My position is no Bulgar tribal union has emerged "under a turk banner".

I think you are mixing up today's Bulgars with those historical bulgars who were actually turks.

In addition to that they were also extra-terrestrial.

In addition to that they were also extra-terrestrial.

Today's Bulgars are Slavic. Those Bulgars in ancient history were turks.

Everybody is turks. No, wait. Azeri turks!

Judaism And Zionism Are Not The Same Thing

We would like to take a few minutes of your time to prevent you from making a terrible mistake that may have disastrous results for many.

You have always without a doubt heard and read much about the political crises in the Middle East in which the State of Israel plays a central role. This is, in fact, an ongoing series of crises with potential to bring the greatest misfortune on the entire world. Tragically many believe that Zionism and Judaism are identical. Thus they conclude that the entire Jewish people is responsible for the actions of the Zionist government and the world crises which emanates from it. This is a Grave Error!

Continue to read:
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judai...not_zionism.cfm

Actually you are saying something different. You are saying that there are two typs of Jews. The conservative Jews and the Liberal Jews (Ashkenazi Jews). You are saying the Conservative Jews are Zionist and the Liberal Jews are just ordinary nice Jews. In reality Liberal Jews are even 100 times worse than the Conservative Jews. The liberal Jews or Ashkenazi Jews are also called Aske-Nazi Jews. They are mostly Nazist.

Thanks for educating us about Persia, Oslonor. I appreciate the work and care involved. The Pathan on the left looks like he's from West Virginia, and that's good.

What if many Americans approached all kinds of U.S. government officials - legislative, diplomatic, military - suggesting, in their own words, that the U.S. should establish a small, sovereign colony in Iran? Some of the British colonies in America were almost sovereign; the Hellenes established sovereign colonies around the Mediterranean.

Knowledgeable people in our government already know about the Azeri-Persian difference, and already understand that the easiest way to solve the Iran problem would be to split Iran and give most of the oil to the Persians. Regarding Islamists, no oil = no money = no mischief. I read that covert U.S. operations to foment ethnic strife in Iran have begun; the "cockroach cartoon" incident confirms that.

According to the 2002 World Almanac, Iran is #2 in natural gas reserves, after Russia, and #3 in oil+gas together, after Russia & Saudi Arabia. Iran's large young population, large area far from the sea, large dryland wheat production, and mountains, make it hard to conquer. The U.S. is worn out from Iraq. Unless the U.S. attacks with nuclear weapons (which international opinion would not tolerate) the U.S. can't beat Iran without Persian secession.

Like some on this board, the U.S. military seems to be planning for the Pashtun regime in Afghanistan to help the Persian secessionists. Particularism limits this however. Curzon said that in the 19th century, Bakhtiari did not respect Persian officers, Lurs looked down on Kurds, and so forth, like sectional differences in the U.S. or Germany or anywhere else.

The U.S. can't win unless the Persians secede. The Persians won't secede unless they're sure of the U.S. commitment (or they would have seceded already). The promises of the U.S. will not be believed. It's widely believed even in the U.S., that the Shah fell because the U.S. betrayed him, making unreasonable demands, much as Carter did with Somoza. It's going to take a commitment greater than mere promises. Historically, the only such commitment, is a colony.

The U.S. will have to set up a small sovereign colony on the frontier between New Persia and "Azeri-stan" and fill it with troops AND permanent colonists. These could be partly (Australia-like) "deadbeat dads" and "deadbeat taxpayers" "in trouble" with the government; and partly (New England -like) white separatists and "freemen" who are essentially "heretics".

The Persians don't want to secede with the oil, only to become a Biafra. A U.S.-supported colony is the only thing that spells "commitment" clearly enough to inspire Persian secession.

If many people propose this to government officials, it creates a dilemma for the Ueberjuden: quash the idea, and not only fail in Iran, but cause further disgust among the middle ranks of Caesar's CIA/DOD "legions", all of whom will understand that this is a good idea that will save thousands of U.S. troops from death or maiming? Or don't quash it, and risk a runaway white separatist state under the dual protection of the U.S. and New Persia?

Thanks for educating us about Persia, Oslonor. I appreciate the work and care involved. The Pathan on the left looks like he's from West Virginia, and that's good.

What if many Americans approached all kinds of U.S. government officials - legislative, diplomatic, military - suggesting, in their own words, that the U.S. should establish a small, sovereign colony in Iran? Some of the British colonies in America were almost sovereign]

Your post is so confused that I really do not have any comments. Just one correction to your post: Bakhtiaris originate from an ancient Persian tribe. The rest is nonsense. There is no oil in Iran's Azerbaijan. Do not see how Azeri Turks are related to oil. There is oil in the republic of Azerbaijan. But that is another country.

Persians and Hollywood
http://oslonor.blogspot.com

 

Also US special forces have entered Iran's Kurdistan according to some reports.

Your post is so confused that I really do not have any comments. Just one correction to your post: Bakhtiaris originate from an ancient Persian tribe. The rest is nonsense. There is no oil in Iran's Azerbaijan. Do not see how Azeri Turks are related to oil. There is oil in the republic of Azerbaijan. But that is another country.

It's not confused. It isn't nonsense. I didn't say Bakhtiari weren't Persian in the broad sense. Curzon believed them a subset of the Persians, in the broad sense, but distinct from Persians, in the narrow sense. Curzon's ethnic subdivision also appears on the recent ethnographic maps in the possession of Iowa State University's map room. I cited Curzon, the British geographer whose work on Persia is still cited by scholars today.

Do you think no British geographer ever can know anything about Iran? You're not Iranian either, you say.

I didn't say the oil was on Azeri land. I said it's in Iran, and the Azeris control Iran. You say that too. I learned it from you.

This topic relates not only to Iran, but also to America. Therefore the knowledge and insight of Americans is not to be summarily dismissed.