The fabricated story of Gadesiyyeh

   The fabricated story of Gadesiyyeh

The enemies also want to count Gadesiyyeh as a place of defeat for the Iranians and hit several targets with the same arrow; first of all say that Iranians are several different nations and very weak and vulnerable and secondly claim that they easy turn against each other, are treasonous and beatable etc and thirdly say that Islam entered Iran not through culture but by force, wars and blood and many such claims. About Gadesiyyeh it is said that "Rustam came forward.....and resided between Hira and Silhein for four months without taking any action against the Muslims.....Moshrekan (the Iranians) numbered around one hundred and twenty thousand and had thirty big elephants and flags.....the Muslims numbered between nine to ten thousand...." (Blazi- Futuh Al Baladan). Therefore the Iranian army was much better equipped than that of the Arabs and it also outnumbered them. Considering the possibilities of the time, the weapons could not have been but swords, spears and bows and arrows. Two armies that fight against each other with such weapons must stand close to each other, one cannot fight from a distance using swords and spears. The only available weapon which could be used from a distance remains as the bow and arrow. The best archer with the best bow and arrow of the time could have thrown the arrow no longer a distance than 40 or 50 meters and if the enemy's body is to be pierced this distance needs to be reduced. Before this war they prepare the ground and say that the situation of religion and morality in Iran was weak at the time and the Sassanid were also weak.  I refrain from repeating such lies as they are easily accessible to anyone. 

      One example of such lies; Abu Rajah Farsi quoting his father who in turn quoted his father as saying "I took part in the battle of Gadesiyyeh and at the time I was a fire worshipper. As the Arabs threw arrows at us we would say arrows! arrows! Those arrows would continue to land on us and we were finished off. Sometimes one of the men would throw an arrow from his bow and it would land on someone's clothes and do nothing but sometimes one of their arrows would pierce the heavy double layered shield of our men (Blazi- Futuh Al Baladan). In this story the unreal account of events is evident; one should not take such nonsense as history, think and analyse then investigate. How is it possible for an army of ten thousand men or an unreal figure like that destroy an army of one hundred and twenty thousand? Let us assume that the ten thousand men or a similar number of the nomads mentioned or in any case ten thousand Arab fighters line up on a straight horizontal line and each man occupies half a meter on ground, this line would have a length of between 5 to10, 000 meters. The Iranian army on the other hand with 120,000 men whichever way they line up against the enemy, would be impossible to beat using arrows and bows knowing the effective distance for an arrow. Even if the Iranian army arrange themselves in 10 lines of 12,000 men with a distance of one meter between two rows, the distance created would make it impossible for the Arab army to be victorious. Whatever other line up would have the same consequence. It is simply impossible for the Arabs to have resisted for long against Rustam's men. If we suppose that after a period of throwing arrows the two sides eventually enter a fight against each other man against man, the only possible weapons would be swords, clubs, axes or spears and the battle is inevitably man against man, who could imagine that each Arab beating 12 better equipped Iranians?! Please think a little, you can and you must throw away the enemy's lies.

   Armies and Wars throughout history

      According to research done by fake scientists, one of the reasons for the victory of the Arabs over the Iranians was their lightweight and rapid speed of action. This justification is radically wrong. Even if we accept this hypothesis, an Arab runner must overcome 12 men of the Iranian army who are standing against him, considering the human abilities even if this Arab runner were a champion runner he would be exhausted before reaching the last line. What has left over as history cannot be but an amalgam of stories full of bragging and a justification of divine destiny in the mind of its editor. One should doubt the truth in such stories and try and decipher the real history from such tales by scientific and analytical investigations, something that has not yet attracted anyone's attention. Anush Raavid invites you to be vigilant and review history and social history and uncover the lies of the enemies.

