Armenian Knowledge Base  

Go Back   Armenian Knowledge Base > Thematic forums > History and Politics
Register

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10.05.2008, 17:26   #31
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

The Artsakh-Kosovo comparison

From the Bryce report of the atrocities of 1915 we read, “The reverse side of the picture is the uprooting of the nation from its native soil. The immigrant tribes from Central Asia did not make a permanent lodgment in the Armenian homelands. Some of them drifted back into Azerbaijan (the real H.) and the steppe country along the coast of the Caspian and the lower courses of the Aras (Araxes H.) and the Kur (the fake, still not called “Azerbaijan” as late as 1916. H.); others were carried on towards the north-west, along the ancient Royal Road, and imposed the Moslem faith and the Turkish language upon the population of Central Anatolia. The Armenian plateau, entrenched between Tigris, Euphrates and Aras, stood out like a rock, dividing these two Turkish eddies. Nevertheless, the perpetual shock of the Seljuk and the Mongol raids relaxed the hold of the Armenians on the plateau. The people of the land were decimated by these invasions, and when the invaders had passed on beyond or vanished away, the terrible gaps in the ranks of the sedentary population of Armenia proper were filled by nomadic Kurdish shepherds from the south-east, who drifted into Old Armenia from the mountain girdle of Iran, just as the Albanians drifted into the Kossovo Plain from their own less desirable highlands, after the population of Old Serbia had been similarly decimated by the constant passage of the Ottoman armies”.

Needles to say, this reminder of history shows that Artsakh, the eastern part of “the lower courses of the Aras and the Kur” was not the native land of the “immigrant tribes from Central Asia” nor Old Serbian Kosovo belonged to Albanians where they “drifted into …from their own less desirable highlands” nor Old Armenia with its present day derogatory appellation “Eastern Anatolia”, where the “nomadic Kurdish shepherds from the south-east …drifted into …[from] the mountain girdle of Iran” can legitimately be considered part of Kurdistan, a state that never existed throughout human history.

Yet the most flagrant double standards are at work as soon as some Armenian officials dare to bring up the desirability of applying the outcome of the Kosovo conflict according to western aspirations to Artsakh. The cold response that comes from imps like Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis is that “Karabakh is different”.

Although the comparison may not be favorable to Artsakh in case Kosovo independence is not recognized by all nations at least in the near future, let us see through only a handful of examples how much Artsakh Armenians deserve their self-determination more than the Kosovo Albanians.
  • I. While Armenians are indigenous to Artsakh from the dawn of history the Albanians only “drifted into” Kosovo a few centuries ago.

  • II. While Artsakh has never been a part of an independent fake “Azerbaijan”, this nonentity having been artificially counterfeited on Armenian territory in 1918 and having illegally snatched and held on to Artsakh and Nakhijevan from an internationally recognized Republic of Armenia through Turco-Bolshevik perfidy when these states were under Soviet occupation, Kosovo has been an integral part of Old Serbia.

  • III. While Armenians had to defend themselves against “Azeri” genocide and war with the help of Al-Qaeda, Chechen and Afghan terrorists, Ukrainian and other Slavonic mercenaries and Soviet Russian army, NATO aerial devastation of Christian Serbia with the help of Al Qaeda terrorists on the ground secured the victory for the Muslim Albanians and caused further decimation of Serbia.

  • IV. While Artsakh had an autonomous status within the USSR, however superficial, Kosovo never had any status of the sort, therefore it did not have recourse to legal processes that such a status would provide to secede from Serbia.

  • V. While in that light and according to international law it is Kosovo that must be regarded as a separatist province, this cannot be applied to Artsakh which was illegally colonized in 1921 by a mini Ottoman “empire” that at the demise of the USSR declared itself the successor of the “Azerbaijan” republic of 1918-1920, where neither Artsakh nor Nakhijevan were parts of. The legal cessation of Artsakh from the yoke of the occupier is a mere loss of one of mini Ottoman’s unlawfully annexed colonies.

  • VI. While using the legal processes provided by the USSR law, Artsakh declared the creation of NKR republic on September 2, 1991, when “Azeris” started shelling Stepanakert, and the Artsakh people decided the fate of their homeland through a referendum On December 10, 1991, with 99.89% voting for independence, no such referendum was held in Kosovo and the independence was declared unilaterally on February 17, 2008, with a host of powerful western states interested in decimation of Serbia to weaken Russian influence in the Balkans recognizing this illegal act immediately.

  • VII. While Armenians have protected their liberated homeland by themselves since 1994, international peacekeepers have ensured the safety of Kosovo Albanians.

  • VIII. Most importantly, while the reason for the Artsakh movement was the unbearable discrimination and persecution under oppressive “Azeri” yoke, the destruction, according to the Bernard Lewis plan, of Yugoslavia, the most liberal state in communist era which “threatened” to become a pro-Russian Germany in the middle of Europe and the weakening of Serbia were the principal motives of the Balkan wars.
Despite these blinding facts, the nauseating rejection of any consideration for the will of victorious Artsakh people from the western camp reeks of prejudice and exposes the emptiness of terms such as democracy, liberty and humanity. Truly, these are open to interpretation according to the whims of those who hold the reins of establishments pretending to work for peace, equality, justice and freedom and their trumpets known as “independent” mass media.
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:26   #32
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Israel boosting “Azeri” mythology

Abulfazl Elзibey: “Israel could help Azerbaijan in Karabakh problem by convincing the Americans to stop the Armenians”

Right from the downfall of the Soviet Union, Israel’s interest in the Turkic states of the former USSR, especially Azerbaijan, led to ever growing relations between the two in fields as diverse as economic, diplomatic, intelligence and military.

Of course, Caspian oil, especially its transport bypassing regional powers non-desirable to Israel, namely Iran and Russia was a major factor in the calculations but the traditional Judeo-Turkish friendship since the Ottoman days, the need to find allies in the hostile Islamic world and the similarity of the two states in a struggle for asserting their nationhood given their short history, also play essential roles in the rapprochement.

Right away it should be explained that exactly the same way the “Azeris” keep the balance not to annoy the bear in their courtship of the West unlike the head-on confrontation of the Georgians, Turkish conniving diplomacy regarding Israel has at the same time drawn criticism from the latter of the cautious engagement of “Azerbaijan” in its relations, the most obvious being the nonexistence of an “Azeri” embassy in Israel. Definitely, the friendship of the two is viewed with distrust and angers the Muslim states especially Saudi Arabia and Iran. In parentheses, let it be told once again that on one hand “Azerbaijan” plays the dirty religion card to revile Armenia in Islamic conferences, on the other hand establishes close relations with the states most deprecated by the Islamic world.

It seems the doubt expressed in the Stratfor article above to the profitability of the BTC pipeline dissipates and the motive for the initial hype created around Azerbaijan's oil reserves is justified when the Israel-“Azeri” alliance is considered in this context.

The online exposй “Israel and Azerbaijan's Furtive Embrace” by Ilya Bourtman appeared on Middle East Quarterly’s summer 2006 edition. All in all the article shows it’s about more than oil, revealing even more the reasons for sexing up the importance of the phony state and weaving fables around the infinitude of “Azeri” oil reserves to justify the construction of BTC. Bourtman surprisingly confesses that “Israel aimed to exploit the region's energy resources by lobbying for the development of gas and oil pipelines that would help its allies and circumvent its foes”. The chief reason for the bogus state’s courtship of Israel according to the author: “Desperate for outside assistance, Baku turned to Israel to provide leverage against a much stronger Iran and a militarily superior Armenia”.

Exaggerating for the nth time the weight of the Armenian lobby when its only power is the truth, Bourtman admits that Israel’s myth manufacturing machine which truly influences US policy always comes in handy for the coward, genocidal Turks: “Israel's foreign ministry vowed to lend its lobby's weight in Washington to improve Azeri-American relations, providing a counterweight to the influential Armenian lobby. According to Azerbaijan's first president, Abulfas Elзibey, “Israel could help Azerbaijan in [the] Karabakh problem by convincing the Americans to stop the Armenians.” …On several occasions, Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijan's president between 1993 and 2003, personally requested military assistance from Israeli prime ministers”.

A representative of a country whose creation is justified by its people’s suffering, Bourtman apparently does not experience pangs of conscience by Israel’s assistance to the killing machine of the pioneers of genocide, “Following its loss in Nagorno-Karabakh, Baku reached out to Israel for help in rebuilding its military. Israeli defense firms obliged, selling Azerbaijan advanced aviation, antitank, artillery, and anti-infantry weapon systems”. Nothing can stand in the way of love. There are rumors that “undisclosed Israeli weapons system was being sent to Turkey where it would be assembled and then delivered to Azerbaijan” according to the author.

Obviously, the bad news is the article keeps up and amplifies the “Azeri” disinformation about “20 percent of Azerbaijani territory …occupied by an Armenian army”, the fairy tale claiming an ancient “Azeri” nation cut in two when he asks the rhetorical question, “how can Azerbaijan be “the Azeri state” when close to 20 million Azeris¬ almost twice its population¬ live in neighboring Iran?” and the claptrap of the sort.

While 20 million is not so far from three times the population of fake “Azerbaijan” with all its non-Turkish minorities taken into account, considering the Turkish speaking Iranians subjects of a “state” that was only counterfeited less than a century ago when their own land south of the Araxes was called after Atrpat (Atropat) more than 2300 years ago is absurd. Let us be reminded once more that the real Azarbaijanis lost their original Pahlavi Persian language some five centuries ago as a result of Turkic domination in the region, but their affinity is to their homeland Iran and not to the fabricated nonentity of the tent-dwelling Tatars of yesterday turned “Azeri” around mid 20th century AD.

To the good news: the article gathers a considerable amount of information regarding the relations between Israel and Azerbaijan. The “two countries formally established relations in April 1992, one year after Azerbaijan declared its independence”. These manifested themselves in close cooperation with Israeli intelligence granting “Israeli officials a defensive platform in …a country 93 percent Muslim”, and in big business such as Israeli brands: Strauss ice cream, Maccabee beer, Motorola Israel mobile phones, etc., inundating the “Azeri” market, the Bezeq telephone company becoming the highest shareholder in “Azeri” telephone company since 1994, installing phones all over the country. In addition, “Israeli firms built and guard the fence around Baku's international airport, monitor and help protect Azerbaijan's energy infrastructure, and even provide security for Azerbaijan's president on his foreign visits …Israeli intelligence maintains listening posts along the Azerbaijani border with Iran …dozens of Israeli companies operate in Azerbaijan, especially within the energy sector …Indeed, Israeli-Azerbaijani trade now outweighs the trade relations Israel has developed with the countries of Central Asia by at least a factor of five”.

As far as oil and gas are concerned it is confirmed that the whole BTC affair could comfortably be called the Baku–Israel pipeline, bearing in mind the input of “major Israeli entrepreneurs such as Shoul Eisenberg” and Yossi Maimon, the latter being “instrumental in brokering gas pipeline deals throughout Central Asia, such as the March 1999 $2.5 billion pipeline deal from Turkmenistan to Turkey. He boasted to The Wall Street Journal in 2001 that “…Controlling the transport route is controlling the product.”[31] Israeli strategic thinkers expected that establishing friendly ties to Azerbaijan would not only provide energy security but also allow Jerusalem to influence pipeline routes, a benefit both to Israeli political clout and a factor to strengthen Israel's allies at the expense of its adversaries”.

