, not because their government is an ally of the United States or a puppet or obedient to the United States, but because of their nation.
We did not help Kurdistan because their government is an ally of the United States and listens to the United States, not because of their extensive ties with Israel.
We helped Lebanon, not because of their government
We helped the Palestinians, not because of their government
We helped Qatar in the face of sanctions and we are doing it
We also help Venezuela.
But we are silent on the issue of Azerbaijan and even worse, we help Armenia as much as we can.
This is unjustifiable.

Agreed on all above points ,
On Iranian media: Government clearly Support Azerbaijan just to keep the muslim world happy and covertly helping the Arminians ,I'm Hope they have good reason for this !

 

[Messerschmitt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1313747670658363393

 

[Shawnee]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1313747670658363393

Enforcing a buffer zone is getting more and more a requirement. We can not tolerate Syrian Nusra front on our border.

Also, Armenia cannot delay the NK issue anymore. The administration of NK should be transitioned to Iran/Russia until a peace agreement is achieved.

This should be done militarily, if needed.
...

 

[Mithridates]

This article mentions "demonstrations" in Iran. The pro-Azerbaijan demonstration. Those 20 or so punks that burned the Armenian flag in Tabriz ? They dispersed as soon as they were confronted by security forces. In my opinion, they should be identified and charged with HATE crimes...

so we should charge people who commit hate crimes??

 

[aryobarzan]

With the war between Azari and Arminia I thought of a look back in the mirror and see how the other war in syria looks like now. I called it the Syrian scoreboard (my views only).

5 external players had/have major roles in Syrian conflict..lets score them based on percentage of the goals they have achieved..

1-US/Israel: 20%...They planned the civil war for total conversion of Syria into a vassal state in their full control...what they ended up with is a Kurdish Proxy in north of syria only. Not a very good result for pros in the field of wars and regime change!.

2-Persian Gulf quasi states (Saudi, UAE, Qatar): -10% ..They bankrolled the play and brought in the players (savages)...what they wanted was to cut off syria's relationship with Iran . .They achieved non of their goals and what they ended up with is a syria even more bonded with Iran. they get negative score because the savages went out of their control and brought the sponsors reputation in to the mud !

3-Iran: 90%..The first country to come in for help..their goal was to keep syria intact and allied with Iran, they also wanted to be able to supply Hezbollah via land route and establish a beachhead directly over Israel for the first time. What they achieved at a heavy cost is impressive ..they do not get 100 percent because of Idlib situation.

4-Turkey: 30%..Turkey wanted an extra friendly Sunni government in Syria so that the kurds of Syria can never have a chance to connect to Turkish Kurds via a contiguous land mass. what they got is an angry Bashar Assad, lots of cheap stolen Syrian oil, lots of syrian refugees , a syrian proxy army at their disposal for sultan's use and messed up relationships with NATO. They are an accidental player but went deep into it as the war dragged on. Now they have to keep an army in Afrin and Idlib and take casualties everyday but they manged the goal of cutting off the kurds.

5-Russia: 90%..Russians were sleep on the wheel when all the hell was breaking loose in Syria..They woke up when late Gen Solaimani went to moscow and rolled open the map in front of Putin..what Russia wanted was to keep what they had and add to it (more bases) ..Keep Syrian government away from US and keep Syria's military supplied and trained by the Russians. What they achieved was all the above but they had to share the stuff with Iran. They also collected a lots of IOUs from Israel which Putin will cash eventually.
And what about Syria...they lost big but just like Iran after war with Iraq they will come back stronger and more confidant..If they take back Golan heights then you can say they will be a winner also but that is the future.

 

[SalarHaqq]

1- There are double standards here: because we do not help a Shiite country that defends itself and fights for its legal land,

But we are silent on the issue of Azerbaijan and even worse, we help Armenia as much as we can.
This is unjustifiable.

This is actually not true. The idea that Iran refused to assist Azarbaijan and instead chose to back Armenia is a misinformation spread by Iran's adversaries, but it was diffused so widely that many Iranians themselves aren't aware of the facts. Also, it would appear that Iranian authorities and media themselves have been relatively discrete about Iran's policy with regards to the issue (more than they have been about, say, Tehran's support for Bosnian Muslims during the same period).

In reality, Iran started out by fully backing the Republic of Azarbaijan against Armenia in the 1990's Karabakh war - with arms, advisers, military training, volunteers, and IRGC units fighting on Baku's behalf. Several Iranians were martyred there.

It is the regime in Baku, however, which betrayed Iran by:

1) Bending to US demands to stop receiving aid from Iran. And then, embracing the zionist regime.

2) Engaging in support for anti-Iranian, pan-Turkist separatism, and considering Iran their enemy. I was under the impression that this was much more pronounced under the Popular Front administration of ex-president Elchibey (1992-1993), but additional documents I got familiarized with are showing that Heydar Aliyev and now Elham Aliyev have been conducting a similarly treasonous policy (despite not being official members of pan-Turkist organizations).

3) Killing Iran-friendly personalities within the Azarbaijani armed forces, such as shahid Roshan Javadov.