        The liars say that Rustam Farahzad was not interested in fighting! Why? Why did Rustam camped against the Arabs for three months and refused to fight? Camping for three to four months in the desert necessitates being in constant touch with the capital. An army of 120,000 men must be constantly provided for, food, water and psychologically. Therefore a sane mind tells us that the sooner the war starts the better and Rustam can't not have known this. However, the stories tell us that he hesitates to start the war and has no hope for victory, why? Lies, lies and more lies. The reason for such act does not become apparent to us unless we doubt the figures and the tales told.   In the stories of this war and for Ctesiphon like in the fabrication of Alexander of Macedonia where they called Persia a treasure in order to glorify their lies, they fabricated lies too.

       The lies they have written about the war: on the first day the Arab horses escaped from the elephants that were keeping them leash. It appeared that the victory was to be of the Iranians but later when a group of archers attacked the elephants, the mounted men from the Arab army escaped danger and set back the Iranians. They write simply and for simple people who lived prior to the 21st century, not knowing that the people of this century analyses events and do not simply accept whatever they are told. On the second day the auxiliary army of Syria entered the scene. A man to man battle pursued between the heroes of the two armies. On the third day again the elephants entered the battle but the head of the auxiliary forces that had come from Damascus blinded the eye of a huge white elephant with spear. Another man did the same with a second elephant. Eventually the elephants returned causing mayhem in the Iranian army. The moral of the Arab army was raised when more forces arrived from Syria and overnight they had better moral than the Iranians. Dear friends, the stage designing of the battle is very simplistic and comical and was written for the people of the past centuries. There is no real explanation and description of events and it is all too clear that reality lays elsewhere. Two commanders of the Muslim army separately attacked the Iranians at night and the battle continued throughout the night. They call this night "Lile Al Harir" because as they have written there were sounds like howling of foxes and dogs filling the air from the injured. On the fourth day, i.e. on the last day of war the Arab army rattled the heart of the Iranian army. At this point a strong wind began to blow and threw a lot of sand over the head and eyes of the Iranians but the Arabs whose backs were to the direction of the wind escaped untouched. Rustam Farahzad was standing next to Derafsh Kaviani and was leading the Iranian army. In this mayhem one of the Arabs threw Rustam's baggage over him and injured the commander. He threw himself into a small stream in order to save himself but an Arab went after him in the water and killed him. This event frightened the Iranian men so much that they threw themselves into the water by the thousands and were drowned. The victory achieved by the Arabs in this battle severely dented the morale in the Iranians. The lying storytellers, in order to finish their tale seek assistance in the wind. The writer is not aware that at that time of the month there were no winds and there is no wind due to the position of the moon so they appeal to the hidden hand and tell their lies in whatever way they can in order to finish the result their way. They want to conclude that Islam was forced onto the Iranians who were weak and cowards and the Arabs are blood thirsty enemies of the Iranians.

      If we assume that Iran had internal problems and was in a chaotic situation and that the Sassanid court did not take the Arabs seriously, it seems improbable that in a situation like this a gathering of a 120,000 man army by Rustam would have been deemed necessary. In any case there would have been no need to fight rebellious Arabs with such a force. It is all too clear that the Iranians never used to take the Arabs seriously but it has been written that Yazegerd insisted that Rustam went into war and Rustam's biggest worry was the chaotic situation of the Madain and that the Arabs were of little concern of Rustams.

      This story cannot be true because prior to the lie of Gadesiyyeh the Iranians according to the same lying historians lost a hundred thousand men on another fictitious war?!(the battle of Buyeb).