The whole truth: “The ultimate route of the $3.2 billion (went higher in the end H.) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, for example, circumvents Iran and Russia (mainly Armenia since they can hardly hurt the two cited powers. H.) and ties secular, pro-western Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey (it’s that you say they are secular… H.) together in a way that enhances Israel's strategic interests, an aspect acknowledged by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in 1997[33] and recognized in Azerbaijan as well.[34] Rafael Abbasov, former director of economic and trade development at the Israeli embassy in Baku and now an economics officer at the Asian Development Bank in Azerbaijan, believes that …“In terms of oil, Israeli firms are a lot more involved than at first meets the eye …Often they register as U.S. or U.K. branches and thus enter the Azerbaijani energy market and participate in bidding for tender contracts.”[35]”

In spite of this rosy outlook Bourtman regrets that, “To date, Azerbaijan has not yet fulfilled its promise to open an embassy in Israel”. In politics at least it seems the Turks are even wilier than the masters of shrewdness. He whines, “After fifteen years of diplomatic relations, the two countries have not signed a single official treaty. As one senior Israeli diplomat laments, “There is no formalization of these relationships. Not even a cultural agreement, or tourism. Formal relations have not yet yielded one single agreement between the two states.”[39]”. Yet this section ends with the happy note: “Perhaps the only successful diplomatic initiatives have been in youth exchanges. …The Azerbaijan-Israel Youth Friendship Society works to promote youth relations through the teaching of each others' histories”. My, my I can’t help imagining the thick baloney made according to halal Islamic slaughter and kosher at the same time being fed the receptive Israeli youth about the millions of eons old ancient “Azerbaijan” empire.

Here it goes, a predator impersonating a lamb “Kanan Seyidov, the society's deputy chief of international relations, explained that the program works to explain “the real situation of Israeli people living under the everyday terror threat, and the impact of Armenian aggression (in form of civilized demonstrations replied by barbaric expression of Turkic customs in Sumgait in 1988. H.) and occupation on Azerbaijan (a counterfeit state that occupies 20% of historic Armenian territory H.).”[41]”.

A non-negligible part of the article also focuses on the Islamic terrorism which the author believes threatens both states, and the need to counter its infiltration in “Azerbaijan”. Given the fact that “Azerbaijan” used Al Qaeda, Afghan and Chechen terrorists against the Armenians as early as in 1992 and the US used them in the Balkans against Christian Serbia, the perpetuating of the already insipid story of “war on terror” to justify every misdeed by the West makes the examining of this section superfluous for our subject. Suffice mentioning this to be clear of quoting Bourtman out of context.

A whole section is devoted to the players of the Bogus Oil Adventures in “Azeriland” doing everything to outdo one another, what necessitated the promotion of Israel-“Azeri” cooperation. Between the lines Bourtman throws slime at the Armenians to undermine their victory. So, citing dubious sources in his introduction of the cast, Iran “has engaged in arms trafficking with Armenian separatists[43]”, or calling Turkish Daily News (Dec. 28, 1998) to the witness stand he “exposes” “Moscow's support for Armenian guerillas in Nagorno-Karabakh.[53]”. Further, “The Azerbaijan-Israel relationship has successfully shut out the influence of Persian Gulf states in the Caspian”. It seems these two are at war with half of the world yet Artsakh people do not have the right of self-determination in their tiny homeland, classic intolerance for the thorn in someone else's eye ignoring the log in their own rear.

Before we forget, there is still one “important” actor, “Among regional countries, Turkey has benefited most from the development of Azerbaijani-Israeli cooperation. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, Turkish officials began wooing Azerbaijani politicians ¬stressing their shared ethnicity, language, and Armenian experiences.[61]”

And what Armenian experiences does Bourtman vaguely allude to? That both manifestations of the same disaster have exterminated the Armenians, squashing them under their paws wherever their hoofs have trampled upon or the Turkish myth of Armenians having committed genocide against the Turks killing 2.5 to 3 million (and growing) from each variant when millions of armed to their teeth Armenian women, children and elderly, every caravan of several hundreds of them watched by only a handful of “gendarmes” recruited from thugs newly freed from prisons, walked like sheep to roast in the desert and could not even kill their “guides”? Considering the dubious source, the “Turk” posing as Swede Svante E. Cornell, educated at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, holder of an honorary doctoral degree from the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences it seems Bourtman has the second “theory” in mind.

To demonstrate the support of this triumvirate of evil for one another, recounting a certain “Caspian Sea incident” in July 2001 he boasts: “the Iranian warship Geophysics 3 threatened an Azerbaijani oil exploration ship in the Caspian Sea. As emotions and militaries flared, Turkey issued a statement promising to defend Azerbaijan.[65] It was clear that Israel would also take part. As an Israeli defense minister who was in Turkey shortly thereafter insisted, Israel would have joined the triumvirate against “Iranian aggression.”[66]”.

Last but not least, “The U.S. government also remains a player. Baku cooperated with Jerusalem in the hope of improving ties with Washington.[68] …In 1992, the United States Congress passed the Freedom Support Act promising economic and humanitarian aid to all the former Soviet republics except Azerbaijan. Muscled through by the Armenian lobby (there we go again! Ilya Bourtman, haven’t you heard of the Grads being fired daily on Stepanakert? H.), Section 907 of the act legislated that Washington would not give aid to Azerbaijan until the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.[69]”

Showing whose lobby is the strongest Bourtman pats himself on the back, “As Hassan Hassanov, Azerbaijan's foreign minister, stated in 1997, “We don't conceal that we rely on the Israeli lobby in the U.S.”[71] This paid dividends when, in 2002, President Bush waived Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.[72] In a rare and understated public admission, an official at the Azerbaijani embassy in Washington acknowledged that, “Jewish organizations made a certain contribution in the Section 907 waving process.”[73]”.

Ending his exposй in the same tone of dissatisfaction from the “Azeri” cold feet: “One Israeli diplomatic likened the relationship to that between “a virgin and a gentlemen caller she wants it but is afraid.”[85]”. Or the horrendously old and ugly prostitute I mention elsewhere who’s selling her decomposing self at an exorbitant price.

The shrewd Israeli statesmen are confused: “Israeli politicians, while always calling for closer cooperation with Azerbaijan, have become frustrated with Azerbaijan's cold feet. Some high-level Israeli diplomats privately wonder whether state interests or personal interests such as business contacts with senior Iranians are driving Azerbaijani officials away.[86] They wonder whether Arab refusal to support pro-Azerbaijani U.N. resolutions regarding issues such as the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute may erode Azerbaijani resolve.[87]”.

If not all of these relations could be seen as direct animosity towards Armenians, the falsehoods spread all over western media in paper, waveform or digital formats have taken a life of their own, given the weight of Israelis and other Jewish personalities involved in journalism, TV and radio.

Regrettably, fairytales such as “Northern Azerbaijan/Southern Azerbaijan”; the total baloney about a nation cut in two when never in human history the Iranian people of real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) have ever been called Tatars nor the roaming leftovers of Oghuz invasions promoted to Tatars in the beginning of the 19th century, or any group or tribe for that matter, were ever referred to as “Azeri” before the 1930s; the revoltingly distasteful Khojaly hoax, especially its shameless juxtaposition to the Armenian Genocide and the trivializing of it; the mathematically impossible, ridiculous claim of 20% “occupied” “Azeri” land without mentioning the liberation of the 9% supposed “Azeri” territories being the direct consequence of the “Azeri” aggression beside the fact that historically and legally it has been Armenian land; and last but not least, the fable of one million “Azeri” refugees aiming at future usurpation of Artsakh by suffocating the Armenians by their constructed majority, do have a negative effect and greatly advance the “Azeri” smear and hate campaign against Armenia where the losers were unable to achieve their genocidal aims through war and extermination. The beast of pray has been portrayed as the victim of the Armenian aggression and the entire Artsakh liberation movement has been reduced to an ancient territorial dispute.

These falsehoods are greatly advanced by history prostitutes such as the Israeli intelligence agent, the author of “Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity” Brenda Shaffer with Harvard qualifications, the author of garbage such as “Russia and a Divided Azerbaijan”, “Russian Azerbaijan, 1905 (! H.)-1920” Tadeusz Swietochowski with Monmouth University credentials and followers of the king of “Azeri” fiction fabrication Ziya Bunyatov.

Astonishingly, not a word about the plight of the Armenians under “Azeri” tyranny nor the consideration of their right for self-determination, nor a remark about the genocidal acts all over fake “Azerbaijan” and the resulting 400,000 plus Armenian real refugees whose houses were appropriated by the murderous “Azeri” thugs where they could have housed even one million refugees in case these existed, nor an acknowledgement of the fact that no retaliatory acts in the customary Turkish behavior occurred anywhere on Armenian soil, nor an utterance about the diabolical destruction of the ancient Jugha cemetery in broad daylight has dripped the parsimonious pens of these diffuser of disinformation. As an analogy, just imagine the torrents of “Nazi, Hitler, anti-Semite” condemnations for at least 48 hours on international mass media in case a swastika were to be sprayed on a contemporary Jewish tombstone anywhere on the planet.
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:27   #33
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

The future of Artsakh and Armenia

The fact of the whole pipeline and railway matter is that the Turks are doing everything to show to the world that they are important and indispensable, while through isolating Armenia they hope to realize their sick pan-Turkist delusion and force it to cede the liberated land to the sore loser and perpetrator of genocide and war, the nonentity that stole its name from the northwest Iranian region of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan). Right until now (early 2008), Armenia has not only managed to survive, but has a double digit, annual economic growth rate for several consecutive years.

Turks cannot tolerate the existence of an Armenia of any size and seeing that it is able to progress without the Turk is a nightmare to these murderous squatters. The future of Armenia is not only related to the future of Artsakh, it depends on it. The liberated territories have strengthened the Achilles’ heel of the republic, the narrowing southern part, the province of Siunik (Zangezur), which was held despite the Turkish machinations to sever it and annex it to fake “Azerbaijan” both in late 1920s and in the 1990s when they were cunningly putting forward the idea that they, the losers, would “exchange” the de facto independent Artsakh, by recognizing it, with Meghri, south of Siunik to eliminate the wedge between the Turkic tribes and finally materialize the goal of their age long delirium.

The great Armenian hero Garegin Njdeh (Nzhdeh) resisted the Turco-Bolshevik deceit in December 1920 and declared the independent republic of Lernahyastan (Mountainous Armenia), perhaps saving human civilization from utter Turkification. This might sound exaggerated but taking a look at history and the pan-Turkist aspirations one can appreciate the existence of this wedge that reins in the Turkish unfathomable craving for territory.

Territory, this is what it’s all about! It’s not oil, it’s not money… It was of no importance that they were killing the people most vital for their economy. According to the Bryce report, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16, “Our geographical survey has shown that talent and temperament had brought most of the industry, commerce, finance and skilled intellectual work of Turkey into the Armenians' hands. The Greeks may still have competed with them on the Жgean fringe, and the Sephardi Jews in the Balkans, but they [Armenians] had the whole interior of the Empire to themselves, with no competition to fear from the agricultural Turks or the pastoral Kurds …for they were the only native element capable of raising the Empire economically, intellectually and morally to a European standard, by which alone its existence could permanently be secured.”

