Money Safety Resultscheap Public Naked Forced

Love

ایران گلوبال Money Safety Resultscheap Public Naked Forced

Money Safety Resultscheap Public Naked Forced

در این مورد میتوq نید به بخش سقوط فرقه نگاه کنید:

Indeed, William Douglass, who was a traveller, does not recognize Ferqeh as an independent entity either The main reason hegives for the y popularity of the Ferqeh amongst peasants is due to the land reform and not idue to any sort of ethnic ph itics. Butit should be noted that the analysis of Douglass contradicts itself Love n many fronts. The Love firstreason is that Douglass is from949 and thus any scholar that needs to examine the Ferqeh today should consult modernreferences. Also given that Douglass was just a traveller, we do not know the people he met and talked to. Let us examine wha both Douglass and Swietochowski state and how they contradict Asgharzadeh.

On the fall of the Kurdish republic of Mahabad, Douglass writes: “The Persian (Douglass uses the term Persian and Iranian army equivalently and no where does he use it to just denote army of ethnic Persian speakers. He calls the people of Azerbaijan as Persians also.) Army entered Mahabad on December 15, 1946 without a shot being fired. Their mass reception was friendly.

Qazi Mohammad stood, not for separation from Persia, but for autonomy within it, claiming that the Kurds stemmed from the ancient Medes and, like their forbears, had a natural and historial role to perform in partnership with the Persians.

..

But the Khans deserted him – not because of his program of reform, but because of his Soviet support.”

All the analysis of the above is considered invalid today. For example unlike the party of Pishevari which fleed to the USSR without providing even two day’s of resistance (which showed it’s complete lack of support), the party of Qazi Muhammad did actually resist the Iranian army and Qazi Muhammad himself did not flee USSR rule. Also it is clear by USSR archival evidence that the intention of Qazi Muhammad was to separate Kurdistan from the rest of Iran. Thus relying on a non-academic and non-eyewitness (Douglass did not visit Iran in 1945-1946 but in 1949) is really another weak point of Asgharzade’s book. Let us bring some information from the introduction as well.

“Azerbaijan is a historic place. Here Zoroaster lived in the sixth Century B.C. and taught the unending conflict between good and evil. This was the home of the Medes who, though they conquered Persia, were absorbed by it, losing themselves and their civilization in the process. The absorption was indeed so great that only one word of their language remains in the Persian vocabulary today— sag, the Medes word for dog. The Arabs came in the seventh. Century, Converting all of Persia to the Moslem religion at the point of the sword. In the middle thirteenth Century the Mongols swept through Azerbaijan burning and slaying as they went. They-made Maragheh their capital and later Tabriz and ruled two hundred years. Then came the Turks. Azerbaijan, the border province, was in the path of a host of invaders. Azerbaijan was also the Staging ground for revolt—and a buffer for the whole realm of Persia. Its character has not changed in the intervening centuries. Twice in the nineteenth Century Russia in-vaded Azerbaijan; and in this Century several times—the last time in 1941.

…

Azerbaijan, being from time out of mind an international high-way, has seen the crossing of many races. The product is a people still Persian, but different from the rest. They speak a Turkish dialect which has absorbed many Persian words.”(Douglas, pg 40)