      The continuation of the lies that the liars have copied from one another: after Khosrow Parviz the Sassanid court becomes gripped with mayhem and the kings do no last long. In the cities rivalry worsens the chaos to a point where there is war between the army of Rustam and that of the Firuzan. In the meantime the Arabs have invaded the border areas of Savad (today's Iraq) and taken the people to the capital Madain also known as Ctesiphon. In Ctesiphon no one takes the Arabs seriously. The Sassanid capital does not even have a king. The elders warn Rustam, "the Persians tell Rustam and the Firuzan who were the chief of the people of Fars said: what are you doing? Your differences have weakened the Persians and the enemy has its eye on them. Your respect is not so that the Persians accept the status quo for long, you are destroying the Persians, after Bagdad, Sabat and Tekrit it will be Madain's turn, unite yourself before the enemy.....( quoted from the book Tabari History, before I have written about the lies of this book)

      In their lies they have written; the Sassanid government was rotten, corrupt, all the Iranians were against each other, Madain was close to the Arabs, and the king was no good, and hundreds of such stupid reasons for their lies without the slightest of reasoning or analysis and without presenting single evidence, whereas at the time the socio-cultural evolution of the Greater Iranian society was taking its natural course. We should analyse events scientifically and with the possibilities that the 21st century provides us.

       If we accept the rottenness of the society as some believe it to be true, then the quote from Tabari must be a lie because a rotten and corrupt society cannot be corrected rapidly and solely by the coming to power of one person. In this quote from Tabari, there is a very important point and that is" the tribal head were competing against each other in obeying and assisting him", this shows that rivalry that existed to the point of animosity before has continued and now shows itself to be close to the "young king". In these circumstances, gathering of 120,000 men does not look likely and if it were it would be difficult to keep them in a desert for four months and after all neither Rustam nor other commanders took the Arabs that seriously.

      If we add up the number of the fallen, according to Tabari or others, from the invasion of the Arabs until the complete conquest of Iran, I am certain that we would come to an astronomical figure which considering the smallness of the population at the time seems unrealistic. Before the battle of Gadesiyyeh there were other skirmishes one of which was called the battle of Buyeb between the army of Mehran the Iranian commander and Masni Ibn Harse, the Arab commander. "Those who have seen it estimate that there were the skeletons of one hundred thousand men" (the lying Tabari). In these histories, figures given are in my opinion none right; they simply quote from written or oral history that they receive without editing any.

      The same exaggerated figures are given about Heraclius and the Roman army in the" Syrian war" and every few months Heraclius would loose one, two or three hundred thousand men in the fight against the Arabs. In many cases astronomic figures are seen, figures such as "one thousand, thousand, thousand" (a billion) or larger figures which are all exaggerated especially when we consider that these stories are narrated by the Arabs and they could not count larger than a thousand especially in multiples of 10 or 100, amongst them there were few who could read and write. In which day and month did the lie of Gadesiyyeh take place and how was the weather at the time?

      There is much to be said and more are the limitations, decide for yourself like an intelligent person and do not believe whatever you read or hear, analyse thoughtfully and scientifically not like Saddam Hussein who took Gadesiyyeh seriously and was destroyed.

Due to the sensitivity of Gadesiyyeh in history, much can be written but I shall tell you one and you deduct the rest for yourself.

      In order to gather one thousand men in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the Lawrence of Arabia had a hard time and it was deemed impossible because all the Arab tribes had animosity against each other and all they knew was to kill each other for no reason. For their unity there was no hidden hand involved and it was not due to their awareness either, it happened only by the agents of the British at the beginning of the 20th century, by creating an atmosphere and mentality that was necessary for colonization.

    Anoush Raavid / IRAN

   * Campaign for erasing the lies from the history of Iran *

    * Campaign for the removal of lies from Iran's history *

   The above article in full written in Farsi: The attack of Alexander of Macedonia, the biggest lie in history.

  Iran's invasion by the Arabs, the second biggest lie in history.

  Iran's invasion by the Moguls, the third biggest lie in history.