An especially vital document that can be the last nail in the coffin of pan-Turkism is the treaty of Sиvres signed by 17 countries including the internationally recognized delegations of Armenia and the Ottomans, where the signatories agreed on awarding the arbitration of the delineation of the border between Turkey and Armenia to the US president Woodrow Wilson. According to international law, it is the duty of all the signing parties to force Turkey to demilitarize the legally ceded land, (the vilayets of Van, Karin (Erzerum), Baghesh (Bitlis) and Trebizond) and hand over its administration to the Republic of Armenia, the legal owner of those territories.

On 22 of November 1920 Woodrow Wilson signed the text of his decision and put the Great Seal of the United States on it, making it part of US law thus, a permanently valid and binding document. Therefore, in reality Turkey has been illegally occupying territory for almost 88 years (writing in 2008). The regrettable confusion, pessimism and disbelief of the majority of Armenians are due to the misunderstanding of this point. Most believe since Sиvres was not ratified as a result of Soviet occupation in December 1920 - soon after the signing by Wilson of the Arbitral Decision not leaving the sufficient time for its enforcing - therefore, it is not valid. Yet the ratification or not of the Sиvres treaty is not relevant to the Wilson arbitration which had been agreed on by the signatories, validating the decision upon its signing.

The Turkish disinformation has spread the lie that the treaty of Lausanne which was signed in 1923 renders the treaty of Sиvres void. This is absolutely not the case, since, according to international law only those states that signed a certain treaty have the power to annul it later. Only those and all of the 17 states plus the US that were involved with the treaty of Sиvres could do this whereas only 7 states were involved in the signing of Lausanne. Because Armenia had been forced into occupation by the still unrecognized Bolshevik bandits, they were not a part of the latter treaty where there is not a single mention of Armenia and Armenians.

Unlike what most Armenians believe, the Lausanne treaty does not occupy itself with the delineation of Turkish Armenian border, thus, it takes the Sиvres decision for granted. It is more about the other neighbors of Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria, and the subject of eastern Turkish border is not touched. Stronger still, it requires from Turkey to treat its minorities well and obliges it to restore and preserve the monuments of the peoples who live or used to live in Turkey, both points violently disregarded by the inventors of genocide ever since. There’s even the objection of the US who has hitherto refused to sign this treaty mainly because of Turkish occupation of Armenian territory. Ironically, Turkey’s second closest ally after Israel, the US, has not ever recognized Turkey.

Since for decades Armenia did not exist as an independent state, Armenians had to do all they could to get the Armenian Genocide recognized and did not have the legal power, i.e. an independent state, to enforce the Wilsonian Arbitration. However after the independence of the Republic of Armenia from the USSR yoke in 1991, things should have moved on. The Armenian government is bound to raise this issue as soon as possible demanding the redrawing of the Turkish-Armenian border according to the only legal treaty signed by the interested sides and a host of other powers, who have the duty to enforce the decisions of Wilson's arbitration, regardless of genocide recognition and what not. This is simply a legal matter and should not be viewed as compensation for all the murdered Armenians, their stolen livelihood and riches and all the destruction to their civilization and monuments. This phase should start after Turkey's recognition of the Armenian Genocide, whenever that may be.

The same way the leaders of Armenia must, no are condemned, to hold on to the liberated territories that serve as the guarantor for a secure and prosperous Armenia which will be the condition to allow the republic, in case a patriotic government comes to power, to raise the issue of the only valid treaty regarding the delineation of the border between Armenia and Turkey, the agreed arbitration of Woodrow Wilson, awarded to him by the treaty of Sиvres, signed on August 10, 1920, by 17 countries including the internationally recognized Armenian republic of the day and the Ottoman delegation.

That will be the day when pan-Turkism will be dead forever and the long chain of the calamities Armenians had to suffer at the paws of the intruding nomads from Turkistan will be broken for good.

Figure 24

Click on the map for a detailed version.

Wilsonian Armenia

Less than 40% of historic Armenian territories: the Armenian Republic of 1918-1920 plus the four provinces, albeit partly, ceded to Armenia by the Woodrow Wilson arbitration, will guarantee the death of pan-Turkism, access to sea and a safe future for the Armenian nation

From treaty of Sиvres regarding the Turkish Armenian border:

Article 89.
Turkey and Armenia, as well as the other High Contracting Parties agree to submit to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America the question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in the Vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, and to accept his decision thereupon, as well as any stipulations he may prescribe as to access for Armenia to the sea, and as to the demilitarization of any portion of Turkish territory adjacent to the said frontier.

ARTICLE 90.
In the event of the determination of the frontier under Article 89 involving the transfer of the whole or any part of the territory of the said Vilayets to Armenia, Turkey hereby renounces as from the date of such decision (my emphasis, this renders the ratification or not of the treaty irrelevant to the decision of Wilson’s arbitration. H.) all rights and title over the territory so transferred. The provisions of the present Treaty applicable to territory detached from Turkey shall thereupon become applicable to the said territory…

The signatories of the treaty who have the legal duty to force Turkey to cede the Armenian lands they illegally occupy:

The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, these Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied Powers;

Armenia, Belgium, Greece, the Hedjaz, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene state and Czecho-Slovakia, these Powers constituting, with the Principal Powers mentioned above, the Allied Powers, of the one part; and Turkey, of the other part.

A chaotically assembled failed state founded on two pillars of genocide and denial, with no cultural or scientific baggage, no contribution to human civilization other than death, destruction and genocide, no energy resources and an unaccomplished nation, Turkey does a brilliant job of appearing a modern, secular, democratic, tolerant, multicultural, European country in the eyes of a West too crippled in their arrogance to learn from history. The truth is that Turkey is the total opposite of all the above: it is a backward, deeply bigoted, fascist, intolerant, uncivilized, Ural-Altaic bandit empire where Christian priests are assassinated, Bible publishers are beheaded, minority citizens live in constant fear, even the tools of the Turk to exterminate the Armenians, the Kurds, that were especially migrated into Armenia for this very purpose are treated badly…

The brave Armenian editor working only towards peace and understanding between Turks and minorities living in Turkey, Hrant Dink was ruthlessly shot from behind in bright daylight in front of his workplace on 19th of January 2007. After a whole year the true perpetrators (the deep state, i.e. the Gray Wolf rulers of Turkey) have not been brought to justice and the “law” known as article 301 that sentences whoever dares talk about the Armenian Genocide to three years prison for having insulted Turkishness (talking about an unaccomplished nation…) has not moved a millimeter. This is the true ugly face of this genocidal fake state.

Turkey keeps the borders with Armenia closed which is an act of war, demands Armenia to forget about the Armenian Genocide and “return” its 2% of Turkish occupied territories liberated through sacrifice of the best of the nation to the coward “Azeri” losers. They destroy every Armenian monument in Turkish occupied Armenian lands to erase the evidence of their crimes. They change every Armenian place name and the names of flora and fauna with the terms armeniaca or armenicus in them. As soon as a mass grave from the victims of the Armenian Genocide is found they wipe it clean and present it as a Roman sarcophagus or something of the sort to the European scholars. Turkey spends millions of dollars lobbying in the West and seeks the help of Jewish organizations to force their deniers’ viewpoint about the Armenian Genocide and weaves fables about the “rich and powerful” Armenian lobby which in fact is neither and its sole strength is the truth.

Henry Morgenthau, the US Ambassador in the days of the Armenian Genocide, has correctly observed that Turks “were lacking in what we may call the fundamentals of a civilized community. They had no alphabet and no art of writing; no books, no poets, no art, and no architecture; they built no cities and they established no lasting state. They knew no law except the rule of might, and they had practically no agriculture and no industrial organization. They were simply wild and marauding horsemen, whose one conception of tribal success was to pounce upon people who were more civilized than themselves and plunder them. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries these tribes overran the cradles of modern civilization, which have given Europe its religion and, to a large extent, its civilization”.

Yet despite all these blatant shortcomings to put it mildly, the western lovers of Turkey are totally blind. I liken Turkey to an old and gruesomely hideous prostitute that has somehow stolen the cold heart of the West and manages to sell herself at an exaggerated high price.

To conclude, Turkey has nothing, Turkey is nothing. The moment the tap of hundreds of billions of dollars of “aid” that are shoved down the putrid throat of the Sick Man of Europe is turned off, they will start devouring donkeys, later when there’s no more of that they will munch on cats and dogs and still later when these too are scarce, the turkey will gobble down its own chicks… well, whelps.

*****
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:28   #34
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Stealing Iranian Dynasties

Safavids Are Kings of Persia not “Azerbaijan”

Figure 25


Shah Esmail killing Uzbek leader Mohammad Sheibani in a battle near Merv, 1510

Turkish “scholars” have transgressed all limits of decency and their slime of shamelessness flowing in every direction has encroached upon all aspects of historic, cultural, religious and national properties of every ancient and existing civilization known to man, desecrating and distorting them all. Not surprisingly, the Iranian dynasties have been appropriated to justify the illegitimate presence of the Turks in lands both inside Iran, those under Persian rule and beyond.

Whenever the need arises to find an excuse for their illegal usurpation of other peoples’ territory, Sumerians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Arameans, Manni, Mittani, Arrata, Urartu, Hurrians, Hittites, Elamite, Medians, Achaemenids, Parthians, Scythians, Aluanians, Egyptians, Etruscans, Lydians, Thracians, Phrygians, Greeks and what not become Turks as naturally as genetic “research” in Turkey and its phony extension “prove” beyond question that Kurds, Eskimos, Native Americans, Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, Martians, Saturnans, Jupiterians and heaven knows what, are all Turks.

Regarding Iran, apart from pre-Islamic Median, Achaemenid, Arsacid (Parthian) and Sassanid Iranian empires, they also claim those that were formed after the Turkic invasions from the 11th century onward. While the Seljuk, Mongol and Tatar devastators that came after the collapse of the caliphate, may be viewed as foreign rulers and occupiers, there’s no justification in usurping the Safavid, Afshar, Zand and Qajar kings and pretend they were Turkish, still more grotesquely the kings of “Azerbaijan”.

That the Safavids were shahs of Persia is indisputable and this fact has never given rise to the slightest atom of doubt in the minds of historians the world over. Yet the counterfeiters have gone to unknown realms of the irrational to weave the most illogical fables to somehow show that they were the emperors of a mighty “unified Azerbaijan” that existed long before the universe was created and stretched from one side of the Milky Way to the other end of a black hole zillions of light years away.

Iran in the time of Safavids was threatened by two ferocious Turkic dynasties: the Ottomans in the west and the Uzbek Sheibanis in the east. For almost three centuries of their reign the Safavids fought the Ottoman Tyranny and were even allies of Europe against the Turks. They firmly believed that they had the mission to restore the Persian Empire to its former glory, prior to Arab and Turkish invasions.

Shiism was introduced in Iran and forced on the people in the time of Shah Esmail for political purposes because of this animosity and the danger of both Sunni Turkic dynasties in the west and the east, mainly to prevent subversive Ottoman influence especially in already Turkish speaking Azarbaijan (the real).

