SpankyMcFarland Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 5 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: Being Invaded and forced is hardly called adopting!!!!!!!! They became fairly keen on it afterwards and the subsequent Persian influence on the other two great Muslim empires in India and Anatolia was profound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 4 hours ago, kactus said: Paradoxically, the one thing the Iranian revolution achieved in 1978 was to turn 65% of the young and educated population born after the revolution against the religion forced on them! We have learned from history what happened religion dictated the lives of people during middle ages....That ended in separation of church from state. So why does it become now ambivalent or a strange notion when it concerns Iran!? Or is it just your own projection.... It's a particular problem in Iran. A great empire was overthrown by a relatively small force of foreigners who brought a new religion with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 25 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said: It's a particular problem in Iran. A great empire was overthrown by a relatively small force of foreigners who brought a new religion with them. Empires rise and fall. The British witnessed long time ago. Why would that be any different for Persian empire that long existed long before British? The small force of foreigners your are referring to managed to conquer parts of Europe, Africa and Asia and influenced many parts of Spain and Italy to date! Like Citizen already explained religion is not the problem. It is when it is enforced to dictate our way of living that becomes a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 22 minutes ago, kactus said: Empires rise and fall. The British witnessed long time ago. Why would that be any different for Persian empire that long existed long before British? The small force of foreigners your are referring to managed to conquer parts of Europe, Africa and Asia and influenced many parts of Spain and Italy to date! Like Citizen already explained religion is not the problem. It is when it is enforced to dictate our way of living that becomes a problem. The shock was far greater for an ancient series of empires that had existed in Iran for well over a thousand years. By comparison, the British Empire was a short-lived global phenomenon which had no deep historic connection to places like India and Africa before it ruled them. The situation with the Arab invasion of Iran would be more like Poland conquering Russia or Wales England. It was a tremendous shock to one of the most advanced nations in the world. There is an aspect here that the Moorish invasion of Spain is not at all similar to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said: It's a particular problem in Iran. A great empire was overthrown by a relatively small force of foreigners who brought a new religion with them. Not sure it was that small force. Arabian region then consisted of today's Saudi Arabia/Yemen plus Iraq plus Syria and Jordan. Though what was decisive was the violent force who were promised heaven if died in the battle with beautiful young angels waiting for them and if come alive then everything they capture including women all belong to them. It is hard to fight against people who wish and prefer to die than come alive out of battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: They became fairly keen on it afterwards and the subsequent Persian influence on the other two great Muslim empires in India and Anatolia was profound. That always surprised me as how come a nation which was invaded and forced a religion then retain that forced religion after independence (They kicked invading Arabs out about 100 years later). My guess is that 100 years of captivity brainwashed them completely. That said from what I see and hear the current regime managed very well to do what 1400 years passage of time failed to do. As kactus said the young generation which is two-third of population now (who will be the whole population in a decade or two) have come out of it now very fast and clear in just 40 years!!!. Edited March 14, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: Not sure it was that small force. Arabian region then consisted of today's Saudi Arabia/Yemen plus Iraq plus Syria and Jordan. Though what was decisive was the violent force who were promised heaven if died in the battle with beautiful young angels waiting for them and if come alive then everything they capture including women all belong to them. It is hard to fight against people who wish and prefer to die than come alive out of battle. The Sassanid and Byzantine Empires had just fought a devastating war and were in an unusually weak position when the Arabs attacked. Here is one example I'm picking randomly that illustrates the Iranian attitude. There are many more like it: https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said: The Sassanid and Byzantine Empires had just fought a devastating war and were in an unusually weak position when the Arabs attacked. Here is one example I'm picking randomly that illustrates the Iranian attitude. There are many more like it: https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html I don't know of any devastating war just before Arab invasion that Sassanid fought. Why you call it attitude? When there is a reason for a dislike or even hate then it is hardly called an attitude. For example hatred of Nazis in the west or Russia is hardly considered an attitude. Arabs invaded and destroyed Persian culture (based on good words, good thoughts and good deeds and respect for women) and its Empire 1400 years ago. It wasn't only one generation who suffered but hundreds of generations after. Then Iraqis invaded in 1980 and in 8 years of imposed war half a million Iranians died. And their country is under occupation again by those promoting Arab culture and again they are paying a heavy price for that for lack of freedom, democracy, equality, bad economy, inflation, unemployment, economic and social disparity........ and the list goes on. Edited March 14, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: The Sassanid and Byzantine Empires had just fought a devastating war and were in an unusually weak position when the Arabs attacked. Here is one example I'm picking randomly that illustrates the Iranian attitude. There are many more like it: https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html Apart from certain treaties signed for and a major war Battle of Chaldiran, where the Ottomans consolidated their control over Turkey both empires didn't have much animosity towards each other. Infact when Ottomans invaded Europe right to the borders of Hungary they knew they will not be attacked from the Persisns on Eastern border. With Arabs the animosity is deep rooted towards Persians and this is something that is often exploited by the West typically BBC and some US news outlets referring to "Persian Gulf" as "Arabian Gulf", instigating wars between Sunni and Shia sects and polarise the disputed three islands in the Persian Gulf between Iran and her arsb neighbours. You can see why the US policy today is backfiring when brown nosing the Saudi King (not just because of his attire or the sword he wears) but because of the insane money the americans are receiving from selling arms to these regimes enabling arms race with their fellow Shia Iran. This hatred and animosity is multi dimensional and one needs to take off the tinted spectacle when looking at this conflict to understand other factors that are contributing to this hatred.... Edited March 14, 2018 by kactus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 On 2018-03-14 at 2:56 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said: I don't know of any devastating war just before Arab invasion that Sassanid fought. Why you call it attitude? When there is a reason for a dislike or even hate then it is hardly called an attitude. For example hatred of Nazis in the west or Russia is hardly considered an attitude. Arabs invaded and destroyed Persian culture (based on good words, good thoughts and good deeds and respect for women) and its Empire 1400 years ago. It wasn't only one generation who suffered but hundreds of generations after. Then Iraqis invaded in 1980 and in 8 years of imposed war half a million Iranians died. And their country is under occupation again by those promoting Arab culture and again they are paying a heavy price for that for lack of freedom, democracy, equality, bad economy, inflation, unemployment, economic and social disparity........ and the list goes on. I don't care what it is called. The point is that Iranians have mixed feelings about Arabs and Arab culture. The fierce attachment of the government and many Iranians to Islam only serves to heighten this confusion. It shares some features with anti-Semitism among Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 On 2018-03-14 at 3:09 PM, kactus said: Apart from certain treaties signed for and a major war Battle of Chaldiran, where the Ottomans consolidated their control over Turkey both empires didn't have much animosity towards each other. Infact when Ottomans invaded Europe right to the borders of Hungary they knew they will not be attacked from the Persisns on Eastern border. With Arabs the animosity is deep rooted towards Persians and this is something that is often exploited by the West typically BBC and some US news outlets referring to "Persian Gulf" as "Arabian Gulf", instigating wars between Sunni and Shia sects and polarise the disputed three islands in the Persian Gulf between Iran and her arsb neighbours. You can see why the US policy today is backfiring when brown nosing the Saudi King (not just because of his attire or the sword he wears) but because of the insane money the americans are receiving from selling arms to these regimes enabling arms race with their fellow Shia Iran. This hatred and animosity is multi dimensional and one needs to take off the tinted spectacle when looking at this conflict to understand other factors that are contributing to this hatred.... Fortunately, I am not Greek so massive umbrage will not be taken over conflating Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 15, 2018 Report Share Posted March 15, 2018 On 3/13/2018 at 5:09 PM, GostHacked said: Yeah imagine that. Leaders meet with leaders. So you imagine that Stalin and Molotov 'met with' the Shah rather than invaded and put him on the throne? Okay.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 16, 2018 Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 59 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: So you imagine that Stalin and Molotov 'met with' the Shah rather than invaded and put him on the throne? Okay.... Really you need to educate yourself before making grossly false statements. It was a conference in Tehran attended by Stalin, Churchil and US President and the Shah was the host. The Shah had pictures with US president too as per my attachment in my earlier post in the same conference. Btw, the conference was held 2 years after invasion. They invaded because they needed Iran as a bridge to supply the allied Soviets in the war against Germany not to put anyone on the crown. In fact they overthrow his father Reza Shah the great from power by this stupid invasion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 16, 2018 Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 13 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: Really you need to educate yourself before making grossly false statements. It was a conference in Tehran attended by Stalin, Churchil and US President and the Shah was the host. The Shah had pictures with US president too as per my attachment in my earlier post in the same conference. Btw, the conference was held 2 years after invasion. They invaded because they needed Iran as a bridge to supply the allied Soviets in the war against Germany not to put anyone on the crown. In fact they overthrow his father Reza Shah the great from power by this stupid invasion. That's NOT why Iran was invaded in 1941. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2018 18 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: So you imagine that Stalin and Molotov 'met with' the Shah rather than invaded and put him on the throne? Okay.... Nope just showing 'good' leaders having photo's with 'bad' leaders. Which indicates your pic is kind of useless as evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 Iran’s foreign adventures are not all the same. In Syria, they provide ground troops for a dreadful but secular dictator who is quietly backed by most Christians there (and here, unfortunately), whereas in Bahrain, for example, they support a Shia majority labouring under a Sunni absolute monarchy. Bahrain gets very little mention in the US press. It’s an awkward example of where the Iranians are on the right side. They are also right to press for the civil rights of Shia Muslims in KSA. Obviously, it would be nice if they were as concerned about the welfare of their own ethnic and religious minorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 On 3/16/2018 at 10:58 AM, GostHacked said: Nope just showing 'good' leaders having photo's with 'bad' leaders. Which indicates your pic is kind of useless as evidence. Evidence of what? The USSR invading Iran? You're free to pretend it didn't happen like some of the other posters around here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said: Evidence of what? The USSR invading Iran? You're free to pretend it didn't happen like some of the other posters around here. Are you on drugs or forgotten your medication to make up stories like that. NO ONE said the Soviets did not invade Iran in 1941 (together with the British). We say that Stalin did not put Mahamad Reza Shah on the crown which was his at the first place. He was the crown prince when this illegal invasion occured. Edited March 20, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: Are you on drugs or forgotten your medication to make up stories like that. NO ONE said the Soviets did not invade Iran in 1941 (together with the British). We say that Stalin did not put Mahamad Reza Shah on the crown which was his at the first place. He was the crown prince when this illegal invasion occured. You're free to pretend Stalin didn't invade...kick daddy Shah off his throne and 'install' a much friendlier Shah Jr. It's all the rage to rewrite history...right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: You're free to pretend Stalin didn't invade...kick daddy Shah off his throne and 'install' a much friendlier Shah Jr. It's all the rage to rewrite history...right? You are back pedalling as usual doggie. You said here categorically that Stalin put Shah on the crown based on one photo you have spotted them together...Leave it doggie...Get back to porch! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: Iran’s foreign adventures are not all the same.... whereas in Bahrain, for example, they support a Shia majority labouring under a Sunni absolute monarchy. Bahrain gets very little mention in the US press. It’s an awkward example of where the Iranians are on the right side. They are also right to press for the civil rights of Shia Muslims in KSA. Obviously, it would be nice if they were as concerned about the welfare of their own ethnic and religious minorities. You do realise that Bahrain used to be part of Iran? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain–Iran_relations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 hour ago, kactus said: You are back pedalling as usual doggie. You said here categorically that Stalin put Shah on the crown based on one photo you have spotted them together...Leave it doggie...Get back to porch! You are also free to pretend that the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran did not occur. It's a trend around here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said: You are also free to pretend that the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran did not occur. It's a trend around here. And you are free to pretend that the US does not roll out the red carpet for the Saudis. You are also free to believe that most of the hijackers were from Iraq. Wait, I can hear McCain singing again.. how'd it go? "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." In Saudi Arabia, women ARE second class citizens. Our governments love some terrorists over others. No doubt. Now now, WAIT, before you say ' you are free to believe that women are equal in Iran', I would not say that. But because possibly, because of the failure of the US to facilitate democracy in Iran, that actually helped the extremist Islamic types to take over. Seemed to have worked in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya. Guess what has happened to Syria? Insanity is the definition of trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results. What's after Syria? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 40 minutes ago, GostHacked said: And you are free to pretend that the US does not roll out the red carpet for the Saudis. You are also free to believe that most of the hijackers were from Iraq. Wait, I can hear McCain singing again.. how'd it go? "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." In Saudi Arabia, women ARE second class citizens. Our governments love some terrorists over others. No doubt. Now now, WAIT, before you say ' you are free to believe that women are equal in Iran', I would not say that. But because possibly, because of the failure of the US to facilitate democracy in Iran, that actually helped the extremist Islamic types to take over. Seemed to have worked in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya. Guess what has happened to Syria? Insanity is the definition of trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results. What's after Syria? Non-sequitur. The topic is Iran. Specifically the rewriting of history where The Shah was "installed", as you so put it...not by Stalin...but rather by Kermit Roosevelt. You're free to support such a fairy tale if you so choose. I prefer to stick to history where WW2 happened... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kactus Posted March 21, 2018 Report Share Posted March 21, 2018 8 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: You are also free to pretend that the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran did not occur. It's a trend around here. Non-sequitur..... I do not think anyone disputes the the involvement of Anglo-Soviet invasion... It is rather your bizarre connecting the dots by linking Shah to Stalin that is questioned by Citizen and myself time and time again.... If anything, Shah was an ally of US and the West! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.