   In order to understand the truth about history read all the articles in Anoush Raavid’s web logs:  

   English:  http://www.raavid.blogfa.com

     Farsi:   http://www.ravid.blogfa.com

  Translated from Farsi by Farzin Malaki  ;  [e-mail]

Revelando las mentiras de la historia

En la historia y en la historia social hay muchas mentiras, mentiras que han influenciado el destino de la humanidad y desviado la planificación y el futuro, mentiras como las siguientes:

La invasión a Irán por Alejandro de Macedonia, la mentira más grande de la historia;

La invasión a Irán por los Árabes nómadas, la segunda mentira más grande de la historia;

La invasión a Irán por Chengiz el mogol, la tercera mentira más grande de la historia;

Mentiras significativas como la guerra de Gadesiyyeh y la batalla de Chaldran;

Mentiras sobre las culturas, como el helenismo…

Análisis e investigación de todas las mentiras de la historia en el blog:

Movimiento para erradicar las mentiras de la historia de Irán.

Únase a este movimiento y vea el mundo desde una perspectiva distinta.

 Tour de Irán:  visite todos los lugares históricos e interesantes, a muy buen

precio y con un excelente servicio. Favor contactar a: http://www.khoonegeli.blogfa.com

  Tour of Iran:  visit all the historic and interesting places, competitive prices and excellent service, please contact : [e-mail] & [e-mail]

    The lies of history, Ancient history, Aryan history, The history of ancient Persia, the history of the art, the history of Alexander, the history of Hellenism, the history of the Arabs, the history of  Genghis Khan and the Mongols, the history of the Uzbeks, the history of democracy and the revelation of the lies of history.

Chaldran, yet another lie

    Chaldran, yet another lie

      The battle of Chaldran is the key to the mystery of colonization, if we understand this battle; we shall know the reasons behind other lies in history. Anush Raavid invites you to think and analyse and not just accept whatever you hear or read unconditionally. It would be simple of us to think that whatever historic event or wars have occurred without preconditions in the evolution of social history. One must accurately analyse each event and consider what is important such as the change of generations and the birth rate, the hidden and the apparent interference of others, the setting of the political and economic stages and the potential of people's understanding of events at the time. We need planning, opportunity and patience together with 21st century knowledge to remove the dirty paws of colonization that has gripped the world for the past 500 years. The story of Chaldran is the beginning of the fabrication of history and geography by the colonizers, with the invent of this story they considered the western part of Iran separated from the rest of the country and for the first time in history they created a frontier in the Greater Iran, and for affirming the existence of such frontier they included it in the textbooks. In the 15th century three social historic civilizations collided with one another, the tribal institution, feudalism and bourgeoisie. Each of these three had and continues to have its own particular religion, culture, population growth and economy over which the natural geography of their environment has an influence. The tribes thought about their past, the feudalism about getting bigger and bourgeoisie about having more money.

   The background to the battle of Chaldran

After the crusades, the Europeans became familiar with the East. This war was between the European feudalism and the eastern tribal system and although Europe lost that war, over a century, however, they experienced the knowledge and the trades of the east. This experience served to create the newly appeared bourgeoisie continuing the evolution of social history. With the fall of the most important feudal religious obstacle in Constantinople, this newly appeared bourgeoisie that was a product of the end of the crusades signified the end of the Middle Ages. Prior to this date the Europeans were unconditionally enslaved by feudalism and their knowledge before the crusades was much less than that of the people in the East, in the times of colonisations they always hid this fact. At that time East was ruled by tribal system which was very different from feudalism and that was beyond the comprehension of the European historians and therefore the two used to become confused. The tribal system in Europe had become extinct by the Romans centuries before and in Iran after the Achaemenidae the tribalism took a new shape to what it was after the last Neolithic tribal system. The crusades familiarized the Middle East with feudalism and within two or three centuries divided it into two main parts: the tribal part with its own particular religion and economy and the feudal part again with its own religion and economy that survives to the present day, and I shall come back to this point later on. In the 14th century the Popes, bishops and the Churches were against each other apparently for religion but in reality for money. Since the beginning of 14th century, ships from Venice and Geneva controlled the Mediterranean trades. In the 15th century the economy of Western Europe grew rapidly. In the new world economy and acquisition of taxes of the bourgeoisie, Italy was leading in Europe and the Popes happy to be right at the centre of it. In these circumstances, the Popes and Italy could not tolerate a rival Byzantine that was still in the Middle Ages and had no intention of entering the new century. After the fall of the Eastern Rome, contractors hurried from Europe to Constantinople to convert Churches to Mosques so that the Vatican would become rival less sooner. The newly appeared bourgeoisie of northern Italian towns were able to function as independent governments by the means of their financial strength. They managed their budget in a new way and set a tax target of a million Ducats per capita per year. No agricultural or feudally structured government could reach that target. At the same time the newly appeared bourgeoisie of Holland was the intermediary in the sale of British and others' manufactured products. Therefore the northern Italian towns and Holland were becoming richer by the day, the new monetary and financial economy had come to Europe and the darkness of the Middle Ages were gone. Within a 200 year period, Europe woke up, of course in the form of a bourgeoisie that weighed everything and measured everything as being stable or unstable. Rapid developments necessitated new planning which are important to discuss but are out of the scope of the present article and I shall leave them to a separate writing in the future. In this period we see many travelogues by people from Europe and especially northern Italy to Iran which demonstrates a broad activity of the newly appeared bourgeoisie to find new markets and trade and or espionage. Few of these travelogues were scientific, logical and practical and most were intended for propaganda and marketing which survive to the present day.