Figure 26


Portrait of Shah Ismail (Reads: Ismael… Sophy… Rex... Per…)


Figure 27


Copper engraving by Dominicus Custos, from his Atrium heroicum Caesarum pub. 1600-1602

The inscriptions “Ismael… Sophy… Rex... Per…” on the Medieval European portrait of Shah Esmail and “Shach Abas Persarvm Rex (Sciac Appas Persiarvm Rex)” on the engraving done by Dominicus Custos do not leave a place for calling the Safavids kings of “Azerbaijan”. The text under the engraving praises Shah Abbas for his victories over the Ottomans and puts him in the hall of fame of great kings (Atrium of heroic Caesars) of history comparing Shah Abbas to Cyrus the Great of Persia.

In 1502, a very young Esmail defeated the Turkic Ak Koyunlu (white sheep) occupiers of Azarbaijan (the real), chose Tabriz as his capital and was declared King on 11 March 1502.

Shah Esmail (Ismail, Ismael), the founder of the dynasty was of Kurdish origin, practiced a Persian Sufi cult and believed he was a descendant of the kings of the Sassanid Empire (224-651 AD). He had to face Ottoman transgression at Chaldiran (1514) where the Turks occupied northwestern parts of Iran and the Caucasus until they were expelled by Shah Abbas the Great (1587-1629) in 1603.

Shah Abbas changed the capital of Iran from Tabriz to the more centrally situated Isfahan in 1598 and undertook unprecedented construction, turning Isfahan into one of the most magnificent cities in the east. Many of these architectural wonders have survived and are among the most popular tourist attractions in Iran.

The flourishing of Persia in the Safavid era is significant both in the context of rendering Turkish claims void, and from a historic perspective regarding the fervent promotion and advance of Persian culture, art, architecture, literature and music.

***

Here it should be mentioned that all the wars between the Ottomans and Safavids invariably took place on Armenian soil causing indescribable, endless suffering to Armenians who only happened to be under the rule of the two monarchies.

Ottoman historian Peзevi testifies “the army of the sultan set out to Erzerum and Kars via Dyarbekir in 1554. Upon arriving in Eastern Armenia, the conquering army razed all the prosperous villages to the ground. The frenzied victorious army annihilated cities and villages, houses and buildings to such degree that it horrified anybody who saw that. The Ottoman army enslaved young good looking boys, pretty girls and young women. There were no military tents without less than three of these boys and girls and the number of those tents where they took five or ten of them was countless”.

The pillages of the people whose land had become the battlefield of others went on the whole time. The kapikullari (Ottoman gendarmes = bandits) became the “rulers” of the land and mistreated the Armenians in every possible way they chose. Akdag, another Turkish historian writes, “According to the order issued by Yussuf Agha, his six Sipahi regiments had massacred the entire population of Ahiska around 1603”.

The forced deportation/immigration of Armenians in 1604 into Iran by Shah Abbas who, in order to cut the supplies, employed the policy of scorched lands in his war with the Ottomans, is yet another tragedy in the never ending chain of Armenian suffering.

However, unlike their genocidal subjugation under the Turks, the humane treatment of the Armenians in Iran and the fact they were allowed to build their own quarter near Isfahan that they called Nor Jugha (New Julfa) in memory of the original Jugha in Nakhijevan has healed the wounds and ever since their settlement, Armenians have become active participants in cultural, educational, industrial, political, economical, military, etc., matters, never sparing an effort in the advancement of their beloved Iran. In fact the migration of the Armenians served the double purpose of an impetus for the economic progress in the time of the Safavids: the entire import/export enterprise from Europe to India and China being entrusted to the industrious Armenian merchants.

Generally speaking, the Safavids and the successive dynasties were tolerant to friendly towards Armenians and not only those inside Iran. In eastern parts of Armenia that were under Iranian rule, they needed the Armenian sympathy for their empire, thus, for instance, according to the great Armenian historic novelist Raffi (1835-1888), Shah Abbass recognized the Armenian Meliks (Arabic for king(s)) of Karabakh (Artsakh), Nader Shah acknowledged the Melikdoms’ autonomy and Agha Mohammad Khan promised them greater authority.
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:28   #35
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Nader Shah Is the Savior and King of Persia not “Azerbaijan”

Figure 28


Nader Shah (1688-1747)

The Safavid Shah Sultan Hussein (1694-1722) plunged the country into chaos because of his incompetence. The people gave him the nickname of mullah because of his religious zeal. Shiite excesses were introduced and non-Muslims were persecuted. This weakened the mighty Safavid Empire to the extent that in 1719 Mahmood (Mahmoud, Mahmud) Afghan, the Safavid vassal of Afghanistan revolted and invaded Isfahan, killed Shah Sultan Hussein in 1722, pillaged and ransacked the land which also affected the Armenians of New Jugha.

Vulnerable, the country was attacked from all sides: the Ottomans invaded from the west, Russians from the north while central Iran was being plundered by the Afghans. In such desperate circumstances, a true savior emerged from the northwestern region of Iran. Nader khan of Turkmen (Turcoman) origin and son of a peasant came to the rescue of his homeland Iran and miraculously liberated the country, repelling the multiple enemies and forcing them out of Iran. It’s worth mentioning that the Armenian Meliks (kings) of Karabakh (Artsakh) helped Nader in ridding Iran of the Ottomans once and for all, for which service they received Nader’s praise who reaffirmed their autonomy and recognized their rule of Artsakh.

By 1735 the country was free of enemy occupation and Nader declared himself king in 1736. He started to expand his empire and invaded Kandahar, Kabul, the Mughal Empire of India and massacred a large number of people for which he is cursed to this day by Indians. Despite his despotic behavior, he was a religiously tolerant person and tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the Shiites and Sunnis. His actions caused his own generals to plot against him and they killed him in his sleep in 1747.

Nader Shah Afshar rescued his country from the verge of perishing and if it were not for him, Iran would not have existed today. Calling him king of “Azerbaijan” is totally nonsensical given the fact he fought the Ottomans vehemently and made maintaining the territorial integrity of Persia the work of his life.
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:31   #36
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Qajars Are Kings of Persia not “Azerbaijan”

Like in the case of the Safavids, and indeed when required in case of any ruling dynasty, Iranian or otherwise, the Qajar kings (1794–1925) are also hijacked as kings of “Azerbaijan”. The fact that the Qajars were a Turkmen tribe has given the impostors an adequate pretext to confuse the occasional non-Iranian individuals even more efficiently.

Agha Mohammad Khan, the founder of the dynasty and a ruthless man, set out with the same goal as Nader Shah, that is, to unify Iran and restore it to its glory after the chaotic period following the fall of the short lived Zand dynasty. He chose Tehran, then a mere village, as his capital, was crowned in 1796 and was murdered in 1797.

The Qajars are the least favored kings of Iran. The main reason, beside the abject condition of the country in the time of their rule or their concessions to foreigners, especially the British and the Russians, lies in Agha Mohammad Khan’s successor, his nephew Fathali Shah’s (1797–1834) defeat from the Russians and the humiliating treaties of Golestan (1813) and Turkmenchai (1828) which forced Iran to cede the lands to the north of the Arax (Araxes) River.

Nasseruddin Shah (1848-1896) is considered the smartest Qajar king in whose time western sciences and ideas were advanced in Iran. Especially his prime minister, Amir Kabir, is a bright star in Iranian history due to his reforms in all directions from boosting the economy to diminishing foreign influence, from promoting education to relieving the artificially ornate written language from its excesses which initiated the modern Persian prose. Rousing the jealousy of certain treacherous courtiers, he was rewarded for his services by the Shah by being murdered while bathing.

The Constitutional Revolution (1906-1911), a first in the so-called Middle-East, took place in the time of the Qajars. The Armenians played an important role with Yeprem Khan Davitian as the most successful military figure of the movement.

Whichever way one looks at it, the Qajars can in no way whatsoever be seen as kings of “Azerbaijan”. They are not the most favorite dynasty in the millennia-old Iranian history but they are unquestionably an integral part of it.

Here I would like to add that the Armenians had a difficult time under Muslim khans of the Caucasus, the vassals of the Persian kings who had the freedom to do as they pleased with the indigenous Christian population. For instance, Yerevan fortress, the most important and secure part of the city, housed the khan and his entourage. It was a city within Yerevan where the Armenians could have their businesses but had to leave before nightfall. In any case, the landlord of a city founded in 782 BC by the Armenian king Argishti I centuries before the rise of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great, was a second class citizen in their own home.

The persecutions of the Muslim khans rekindled the hope of liberation from their yoke in the minds of some, but not all, Armenians who fought in the Russian camp. Luigi Villari believes “…the very generals commanding the Russian invading armies were often Armenians, such as Lazareff and Loris Melikoff. It is indeed safe to say that but for the Armenians, Russia would never have conquered the Caucasus”. But the Iranian Armenian historic novelist Raffi remarks to his own regret that it was a decision which not only did not bring independence to Armenia, it caused the dissolution of the centuries old five Melikdoms of Artsakh (Moluk Khamsa of Karabakh) by the Russians who turned Armenia and Georgia into Russian provinces.

Unfortunately for the Armenians, many Iranians regret the loss of the so-called South Caucasus to this very day, a subject that comes up every time there is talk of relations with the Russians. It’s interesting that the loss of Afghanistan, an integral part of Iran until the 18th century AD, where ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural ties are much closer, which happened only a century prior to the Russian victory is not remembered and mourned at all! The inability of many Iranians to see that Armenia is an ancient nation with a unique culture is detrimental not only to the Armenians, but the Iranians themselves. As mentioned elsewhere, the Armenian minority in Iran has not spared any effort to bring its share to the progress of Iran, culturally, politically, economically, scientifically, technically, etc.

The Armenians do not have any territorial claims on Iran, the majority, no matter from where, have an affinity with Iran and always support it. The fact that the lands ceded to Russians are no longer part of Russia but exist as independent states, confirms their non-belonging to one or the other. If the 1,648,195 kmІ vast, oil and gas rich Iran lets the almost two hundred years old grievance with the Russians go, the more or less 40,000 kmІ Armenia (including Artsakh) can still be a more important guarantee to harness wolfish pan-Turkist appetites of the Turks for the real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan), the main reason for calling the tail of Turkey with the same name. This said, the relations between Iran and Armenia can be described as cordial at present (2007) and the “complaint” is aimed more at the mentality of the intellectual class of Iranians with the Golestan/Turkmenchai complex.
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:31   #37
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Stealing Iranian Cultural Icons

Any Iranian (or other) cultural, political, intellectual, scientific, etc. figure can be shamelessly turkified anytime the need arises. Recently (2007), at a commemoration ceremony for the great Iranian poet Molana Jalaleddin Molavi Balkhi known as Rumi in the West, the current Ottoman sultan Erdogan, howling the praise of someone whose ideas are incomprehensible for the Turk let alone his Persian verses, whimpered that Molavi was born in Afghanistan, a country that did not exist before the 18th century AD with current boundaries defined in the 19th century, and degraded him calling him a Turkish mystic. It goes without saying that the terms “Iran” or “Iranian” were not uttered by the liar.