And here's some evidence (Farsi version of the quotes in the Wikipedia link below):

In his memoirs, Hashemi Rafsanjani mentions some of Iran's aid to the Republic of Azerbaijan:

"I told the Foreign Minister by phone that [Mr. Velayati] could apply for the passage of Afghan fighters to Azerbaijan. The two sides demanded that they provide weapons and ammunition and take action to protect the site of the Khodaafarin Dam in Azerbaijan against the Armenians. "Mr. Forouzandeh [the Minister of Defense] announced that a $ 30 million arms and ammunition deal had been made with the Azeris. [7]"

...

"In the evening we talked on the phone with Mr. Heydar Aliyev, the acting President of Azerbaijan. He thanked us for our help and said that they have elections on October 2nd. [9]

A former high-ranking Iranian official was quoted by the Mashreq Defense and Security Group as saying: "The commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were sent to the Republic of Azerbaijan during the Karabakh war and trained its fighters and soldiers. "But when Heydar Aliyev, the former president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, saw that the IRGC commanders were praying and praying, he returned them from the Republic of Azerbaijan." [10]

Mansour Haghighatpour, one of the commanders of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, wrote in his official website about his introduction: The most defense and training cooperation will take place between Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan. "[11] + Video of military training of Azeri fighters by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [12]

In an interview with the Inter Press website of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Noureddine Khoja, one of the commanders of the Republic of Azerbaijan, said in response to a reporter's question whether any of his neighbors helped us: "We asked Iran for help in the Zangilan incidents; "If it were not for the Iranian artillery fire at that time, the people of Zangilan would have been killed." [13]

"Gholam Asgar Karimian," one of the commanders of the Revolutionary Guards, said in a press conference on the occasion of the 2nd of Ordibehesht (the anniversary of the founding of the Revolutionary Guards): "He called the Karabakh war one of the oppressions of Iran. "At the highest level, we helped the government of Azerbaijan, but some with special intentions tried not to express it." [14]

In March 2010, Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, told reporters in Tabriz that a large number of Iranians had been killed in support of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, and that Iran had provided military assistance and training to the Republic of Azerbaijan during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. "He has not hesitated."

Sardar Kabiri, Iran's military adviser during the Nagorno-Karabakh war, also said at the "Islam Topraqi" summit: "The Islamic Republic of Iran did not withhold logistical, support, educational and political assistance from the Muslim government and people of the Republic of Azerbaijan during the Karabakh war. One of the direct contributions to Azerbaijan is the sale of weapons worth $ 25 million in the same year; Also, according to the memorandum between the Iranian government and the government of Azerbaijan, 8,000 Azeri forces received military training under the supervision of Iranian trainers, and the late Heydar Aliyev attended the training maneuver of these forces several times.

The High Adviser to the Governor of East Azerbaijan, noting that unfortunately the Islamic Republic of Iran was later accused in the mass media of the Republic of Azerbaijan of supporting the Armenian forces in this moharebeh, said that the reason for this atmosphere was behind-the-scenes groups seeking to distance Iran from Azerbaijan and vice versa. . [15]

کمک‌های ایران به جمهوری آذربایجان - ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد


Also, please make sure to watch the following video, which includes quotations from the memoirs of IRGC officer sardar Nouri-Aghdam (himself an Azari Iranian), who was dispatched to help Azarbaijan in the 1990's war and who witnessed Aliyev's betrayal first hand :

The dagger held up by Nouri-Aghdam in this picture, was gifted to him by Azarbaijan Republic authorities in recognition of his engagement in the war:

These excerpts from sardar Nouri-Aghdam's memoirs actually deserve to be translated into English and posted in a separate thread in this forum, as they are immensely eye-opening. I shall take it upon myself to do so.

About the Israelis:

Every occupied country will look for friends who can help them to be free. Iran left them alone so this gap was filled by Israel. (We got help from the United States and Israel and Gaddafi and North Korea in the war with Iraq).

It is generally not a great idea to turn to the zionist regime for help. And it's not like Azarbaijan lacked other options after they rejected Iran, Turkey being an example.

But the regime in Tel Aviv is no ordinary one: this regime, in conjunction with the international zionist oligarchy underlying it, is pursuing an agenda of global hegemony and of long-term dismantling and dilution of nation-states, its so-called allies included. It does not conceive of its ties to others as regular types of relations between peers.

Iran's situation under the shah regime is emblematic in this regard: zionist networks (Zeytoun, SAVAK networks such as the Alikhani and Sabeti gangs), as well as other groups ideologically and institutionally linked to zionism, namely Scottish and French rite freemasonry as well as the Haifan Bahai organization, which the ousted monarchy chose to collaborate with, had achieved to subvert Iranian sovereignty.

 

[sha ah]

Are you kidding ? Most industrialized multi national countries charge people who commit hate crimes and imprison them, try to re-educate them. If Iran tolerates intercommunal violence it will disintegrate like Yugoslavia. We can't tolerate HATE geared towards any specific ethnic group.

so we should charge people who commit hate crimes??