      Since the beginning of the 16th century many lands and countries in the world became occupied by colonizers, however, none of the countries constituting the Greater Iran which included Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Tajikistan, part of Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan became occupied. In the Greater Iran due to a splendid historic background life continued with much enthusiasm and love for the nation and the people. Knowledge, comprehension and health were at high levels and there was much abundance. With a plan that needs analysis, the Ottomans were created within 50 years and they conquered much of Europe within 50 years without leaving much real impression in these hundred years. In order to glamorize and abuse history, bourgeoisie created stories from small and unimportant tribes such as the Turkmens with black and white sheep which gave much excitement to historical stories, they created many great battles for the Ottomans on paper in order to absolve themselves, in the eyes of the religious world, from the destruction of the churches of Eastern Rome.

      In the absence of writings and cities of Russia, they created the Khans with the golden tents, placed much importance to the fighting of small and simple tribes for reasons that I shall come back to in the future. They want to create the impression in the mind of the reader that without historic background and social history wars occur and kings send their armies around. In these stories, their principal objective is oppressing the most historic and liveliest of nations amongst which Iran is at the top. They always write that the Iranians lost wars against foreign invaders and only defeated each other in their internal fighting and in this way the enemies, in the historic stories change a dynasty with another and shape history against the Iranians. In these stories they assume the Iranians to be as stupid as them and use simple analysis, for example they say that Iranians used to consider the use of firing weapons to be against manliness.

   The telling of the fabricated battle of Chaldran

      They say that Sultan Salem the 1st   was very important and powerful, in fact there is no mention of this so called Sultan in any early 16th century book from Anatolia or Iran, Anush Raavid has not been able to find a single reference to his name in historic works and will continue his search and if anyone finds a mention please let him know. In reality this false Sultan could be a simple Sheikh in the hand of the European bourgeoisie in order to implement its plan. The stupid enemies of the history of Iran really were very simple and thought everyone to be so and that no one would be found to divulge the lies. They talk of a one hundred thousand man army that was beyond the 6 or 7 million population of the Ottoman territory; half of this population was Christian belonging to two different churches and the other half Muslims belonging to two different sects and each of these belonging to quite different social and geographic groups which in itself was a huge obstacle in gathering forces and a big war. Gathering such a force requires a booming economy based on productivity and tax collection and has to leave much evidence. Such an economy requires a solid social historic background which was not present in the 14th century Ottoman. In the 21st century and with such available technology if anyone believes such lies without research and analysis must be very gullible and easily lead by the enemy. They write about a thousand kilometre distance between the Ottoman capital and the war zone and the passing of such a huge force, a distance that was unimaginable to be passable up until a hundred years ago, a most arduous and difficult stretch to traverse. This huge force would have required a logistics which with the simplest of estimates would come to a half a million men which in turn needed an organization that would leave much evidence behind such as roads, bridges, accommodations, none of which is evident in history or the region.