Molavi was born in 1207 AD in Balkh (Bactria), a thriving city in the Iranian Khorasan province of the day, now near Mazar e Sharif in Afghanistan. Later he emigrated to Iconia (turkified into Konya), the Seljuk occupied Byzantium of the time, hence Rumi = of Rum (Rome).

Exploring Molavi’s world will take an entire lifetime, let us content ourselves with the knowledge that many references to Turks can be found throughout his poetry. Not a single case of praise or admiration! On the contrary, his Turks are either gullible boasters in stupid situations or downright condescended. The stories of his poems usually have a deeper, allegorical meaning which is out of the scope of our subject, yet the use of Turks as savages and idiots tells us about Molavi’s view of these arrogant pretenders who have shamelessly attributed him to their unworthy lot.

A short poem (Masnavi 2.93) called “The intention of the Oghuz to kill a man to scare another” tells the story of “those blood shedding Oghuz Turks” who attacked a village to plunder, found two rich men of the town, swiftly tied the arms of one of them to slaughter him. He asked them why and they told him they wanted to scare the other to show them the hiding place of their gold…

In another one (Masnavi 5.133), he tells the story of Satan presented as a Turk’s dog sitting at the door of the tent. The dog barks and attacks the strangers who pass by, like a lion, yet inside the kids pull his tail and humiliate it. In the poem the inability and clumsiness of the Turk to tame and silence his dog is shown in true satiric fashion.

One could imagine a bunch of suit and tie idlers sitting in a large hall whimpering about someone they haven’t the least comprehension, each appropriating him to their tribe or ethnicity, unable to read a single verse of Molavi, let alone understand it. It would be amusing to see the foolish look in their faces when this poem would be recited to them in their own language. I would love to see the stupor, then sudden stopping and falling of those rotating dervishes who have stolen Molana not knowing a damn thing about the guy.

The picture is the same for the “Azeri” sort. Here two important Persian personalities are presented as examples. Needless to say it is just a sample of the pile of rubbish Turkish “historians” put out continuously. If they can turkify Mesrop Mashtots, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, the treasure of a people Turks have furiously continued to destroy, doing the same thing to Iranian icons should cause them no pangs of conscience.

Before pulverizing “Azeri” delirium around Nezami, let us quote a couple of verses from another great Iranian poet, Khaghani (1121-1190, Xagani according to their transliteration) equally claimed by these Tatars as being an “Azeri” Turk 800 years before the concoction of fake “Azerbaijan”:

Do not become the bosom pal of a stranger
Do not eat or drink from aliens’ abode

Do not eat of Turk’s food and at the table
Eat politely and not in the Turkish mode
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:32   #38
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Nezami Is an Iranian Poet

Figure 29


Statue of Nezami in Tabriz, Iran
What can an artificially concocted “nation” do to legitimize its illegal presence in other people’s land? Relying on anachronistic, fallacious accounts of a nonexistent history, the “Azeris” are shamelessly attempting to fool the unsuspecting and the curious so that they form a false idea of a two sided feud between peoples of a region with equal rights and cultural background regarding certain disputed territories.

An unimaginably comical example is the posthumous - with almost nine hundred years of distance - appropriation of the great Iranian epic poet Jamaleddin Abu Mohammad Elias Nezami Ganjavi (c. 1141-1209, Nizami Gencevi according to Turkish transliteration). The poor guy would turn in his grave if he could hear that he metamorphosed into a fabricated ethnicity, about nine centuries after his own time. Nezami Ganjavi (of Ganja/Gandzak, in Armenia, formerly part of Persian Empire, under present day “Azeri” occupation), wrote his poems, how could it be otherwise, in Persian. He is regarded as one of major Iranian poets, along with the greatest Persian epic poet Ferdowsi.

None of the main subjects of Nezami’s stories deals with the Turks. His masterpiece is the collection of five epics, the Khamseh (Khamsa) of Nezami four of which have Iranian and Arabic fables as subject matter and the last one Eskandarnameh is about Alexander. Since the historic knowledge we have wasn’t available at Nezami’s time, it should be noted that his Alexander is the successor of the mythical Iranian kings of Kian.

Nezami has also written patriotic poems revealing his devotion of his worshipped Iran. His condescending remarks about the Turks clearly prove that in no possible way could he have anything to do with those primitive invaders who had ravaged his homeland in those days.

Praising his homeland Iran Nezami says:

The whole world is merely body and Iran its heart
He who’s saying this, is not abashed even in part

For Iran is the soul of the whole earth
And soul is higher than what body’s worth

In the introduction to Leili o Majnoon ordered to him by Akhtasan ibn Manoochehr shah of Shirvan, alluding to the injustice the Turkish sultan Mahmood did to Ferdowsi, the breach of his contract to pay him with gold coins, he writes from Shirvanshah’s viewpoint:

Turkishness is not the quality of our pledge
Turkish manner does not become our language

A propos, Mahmood Ghaznavi (Qaznavi) put an end to the Samanians, the first Iranian dynasty after Arab rule. Ferdowsi, destitute as a result of his dedication to writing the Shahnameh, had no recourse but to turn to Mahmood for support. At first he encouraged Ferdowsi having in mind stirring up the Iranian people against his rivals, the Turkish A’al Afrasiab family who were his allies against the Samanians. After a while Mahmood defeated his adversary and when Ferdowsi came to him, he disdainfully paid one dirham, instead of a gold coin, per verse for the 60,000 verse long Shahnameh, perhaps the greatest epic of all time. Disappointed, Ferdowsi spent Mahmood’s reward on going to a bath and a beer afterwards. To escape Mahmood’s anger he fled to Herat, later to Tabaristan and wrote a parody for Mahmood. Shahryar, the Iranian ruler of Tabaristan paid him 100,000 dirham to persuade him not to publish the parody.

Legend has it during a raid on India Mahmood remembered the great poet and regretted his mistreatment, sent 60,000 Dinars in gold with pomp at his door at the exact moment they were taking Ferdowsi’s body out… His daughter refused the gift and spent it on charity.

It did not end there. The reactionary mullah Sheikh Abulqassim Gorgani forbade him to be buried in a Muslim cemetery and refused to pray for his soul, because the master of epic had “wasted” his life on relating the deeds and lives of pre-Islamic legendary kings and heroes.

Back to Nezami, in Sharafnameh (a part of Eskandarnameh) describing a battle between Alexander and the Russians and his employing of the defeated Turks against the enemy, he praises the use of one enemy, i.e. the Turks to get rid of another; or in his words the Turkish “poison” to counter the Russian “poison”.

Proud of his Persian (Dari) poetry he boasts:

So much light I have brought in the eyes
That narrow eyes of the Turk have widened in size

Or still:

Since the fire of commending kindled in me
I have but spoken the jewel of Dari

In a poem from Sharafnameh, Nezami’s Alexander is ready to fight the Mongol Khaghan (Khan):

He opened his mouth and the Turks he cursed
For without sedition was never born a Turk

His patriotism and praise of ancient Iranian customs have directed criticism from his contemporaries who have questioned his Islamic faith.

A truly funny document, written in bad German is at my disposal. The unfortunate thing is it is available as a PDF file on the website of Potsdam University. To provide some refreshing moments I translate some passages:

By: “NOURIDA ATESHI”
Title: “Nizami Gencevi is our Spiritual-Moralistic Legitimation.” (Talking about illegitimacy; they damn well know it! H.)

“We have chosen Nizami Gencevi as the patron (namesake) of our cultural institute because he was one of the first realistic poets of the Middle Ages and Azerbaijan.” While it is absurd to call Nezami an “Azerbaijani” eight centuries before the region was fraudulently named “Azerbaijan”, the nonsensical justification of naming their sham institute, and the irrelevant deduction, “because he was one of the first realistic poets” is as surrealistic as it can get. Plus, the use of the term realistic to describe Nezami’s poetry reminds us of the superficial Soviet evaluation of cultural icons of all epochs and nations, where sticking awkward labels on anyone was obligatory to make them acceptable for their red tyranny.

After a poorly written brief presentation of Nezami, she goes on: “The great Azerbaijani poets and thinkers are mentioned in classical German literature; however, they have been placed in the wrong countries, also Nizami who spent his whole life in his birthplace Gence (Gandzak/Ganja H.). Despite this fact, he was immortalized in Goethe’s “West-Цstlicher Divan” as a Persian poet.” No comment!

“In a chapter of the book “Дlterer Perser”, the Azerbaijani religious philosopher Zarathustra also receives Persian nationality”. This silly remark breaks the record of the brazenness of Turkish history invention. Besides the fact that Zoroaster (Zarathustra) is considered an Iranian prophet, not a mere philosopher, even the real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) was not called as such in the times of Zoroaster which although not definitely known, predate the times of Alexander by centuries. Moreover, the birthplace of Zoroaster is disputed: some believe he was born in Media Minor (later Atrpatakan/real Azarbaijan) because of the presence of the important Azargoshnasp temple; others situate his origins in Khorasan, northeast of Iran. Even in India his followers are known as Parsi (= of Pars, Persia i.e. Persian) and not “Azeri”. Stealing the crown of inanity, this doesn’t even call for a treatment in a separate Zoroaster topic.

Of course, all this fictitious self-praise wouldn’t serve any purpose if it weren’t to smear one of the real ancient nations of the region on whose homeland they have faked their bogus “Azerbaijan”: the Armenians. She breaks more stinking winds: “In Georgia, a monument was desecrated by the Armenians – the monument of Nizami Gencevi. Why? Some Armenians apparently think that because they cannot have Gencevi, others mustn’t have him either”. The desecrators supreme, who have annihilated every surviving ancient Armenian monument in “Azeri” occupied Armenian territories, accuse the Armenians of the barbarities they are the masters of… With their rich millennia old civilization, the Armenians don’t need to steal other peoples’ poets, prophets, scientists, philosophers, heroes, royal dynasties, territory, history, place names, etc., to justify their existence, unlike the cattle-herder, tent-dwelling nomads of less than a century ago, the Tatars of the Caucasus turned “Azeri”.

The icing on the cake or more accurately the fly on the pile of Turk-dung put out by this illiterate scholar is yet to come: “many people want to adorn themselves with Gencevi. Also Kurds and especially Persians, because he wrote his writings in the Persian language. A glance into Gencevi’s time shows what was happening in the 12th century A.D. The concept “Azerbaijan” or “Azerbaijani poet” did not exist back then (my emphasis H.). There was only the idea of Xorasan (Khorasan, northeast region of Iran H.) Literature.” Either the “scholar” must have gone totally bonkers in her rage weaving cock-and-turk stories, that on one hand she admits: “The concept “Azerbaijan” …did not exist back then” or on the other hand she is completely unaware of the actual existence of the real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) where a dialect of Pahlavi Persian was spoken long before and several centuries after Turks set hoof west of the Caspian.

Further on she presents her “proofs” of Nezami’s Turkishness, an example of which will suffice: “Nizami always felt that he was a Turk.” How do you know? “…in one of his works …“Sultan Sencer (Senjer/Sanjar H.) and the Old Woman” an old woman complains about sultan Sencer’s tyrannical behavior. She tells him that the Turkish government has made progress and has enriched the world with justice and righteousness. If the sultan is so cruel and violent, then he couldn’t be a Turk. Could a Persian poet characterize the Turks in such a manner? Has a Persian spiritual ever written or spoken in such a positive fashion regarding the Turks?” doubts the Turkish literary expert, well aware of the savageries of her kind. “Never and no one!” adds the lying Turk.

Advocates of Turkey’s invasion of EU beware! If it took nine centuries and genocide to totally turkify Armenia and Asia Minor, given the false “multiethnic” policies in the West, the diminishing interest in traditional family structures, hence population decrease in ethnicities of European origin, high number of present day Turks and the possibility for the male to have up to four wives, in less than two centuries after this intrusion, Europe will be completely turkified. Nevertheless, they should keep in mind that in the surfacing of any utterance (true or fabricated) by Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Michelangelo or Shakespeare in the line of “Turks aren’t such a bad bunch after all” will be interpreted as irrefutable proof of their being Turkish the moment they set their paws in the EU.
A mishmash of “historical” accounts, literary movements of the time in Iran and other subjects no business of the Turks follows where the ignorant sage dares compare Ferdowsi (Firdovsi in her gibberish) to Nezami and conclude that the former was a bigoted Persian nationalist whereas the latter was a tolerant Turkish internationalist. Here again the Soviet symptoms remind us of their ugly presence. It’s interesting that whenever the occasion calls for it, Ferdowsi is plagiarized and portrayed as a Turk. Perhaps the greatest Iranian after the Arab invasion, who is responsible for reviving the Iranian identity and Persian language which was supplanted by Arabic in written language, is cunningly misrepresented by the imposter to further her sophistical argument of lo, behold: Tolerance!

The truth is, Nezami prided himself of being the follower of Ferdowsi, thus, such an ugly analogy cannot diminish the greatness of any of the two but magnifies the illiteracy of a representative of the most intolerant hordes of genocidal savages that have exterminated all the highly civilized Christian indigenous nations living in the lands occupied and devastated by her sort, that most probably cannot even read Nezami’s poetry, and she goes on with her desperate history falsification, accusing the Iranians, Russians, Armenians and Arabs of the same: “The falsified history will be rewritten anew (my emphasis H.) and will not let itself be taken from its firm ground in Azerbaijan”, confesses the forger and with this glorious delirium she ends her “essay”.
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:32   #39
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Babak Khorramdin Is an Iranian Hero

Babak Khorramdin has been presented in the “Islamic Historians” section under Massoudi; therefore, a short reminder must be adequate:

The Iranian hero, native of real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan), Babak Khorramdin started the Khorramdin movement in 820s AD, against the caliphate, who had taken over the rule of Persia after the Arab invasion which imposed the religion of Islam on Iranians. Babak’s aim was to restore the ancient Iranian religion and to free Iran from the Arab rule. This movement lasted almost two decades and dealt serious blows to the Arabs until Babak’s tragic mutilation.

The fact of Babak’s origins being from real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) has been twisted to suit “Azeri” historical contrivances to deceive both the real Azarbaijani Iranians and turn them against their people and the rest of the world to pretend that their counterfeit “nation” could also produce men of valor and integrity. Babak has been reconstructed as the greatest “Azeri” hero who fought the occupying Persians to liberate “Turkish” Azarbaijanis from the Iranian yoke two full centuries before the first Turkic invasions!

One must have a colorful imagination to believe that the Iranians in real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) or elsewhere in Iran had ever heard of the Turks in those days, but time and space are irrelevant to Turkish history forgers.

*****
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:33   #40
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Historians about Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) and Aluania

Greek and Roman Historians of Antiquity
Historic documents dealing with Aghvank (Aluania, Albania of the Caucasus) recorded by European historians from the first century BC to the third century AD, given Aghvank’s geographic situation, are obviously not the most exhausting of all. Nevertheless, since the mysterious peoples of the region have long disappeared from the world scene, these records are worthy of consideration.

Aristobolus, who participated in Alexander’s excursions, has recorded the existence of the Aghvans (Aluanians) in the 80s of the third century BC.

Although the peoples collectively called the Aghvans (Aluanians) appear in the fourth century BC in history, the earliest accounts of the tribes living in the region known as Aluania (Aghvank) come from the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Hecate (Hecataeus of Miletos) has noted the existence of a people called the Miks who lived near the Arax. Herodotus calls them Mycians and also mentions other ethnicities such as the Caspians and Utians. Strabo, who lived around 65-63 BC and 21-23 AD in Amasya in Asia Minor, speaks of 26 tribes who lived in Aghvank.

The authors of antiquity report that the state of Aghvank was founded in the first century BC.

Pompey’s invasion of the East brought the Romans to the shores of the Caspian and according to Strabo, Theophanes also went on the expedition. Later, in 34 AD, Marc Anthony reached Aghvank as well.

The historians of this era describe Aluania (Aghvank) a land limited to Armenia in the south (River Kur), Sarmatia in the north (Caucasus mountains), Iberia (Georgia, Olazanes River) in the northwest and the Caspian in the east; a land far smaller than the present day artificial state of counterfeit “Azerbaijan”, whose fabricated “history” cites half of the universe being inside the borders of “Albania”, to whose people and civilization the Tatars of the Caucasus turned “Azeri” have no relation or affinity whatsoever. As with the Islamic historians of a later epoch, the Greek and Roman authors consider the River Kur the border between Armenia and Aghvank.
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:33   #41
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Herodotus (Hρόδοτος c. 484-425 BC)

To prove their absurd claim that the present day Azarbaijan (the real) and “Azerbaijan” (the fake) were one country trillions of quadrillions of millions of eons ago, besides pretending to be the descendants of Aghvans (they prefer the term “Albanians”) who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Turks, the “Azeris” also claim that the Medes, a people of Iranian origin and unrelated to Aghvans, were also Turks and that the Persians who defeated them, in fact broke up their unity. That the Medes are Aryan (Iranian) is obvious from all the names pertaining to Median Iran as the name Atrpatakan itself. Let’s hear it from ancient historians.

Herodotus says: “The Medes had exactly the same equipment as the Persians; and indeed the dress common to both is not so much Persian as Median. They had for commander Tigranes, of the race of the Achaemenids. These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; but when Media, the Colchian, came to them from Athens, they changed their name. Such is the account which they themselves give.” (Translated by George Rawlinson) ●


Patrocles (3rd century BC)

Patrocles, an officer who around 283-282 BC was commissioned by Seleucus I (312-281 BC) and Antiochus I (281-261 BC) to undertake a reconnaissance expedition around the Caspian to realize the unfinished plans of Alexander, prepared an exhaustive report which is known to have been one of the most valuable sources about Aghvank (Aluania, Aran, Albania of the Caucasus). This work has not been recovered; however, quoting Eratosthenes, Strabo and Pliny have given accounts of Patrocles’ expedition and Strabo has used Patrocles’ report to inform about the Caspian Sea. It is believed that Patrocles knew about the Aghvans and the geographic situation of their land. ●


Eratosthenes (Eρατοσθένης 276-194 BC)

Strabo considers Eratosthenes and Theophanes more trustworthy and has discarded other authors such as Poseidonius. Strabo and Pliny have used Eratosthenes work in their accounts of the Caspian and the peoples living in the region. ●


Polibi (Πολύβιος Around 205 BC)

From the little that remains from Polibi’s Historiae, we learn about the Kadus (Talish) who lived around the western shores of the Caspian in the area between Aluania (Aghvank) and Aturpatekan (Azarbaijan the real) which confirms that the two were distinct since the earliest times Lesser Media had been called Atrpatakan. ●


Strabo (Στράβων 65/63 BC-23 AD)

Strabo has visited Armenia in the first century BC and has recorded his observations about the region including the Aghvank and the Aghvans. He has considered the work of Theophanes’ and third century BC authors such as Eratosthenes and Patrocles (who under Seleucus I and Antiochus I had organized expeditions around the Caspian), more trustworthy and has used them as reference.

In the eleventh chapter of his Geography, Strabo states: “Albania (Aghvank H.) is a land stretching from the south of the Caucasus Mountains to the River Kur and from the Caspian to the Olazanes River.” He also situates the “Atropatenean Media” to the south of Aghvank, thus confirming that the two were separate entities.

Describing the River Kur, he remarks: “The River Kur has its source in Armenia and flows into the plain between the Caucasus Mountains and joins the River Aragos (Aragvi) and other rivers that flow down these mountains and crosses Albania (Aghvank). This abundant river separates Albania (Aghvank) and Armenia… and pours into the Caspian.”

“The plains of Araxena and Sakasena that border Albania (Aghvank) through the River Kur, belong to Armenia… The River Kur is situated between Albania (Aghvank) and Armenia” Strabo confirms. ●


Pliny (23–79 AD)

Pliny has used Eratosthenes’ works for his accounts of the Caspian region and the lands surrounding it. In his Natural Geography, Pliny observes: “The Albanians (Aghvans H.) inhabited the vicinity of the River Kur and the Olazanes River (Alazan) separated them from the Iberians (Georgians H.)” He presents Kabalak (Կապաղակ) as the most important city of Aghvank. ●


Plutarch (Πλούταρχος Around 46-120 AD)

Plutarch’s Lives contains material dealing with Aghvank such as military aid to Tigran the Great of Armenia by Aghvan tribes. Describing Pompey’s invasion of Aghvank, their permission to allow the Romans to cross Aghvank and the subsequent, sudden Aghvan rebellion against the Romans, he mentions place names and as it appears from his writings, the rivers Arax and Kur did not meet and Arax flowed into the Caspian without mixing with River Kur. This confirms that Armenia’s easternmost border stretched to the Caspian.

Marc Anthony’s one hundred thousand strong army faced fierce resistance from Phraates (Farhad) IV, (c. 37-3 BC) in Atrpatakan and according to Plutarch after suffering heavy casualties (20,000 infantry and 40,000 cavalry) the Romans crossed the Arax River into Armenia.