      At the time of the battle of Chaldran and other wars we see that the armies that fought real wars in Europe and left evidence behind in history, never exceeded 20 to 30,000 men because a higher number was not possible. They wrote the stage of the war in a place that could be a good geographical point for historic separation, in the whole region of Chaldran not a single gun or canon has been found, no single historic evidence has been uncovered.

      They used fallacy and misleading language in their story telling of historical events in order to play tricks on simple minds, they have written "in the heart of the Iranian soldiers there was no agitation, they resisted until the moment of death against the well equipped Ottomans". They have written many such things; "the main reason for the victory of the Turks was their fiery weapons which the Iranian army did not possess". Elsewhere they have written that the aims of the Sultan Salem the 1st of invading Iran was to: "halt the spread of Shiite sect believing in the 12 Imams which had been declared the official religion of Iran and the stopping of Ottoman Shiites joining the newly formed Safavid dynasty of Iran, annexation of the north western Kurdish regions and the place of residence of the Turkmens in eastern part of today's Turkey and north eastern Iraq that was of the Ak- Koyunlu, Kara-Koyunlu and the remaining of the Seljuqs to their territory and the spread of Iranism that had raised its head once again by the crowning of Shah Ismail of Safavids". There are a lot of such false quotes in the story of Chaldran. Can you analyse and explain these lies? It is the best test for you in finding the real truth behind these stories.

      Study the history of canons and guns and do not accept unconditionally whatever nonsense as history. Do not believe the fiery weapons in the battle of Chaldran to be like the weapons of the Napoleon era in the films "The Battle of Waterloo" and "War and Peace". At the beginning of 16th century the canons and the guns of the ottomans were wicked and matchlock and had a maximum range of 300 meters, they had to ignite the wick, charge the canon and then fire. On firing, a black smoke would fill the surrounding, and many balls would explode in the air or would not reach their intended target. Every 4 or 5 minutes they could prepare a canon to fire. A mounted soldier galloping at least 30 km per hour would run a distance of 500 meters in a minute hence bypassing the canons that were difficult to mobilize and attacking their operators. This fiery weapon was used in the 16th century for attacking fortresses and not for open battles in fields. Matchlocks could fire every 2 minutes so mounted soldiers could attack the enemy in less than a minute and even if the first line of soldiers were killed by the guns the second line could easily reach and attack the gunners. For the aesthetics of the story they talked of the huge numbers of the Ottomans and the bravery of the Iranians, the fiery weapons and the superiority of the Ottomans and the disagreement of the Iranians with such weapons. With such words we are reminded of the negative advertising of Capitalism that said "don't buy IRAN tires"!

    Anoush Raavid / IRAN

   * Campaign for erasing the lies from the history of Iran *

    * Campaign for the removal of lies from Iran's history *

   The above article in full written in Farsi: The attack of Alexander of Macedonia, the biggest lie in history.

  Iran's invasion by the Arabs, the second biggest lie in history.

  Iran's invasion by the Moguls, the third biggest lie in history.

   In order to understand the truth about history read all the articles in Anoush Raavid’s web logs:  

   English:  http://www.raavid.blogfa.com

     Farsi:   http://www.ravid.blogfa.com

  Translated from Farsi by Farzin Malaki  ;  [e-mail]

Revelando las mentiras de la historia

En la historia y en la historia social hay muchas mentiras, mentiras que han influenciado el destino de la humanidad y desviado la planificación y el futuro, mentiras como las siguientes:

La invasión a Irán por Alejandro de Macedonia, la mentira más grande de la historia;

La invasión a Irán por los Árabes nómadas, la segunda mentira más grande de la historia;

La invasión a Irán por Chengiz el mogol, la tercera mentira más grande de la historia;

Mentiras significativas como la guerra de Gadesiyyeh y la batalla de Chaldran;

Mentiras sobre las culturas, como el helenismo…

Análisis e investigación de todas las mentiras de la historia en el blog:

Movimiento para erradicar las mentiras de la historia de Irán.