This confirms that first: the Arax River was (and still is) the border between Atrpatakan (Azarbaijan the real) and Armenia and second: there was no “Azerbaijan” north of the Arax River and third: the two regions north and south of the Arax River were distinct, unrelated and never two parts of a single “Azerbaijan”. ●


Dionysus (2nd century AD)

The second century AD historian and geographer Dionysus has written about the Aghvans (Aluanians). He notes peoples from northwest to southeast of the Caspian Sea as follows: Saka (Scythians), Uns (according to some these were same as Huns others identify them with Udins), Caspians, Kadus (Talish), Aghvans (Aluanians), Mardes, Hirkanians, Tapirs but no races related to the Turks. ●


Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117 AD)

Tacitus has written about the Aghvans, the Parthians and invasions of nomadic tribes into Aghvank. He relates the Roman invasion into Armenia in 58 AD when they turned Artashat into rubble and reduced it to cinders. It’s interesting to note that the Mardes (one of several peoples of Aghvank) ambushed the Romans several times but were defeated by the Romans who used the help of the Iberians (Georgians). In 60 AD, the Armenian king Trdat I (Tiridates), tried with no success to attack the Romans from Atrpatakan, therefore he went to Rome for peace talks to avoid the dangers coming from the northern tribes in the Caucasus, who also threatened the Roman interests. ●


Ptolemy (Πτολεμαῖος c 83–161 AD)

In his description of Armenia, Ptolemy writes in his Geography: “The greater Armenia borders Colchida, Iberia (Georgia) and Albania (Aghvank) along the River Kur”. Elsewhere he adds: “Albania (Aghvank) shares its border in the south with Armenia and Iberia… The cities and villages of Albania (Aghvank) are situated between Iberia and a river that flows from the Caucasus Mountains and joins the River Kur. This river stretches all along Iberia and Albania (Aghvank) and separates them from Armenia”. ●


Arrian (c. 86/92-c. 175 AD)

In his work Anabasis Alexandri, Arrian describes the battle of Gaugamela in 330 BC, where Aluanian (Aghvan) soldiers participated among the army of Darius III. He also notes that in the multinational Achaemenid army that included the Medes, Bactrians, Parthians, Aluanians (Aghvans), etc., Athropat (Atrpat, Atropat) was the commander of the Medes where the Saka, Kadus and Aghvans were also fighting under his command. He mentions Aluania (Aghvank) and Media Atropatena (Atrpatakan) as separate entities. ●


Dio Cassius (Around 165-235 AD)

In his Roman History, among the events of the years 68 to 47 BC, Dio Cassius narrates Pompey’s invasion of Albania (Aghvank) in detail. He says: “He (Pompey) spent the winter in Anaitida by the River Kurna (Kur) and divided his army in three parts… He couldn’t get through the winter without trouble because Oroyz the king of Albania (Aghvank) who lived to the north of the River Kurna (Kur) fought with him.” He also reports the existence of an Anahid temple near the River Kur which shows that religious beliefs of Armenians were also present in the area. ●
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:34   #42
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Additional note:

In the Sassanid king Khossrow (Khosro, Khusrau) I Anushirvan’s time (531-579 AD) the Iranian Empire was divided into four administrative regions (koosts).

Figure 30


Kartir Inscription, Naqsh e Rajab, Iran

In his inscription, Kartir, the Zoroastrian high-priest living in the third century and contemporary of three Sassanid kings, speaks of the spreading of the Fire of Mughan (=magi of Zoroastrianism) and distinguishes interior lands of the Iranian empire from Aniran (lands outside Iran) where Aghvank also is a part of, confirming the fact that it was not a part of an imaginary “Azerbaijan”.

“…And I made prosperous many fires and magi in the empire of Iran. And I also, by command of the King of Kings, put in order those magi and fires which were for the territory outside Iran, wherever the horses and men of the King of Kings arrived -- the city of Antioch and the country of Syria (12) and what is beyond Syria, the city of Tarsus and the country of Cilicia and what is beyond Cilicia, the city of Caesarea and from the country of Cappadocia to Galatia, and the country of Armenia and Georgia, and Albania (Aghvank H.), and from Balaskan to the Alans' pass. And Shahpur, King of Kings, with his own horses and men visited with pillaging, firing, and havoc. (13) But I did not allow damage and pillaging, and whatsoever pillaging had been made by any person, those things I had taken away and returned to their own country.”
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:34   #43
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Islamic Historians

The histories of what’s come to be known as South Caucasus, Armenia and Iran have been closely interrelated since the earliest periods of recorded history. The Iranian Median Empire posed serious threats to the Armenian kingdom of Van. According to Movses Khorenatsi, the Armenian king Tigran Yervandian (Orontid, ruled around 560–535 BC) helped Cyrus II (the Great) in overthrowing the Median king Astyages (Ajdahak) and establishing the Achaemenids. Of course, later on Cyrus annexed Armenia to his empire. Darius the Great (522-486 BC) also attacked Armenia and as stated by his trilingual inscription in Baghastana (Bistoon, Behistun), near Kermanshah, where he calls Armenia: Armina in Old Persian, Harmina in Elamite and Urashtu (Urartu) in Akkadian, he admits he had to fight five times to suppress the rebellious Armenians to subjugate them.

Figure 31


Darius’ inscription Baghastana (Bistoon, Behistun)

The history of Armenia remained related to Iran after the Arab invasion as well. The Arab conquest which also included both countries meant that the Islamic historians couldn’t overlook the events in Armenia. A considerable number of these are Iranian in origin but since for the first couple of centuries of the Islamic era, Arabic was imposed as the written language in the already Islamized Iran, the Iranian scientists, philosophers, travelers, geographers, historians, etc., have written in Arabic.

Aghvank and Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) have always been referred to as separate entities by all Islamic historians. It’s true that at times, they have been put under the same administrative region but even then they were still considered two different lands. The same thing has also happened to Armenia, where sometimes a part of it has come under the administration of Aghvank and vice versa.

In any case, the interesting thing about the accounts of the Islamic historians is that almost all of them consider Aghvank (Aran or Ar Ran in Arabic) a part of Armenia, a point that they report as a most normal and ordinary truth, regardless whether, for instance, Artsakh was put under the administration of Aghvank or otherwise.

This is not good for the “Azeris” who claim to be the descendants of the Aghvans (among all other nations of the region and beyond), who they always refer to with the fallacious terms “Albanians” for the people and “Albania” for their country, the mistaken transliterations of some European historians. “Azeri” distorians who deny the existence of Armenia simply project their deficiencies on Armenians because examining every surviving historical document one will be wasting their time looking for a single mention of “Azeri” as a nation or “Azerbaijan” in the Caucasus whereas all historians who have written about the region, have reported extensively concerning Armenia and Armenians.
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:34   #44
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Baladhuri (?-c. 892 AD)
بلاذري
Full: Ahmad ibn Yahya Baladhuri
احمدبن يحيي بلاذري
Work: Futuh al Buldan (Conquests of Lands)
فتوح البلدان

The Iranian historian Baladhuri (died 279 Hijri) considers Aran (Aghvank) part of Armenia. He clarifies the fact of a considerable Armenian presence in Aran (Aghvank) as follows: “An inhabitant of Bardha (Partaw, Պարտաւ), Muhammad ibn Ismail and others, Abu Bara Anbassat ibn Bahr Armani also Muhammad ibn Bashar Qali from their notables and Barmak ibn Abdullah Dabili (of Dvin) and Muhammad ibn Mkhis Khlati and a number of others recounted about persons knowledgeable in affaires of the Armenians and I relate their words in a correct manner, matching them against one another and completing them. It’s been known that Shmshat and Qaliqla (Cilicia) and Arjis (Arjesh, Արճեշ) and Bajonis are parts of fourth Armenia and the Khora of Bosforjan (Vaspurakan) and Dabil (Dvin) and Seraj and Baghrevand (Bagrevand) is called third Armenia and Jorzan (Georgia) second Armenia and Sisjan (Sisakan) and Aran (Aghvank) and Tiflis (Tbilisi) are first Armenia… Jorzan and Aran fell under the Khazars and the rest came under Roman occupation.”

That Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) and Aghvank were two completely separate entities throughout history is also reflected in the religious developments in both regions. Baladhuri tells us that the people of Azarbaijan (the real) were already Muslims short after the Arab invasions: “When Ali ibn abu Taleb became caliph, he appointed Saad ibn Saria Khazaii later Ash’ath ibn Qeis as rulers of Azarbaijan (the real H.) …When Ash’ath arrived in Azarbaijan (the real H.), he saw that most of the people had converted to Islam and read the Qur’an” while it is known that the acceptance of Islam did not go so smoothly in Aghvank. The Aghvans assimilated mainly with Armenians in the following centuries.

When in December 2005 the genocidal “Azeris” were barbarically destroying the centuries old stone-crosses of the ancient Jugha cemetery in Nakhijevan, in response to the pleadings of the head of the Armenian church Garegin II to stop the savagery, the religious leader of fake “Azerbaijan” Allahshokur Pashazadeh shamelessly retorted: “do not worry, these are the monuments of our Albanian (Aghvan H.) “ancestors”.” That Nakhijevan could never have been a part of faraway Aghvank is obvious however, it is noteworthy to quote a part of Baladhuri’s narration of the first Arab incursion into Aghvank: “the invaders reached Aran (Aghvank H.) from the south and crossing through Nakhijevan”. ●


Dinwari (Dinawari) (828-894 AD)
دينوري
Full: Abu Hanifa Ahmad ibn Dawood Dinwari
ابو جنيفه احمدبن داود دينوري
Work: Akhbar ut Tawal
اخبار الطوال

The renowned third century Hijri Iranian historian, scientist and literary figure, author of at least twenty one works in different fields, Dinwari (died around 281 Hijri) has also recorded information about geographic features of Armenia, Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) and Aghvank through his account of Babak Khorramdin’s history. Aghvank is considered part of Armenia according to this historical narration.

He relates the administrative changes of the Iranian Sassanid Empire in the time of Anushirvan (Khosro, Khusrau I) as follows: “Anushirvan divided the Iranian kingdom into four major iqlims (realms, koosts) and appointed a trustee as the ruler for each. One of these iqlims was consisted of Khorasan, Sistan and Kerman; the other Isfahan, Ghom (Qom), the lands of Jebal (Medes), Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) and Armenia; the third Fars, Ahvaz and until Bahrain and the fourth iqlim included Iraq until the borders with the Romans.”

Dinwari confirms that the River Kur is the southernmost part of Aghvank and the Arax River separates Armenia from Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan). ●


Ya’qubi (?-897 AD)
يعقوبي
Full: Ibn Wadih Ahmad ibn abu Ya’qub Ishaq ibn Jafar Isfahani
ابن واضح احمدبن ابي يعقوب اسحاق بن جغفر اصفهاني
Works: Tarikh Ya’qubi (Ya’qubi History), Al Buldan (Countries)
تاريخ يعقوبي

Ibn Wadih Ahmad ibn abu Ya’qub Ishaq ibn Jafar Isfahani (died 284 Hijri) is a well known Islamic historian and geographer. He was a descendant of Wadih, the Abbasid caliph Mansour’s appointed governor of Armenia and Azarbaijan (the real). Ya’qubi lived in Armenia for some years and served some of its governors.

In his Tarikh (History), Ya’qubi considers Aran (Aghvank) a province in Armenia and says it was known as the third Armenia that was conquered by the Iranian king Ghobad (Sassanid king Kavad, Kaveh). He writes: “The third part (Armenia) includes Bardha (Partaw) a city in the province of Aran (Aghvank), Beylakan (Pytakaran) and Bab ul Abwab (Darband, Chor)”

In his geographic work Al Buldan (Countries) he names places and cities in three parts of Armenia, first: Dabil (Dvin), Qaliqla (Cilicia), Khlat, Shimshad, Savad; second: Bardha (Partaw, Պարտաւ), Beylakan (Pytakaran, Փայտակարան), Qabalah (Kabalak, Կապաղակ), Darband; third: Khazran (Jorzan, Georgia), Tiflis (Tbilisi), etc. As cities of Azarbaijan he cites: Ardebil, Varthan, Shiz, Marand, Tabriz, Mianeh, Urmia, Khoy, Salmas, etc.

In Al Buldan, Ya’qubi calls the language of the people of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) Pahlavi Azari and considers the people of that region of Iranian origin.

It’s noteworthy to mention the events of 238 Hijri (852 AD) in his History where the Turkish Buqa khan was sent by Al-Mutawakkil (847-861) to suppress the uprising of Armenians: “Buqa killed many Armenians and their leaders (why am I not surprised? H.)”, eventually Buqa was defeated by the rebels and the caliph appointed Muhammad ibn Khalid ibn Yazid ibn Mazid Sheibani as the ruler of Armenia. The rebels ended the uprising and Muhammad pardoned them. ●


Ibn Khordadbeh (c. 820-912/913 AD)
ابن خردادبه
Full: Abulqassem Ubeidullah ibn Abdullah ibn Khordadbeh
ابوالقاسم عبيدالله بن عبدالله بن خردادبه
Work: Al Masalek wal Mamalek (Roads and Countries)
المسالك و الممالك

Ibn Khordadbeh (died 300 Hijri) was the director of communication and information of western parts of Iran in the time of the Abbasid caliph Al Wathiq (842-847 AD). He is the author of a geographic work about the roads and countries. The roads of Armenia, Georgia, Aghvank up to areas around the Caspian are described in his work.

He says Armenia consists of four parts. He considers Aran (Aghvank) part of first Armenia (Armenia Maior). He writes: “The First Armenia includes Sisjan (Sisakan, Սիսական) and Aran (Aghvank) and Tiflis (Tbilisi) and Bardha (Partaw, Պարտաւ) and Beylakan (Pytakaran, Փայտակարան) and Qabalah (Kabalak, Կապաղակ) and Shirvan.

Ibn Khordadbeh gives separate accounts of cities in Azarbayegan (Azarbaijan, Atrpatakan) and Aran. He places cities and villages in Azarbaijan to the South of the Arax, north of Zanjan and Hamadan and describes Aran and Georgia with cities Tiflis (Tbilisi), Bardhae (Partaw), Beylakan (Pytakaran), Qabalah (Kabalak), Shirvan, etc. and mentions that they were conquered by Iranian king Anushirvan from Khazar rule.

Confirming yet again that a “great Azerbaijan” two sides of the Arax River is nothing but fairytale and a 20th century historic falsification, he lists the rulers of lands within Iran and outside its boundaries who obeyed the central Iranian government keeping some kind of independence: Great Kushan shah, Great Armanestan shah (Armenia), Borjan shah (Georgian), Gilan shah… Aturpatekan shah (Azarbaijan the real), Kerman shah, Alan shah (Alans = Ossetians), Turan shah… Kashmiran shah, Reyhan shah (in India), Aran shah (Aghvank), Shirvan shah, etc., etc., etc. ●
Reply With Quote
Old 10.05.2008, 17:35   #45
Школьник
 
Hellektor's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05 2008
Location: Iran
Posts: 177
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Default

Tabari (838-923 AD)
طبري
Full: Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Yazid ibn Khaled Amoli Tabari
ابوجعفر محمدبن جريربن يزيدبن خالد آملي طبري
Work: Tarikh
تاريخ

Perhaps the greatest Islamic historian of all times, the author of the monumental multi-volume work “History”, admired as the sage of his era by his successors, the Iranian historian Tabari (native of Tabaristan, present day Mazandaran) was born in 224 Hijri and died in 310, according to Ibn Nadim, author of al Fihrist (the List).

Many of sources cited by Tabari have not survived, which renders Tabari’s work even more important. His work which gives the accounts of events until 302 Hijri has been completed by Arib ibn Sa’ad Qurtubi which includes those until 320.

Regarding the Caucasus in times of Arab conquests and caliphate in the first couple of Hijri centuries, his Tarikh ar Resal wal Moluk (تاريخ الرسل و الملوک) is a trustworthy document. Most of the people whose tales are related by Tabari were present in the wars in the time of Arab invasions in the Caucasus.

Tabari’s report of the second caliph Omar’s order to Armenians and peoples living in “Armenia and Abwab” (Aghvank which was part of Armenia), where he gives them assurance that their lives will be spared if they obey him and his appointed ruler, concludes: “…in case of war, they have to participate… Whoever accepts to obey will pay the jizyah (tribute tax H.) except for those who join the army… whoever is not needed to participate can stay and pay the jizyah like the people of Azarbaijan (the real H.)” This shows that first, even Christians were allowed to join the military and be exempted from paying heavy taxes second, the people of the real Azarbaijan had already converted to Islam, obeyed Omar and were paying their taxes in the early years of Arab conquest whereas the people of Armenia and Aghvank had remained Christian. This also proves that Aghvank and Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) were two distinct regions and religiously unrelated.

Recounting the events of 145 Hijri, Tabari also reports the Khazar invasion into Armenia from Bab ul Abwab (Darband, Chor) and their occupation of lands north of the River Kur. This clearly shows that there was no doubt in Tabari’s mind that Aghvank was a part of Armenia. The Khazars repeated the intrusion two years later, pillaged Aghvank and returned to their land with booty and prisoners.

Again in 183 Hijri, using the pretext of his daughter’s death on the way to Aghvank to marry Fadhl ibn Yahya ibn Khalid Barmaki, the caliph appointed ruler of Armenia, Azarbaijan (the real) and Jebal (land of Medes = western part of Iran), the Khazar khan once again attacked Armenia from Darband and killed the Muslims and Dhimmis and took a hundred thousand slaves. “Such mayhem was never heard of before in Islamic era” Tabari confesses.

Tabari gives accounts of Yussof ibn abis Saj’s wars with Smbat Bagratuni from 295 Hijri (908 AD) and Saj’s appointment by al Muqtadir as the representative of the caliph in Armenia and Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan). ●


Ibn Faqih (late 9th-early 10th centuries AD)
ابن فقيه
Full: Abu Abdullah Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Faqih Hamadani
ابي عبدالله احمد بن محمد بن اسحاق ابن فقيه همداني
Work: Mokhtasar al Buldan (Concise Book of Lands)
مختصر البلدان

Ibn Faqih wrote his geographic work in about 290 Hijri. According to Ibn Faqih, Armenia consisted of four parts what he calls first, second, third and fourth Armenia. Aran (Aghvank) and Sisjan (Sisakan) were a part of first Armenia (Medz Hyke, Armenia Maior). It should be noted that in another part of his work he places them in fourth Armenia. He names several cities in Aghvank among others: Bardhae (Partaw, Պարտաւ), Beylakan (Pytakaran, Փայտակարան), Qabalah (Kabalak, Կապաղակ), Shirvan, Shabran, Sheki (Shakeh, Շաքէ), Shamkhor, Bilasjan.

According to Ibn Faqih, the region north of the Arax and south of the Kur is part of Armenia and the Arax is the border between Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) and Armenia. Regarding Neshwi (Nakhijevan), Ibn Faqih places it in the third Armenia.

Concerning the origin of the name of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan), Ibn Faqih says: “Azarbaijan is (related to) Azarbad ibn Iran… or Azarbad ibn Biurasp.” ●


Massoudi (c. 896-956 AD)
مسعودي
Full: Abul Hassan Ali ibn Hussein Massoudi
ابوالحسن علي بن حسين مسعودي
Work: Muruj udh Dhahb wa Ma’aden ul Jowhar (The Meadows of Gold and the Mines of Gems), At Tanbih wal Ashraf, etc.
مروج الذهب و معادن الجوهر, التنبيه و الاشراف

The great Islamic scientist and historian native of Maghreb, Massoudi, died 344 Hijri according to ibn Nadim, is the author of many works some of which historical and geographical. He traveled far and wide and recorded his observations and research in those lands. The two works cited above are considered an encyclopedia in the domain of historical geography. Massoudi’s work has an eminent place among Islamic works related to the Caucasus. “I spent quite some time in Armenia, Azarbaijan (the real H.), Aran (Aghvank) and Beylakan (Pytakaran H.)”, Massoudi explains. According to him “the realm of the Persians included the entire Medes and Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) until the vicinity of Armenia, Aran and Beylakan…” which confirms that Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) and Aghvank were different entities.

Massoudi considers the dialects of Pahlavi, Dari and Azari from the same origin, their vocabularies one and the same and calls all of them languages of the Farsi group. He is among the Islamic historians who have used the term Azari to describe the Persian dialect of the people of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan).

A noteworthy event also related by Massoudi is the uprising of Babak Khorramdin (from 820s AD) against the caliphate, to restore the ancient Iranian religion and to free Iran from the Arab rule. I mention this because not having any historical background the “Azeri” fakers have stolen every Iranian hero, poet, scientist, ruling dynasty, etc. along with the name of their counterfeit “state”, to fabricate their jumbled “history”. Twisting history beyond recognition, they regard Babak Khorramdin, native of the real Azarbaijan, as “their” greatest hero who fought to liberate “Turkish” Azarbaijanis from Iranian rule (!) whereas it’s hardly conceivable Babak knew any Turks in his lifetime let alone having been a Turk two full centuries before the Oghuz (Seljuk) invasions.

Another instance of anti-Armenian hate mongering by “Azeris” is their blaming the Armenians for Babak’s painful death, whose limbs were cut off by Afshin, al Mu’tasim’s general who fought Babak. After heavy battles with Afshin up to a thousand of his warriors were killed, his fortress gave in and he had to run north to Armenia. Crossing the Arax the ruler of Aghvank (north to Artsakh), Sahl ibn Smbat (Sahl Smbatian of Aranshah dynasty, Սահլ/Սահղ Սմբատեան), caught him and handed him over to Afshin. This shallow account of history will certainly confuse those who are uninformed of the fact of the matter but even in that case, are the actions of one historic figure reason enough to denounce an entire nation? A closer look at the fact of the matter proves the exact opposite.

In 821 Sahl Smbatian launched a surprise attack on Shikakar fortress and crushed the Arabs who had reduced the Amaras monastery to rubble and had enslaved about a thousand people. Later his participation played an instrumental role in the victory against a 12000 strong Arab army in Mughan plain in 837, the very same year he arrested Babak. Taking these events and Babak’s movement which was directed against the caliph into account, Sahl should have considered Babak a god sent ally but what the “Azeris” don’t want to say is that Babak would attack, harass, plunder and massacre the people of Artsakh and Siunik on regular basis, therefore it’s more because Babak had become a nuisance for people that Sahl handed him over to the Arabs and not out of treachery.

According to Massoudi, Sahl Smbatian hoped that the caliph would grant him the status of king of Aghvank but his wishes didn’t come true. He adds: “Afshin promoted Sahl and gave him gifts and noble attire and a crown. He provided him with guards and servants and exempted him from tax” but Mu’tasim did not make Sahl Smbatian the independent king of Aghvank and he remained only the ruler of Sheki (Shakeh).

In 854 Mu’tasim ordered the Turkish Buqa khan (against who Sahl had also fought) to arrest Sahl Smbatian along with a number of other Armenian rulers and sent them to exile and torture in Samara. He was never heard of afterwards...

This is like a double edge sword for the “Azeris”: if Sahl Smbatian is an Armenian king, then it proves that Aghvank was a part of Armenia. If “Azeris” are truly the descendants of the Aghvans as they absurdly claim, then it was an Aghvan ruler, i.e. an “Azeri” who betrayed Babak, the pretended greatest hero of the “Azeris”. ●
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools


На правах рекламы:
реклама

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:10.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.