Únase a este movimiento y vea el mundo desde una perspectiva distinta.

 Tour de Irán:  visite todos los lugares históricos e interesantes, a muy buen

precio y con un excelente servicio. Favor contactar a: http://www.khoonegeli.blogfa.com

  Tour of Iran:  visit all the historic and interesting places, competitive prices and excellent service, please contact : [e-mail] & [e-mail]

    The lies of history, Ancient history, Aryan history, The history of ancient Persia, the history of the art, the history of Alexander, the history of Hellenism, the history of the Arabs, the history of  Genghis Khan and the Mongols, the history of the Uzbeks, the history of democracy and the revelation of the lies of history.

The Arabs did not invade Persia

   The Arabs did not invade  Persia

   Introduction

      In order for this article to make sense please read carefully all the articles in this weblog, see the world differently and upside down, have patience and reflect and above all follow up and memorize, although I know that erasing the lies of the enemies who have told enough lies in 500 years  to last 5000 years is difficult.

       There are those who take an emotional view and consider the Arabs to be the killers of the Iranians and vice versa, however history will not end with our knowledge and information and will not necessarily continue to be so, therefore, let us search the truth in a realistic way. Stupid Saddam thought Gadesiyyeh to be true and hence ruined the nation of western part of Greater Iran i.e. Iraq.

      Today, with the thought that the Arabs came and killed and ransacked and destroyed, anger has been brewed in the hearts from which Imperialists and Zionists benefit.

      I do not know why the historians have not been able to remove these lies, propose new investigation and guide the society in a new way, perhaps they are so entangled in these lies.

      I shall write only briefly about this lie of history so that there is time for study, reflection and enquiry for the dear countrymen and women; nevertheless I shall continue this article in greater detail in the future.

    The second biggest lie in history

      The liars, in order to justify and reason say; "today the genetics specialists have proven the theory that the cradle of all the nations of Semitic races is the Arabian peninsula which once upon a time was fairly habitable but gradually became arid and for this reason the Semitic tribes were forced to migrate north in search of water and pasture....". This lie is very similar to the lie of the migration of the Aryans from the north to Iran which I have explained elsewhere in my weblog, they now say something similar about the Arabs from the south, however, the geography and history of Arabia has been as it is since the beginning of human existence, the same lie applies to the cold and arid lands of the north in case of the Aryans.

      The liars are truly stupid, they say; " centuries passed by this way and the Arabs became poorer and more numerous, day after day and were forced to break down the barriers of Iran and Egypt in search of better lives....." These stupid liars think they lived in the times of Bourgeoisie and colonization, life in the times of sacral kingship was quite fair, all the peoples and tribes had more or less the same rate of birth and death.

      The imperialist liars continue their lies; "one of the promises of Islam for the Arabs was that if they won, Iran, Iraq and Syria would be theirs...."In continuation and in order to justify themselves they write; " the Arab Muslims who were suffering poverty, hoped to be victorious and become prosperous and if they were killed would go to heaven...." and they continue; " for this reason the war of the Arabs against the Iranians had an economic side to it and all the tribes moved on and no one was left in Arabia....." With such writings they have reduced the Arabs to poor shanty dwellers; in those days each tribe had its own territory and was self sufficient in its own land and wealth did not have the meaning it did during the bourgeoisie era and the second wave. Moreover, they have reduced the Muslims at the beginning of their creation to bandits.

      It is very strange that no historian has mentioned such important points at the peak of Islam as being true or false.

      If the bandits unite and ransack, after the first attack they would fight against each other over the stolen goods and the old historic rivalry and vengeance amongst the tribes and the Arabs would resurface. Such people would not have the ability to continue this path and fight again and generally speaking, the planning, organization and ideas would dwindle. If the strategy is for looting then warfare tactics would for the first possession. It is obvious that those who talk as such i.e. looting at the beginning of Islam, are imposing their interpretation of events and are surely from the bourgeoisie and the colonization era. In real history books they brag and lie without suggesting anything.

      They refer to historic texts which no one has seen in any museum or library and claim that "Iran was very unstable, disease was rife, and the economic situation was dire, corruption....." I shall refrain from repeating the nonsense because they are told over and over again in all the so called documents. You see that such writings can only be the mentality of 19 and 20th century London or Paris. Have you ever thought how life must have been 15 centuries ago? How was life four or five centuries go under the first wave or Capitalism or indeed in Europe or Asia? Have you ever thought about the lies they have told about people's lives in the past?

      The battle of Hireh "....he had nothing but an old fence for defending hence he had to give up....) but the reality and the geography suggests otherwise.

      The battle of Elis "....he ordered the beheading of the Iranian hostages for a few days until a stream of blood began flowing, Khaled the commander of Islam did not want to betray his oath.....", with one lie hit three targets; portray the Iranians as cowards and finished with, the Muslims as blood thirsty and finally for their imperialist objectives place Iranians and Arabs against each other. Although no victorious army does as such with his enemy in the first battles, otherwise the enemy becomes so hardened as to avoid capture.

       The battle of Amghelishiya ".........". This battle is belittled down to a peasant because they had no more lies to tell.

      The battle of conquest of Abnar ," Khaled ordered that the soldiers of the enemy who were all covered in iron except for their eyes to be made blind by arrows....." as if they were fighting a herd of sheep! This lie is so stupid that only liars would believe it.

     The war of Al Jasr or Gheis Al Natef , "........." after several ridiculous wars which after studying and analysing tactically and scientifically with the wars of those days it becomes obvious that they are fabrications, the liars are forced to invent another ridiculous war, again tactically wrong, in order to make the Iranians victorious so that their lies are not so spoilt.

      The battle of Bubat ,"..... in this day one hundred Arab fighters each killed one hundred Iranians....", would someone ask these liars, if the Arab fighters wanted each to sacrifice sheep, how many would they manage in a day?

   One must really be stupid in order to accept such rubbish as history.

      The conquest of Ablah and the battle of Zangir (.....they had chained together the feet of the Iranian soldiers so that they could not escape...), what do they want to say with this lie? Where had the chains been manufactured and what were were the locks like? And is it possible at all?

      The liars quoting the king say; Yazdegerd told the representatives of the Arabs: " you used to eat lizards and mice because of severe poverty...." this kind of language is the one used by bourgeoisie and colonization in the past 500 years, in the past everyone was elf sufficient in their natural conditions and for no one poverty had the meaning it has today.

      Some might argue that some of what has been said is lies and others true or other supernatural factors may have played a part. If we accept that some parts are lies then whoever has told some lies could be a big liar, hence we must throw everything away and start anew.

       Ignacio Olague the Spanish historian and investigator has a book titled "The Arabs did not invade Spain", it is an excellent work based on logic, and much irrefutable evidence which proves beyond doubt that the invasion of Spain by the Arabs is all lies. These wars and massacres are baseless stories which have been invented by the Church and the colonizers by their dependant historians in order to save their face.  His book was published in 1985 by Shabaviz publications under a title that in itself is a cover up "Seven centuries of Islamic civilization's ups and downs in Spain".

   Anoush Raavid / IRAN

   "campaign for erasing the lies from the history of Iran"  

   The above article in full written in Farsi: The attack of Alexander of Macedonia, the biggest lie in history.

   Iran's invasion by the Moguls, the third biggest lie in history.

   In order to understand the truth about history read all the articles in Anoush Raavid’s web logs:  

   English:  http://www.raavid.blogfa.com

     Farsi:   http://www.ravid.blogfa.com

  Translated from Farsi by Farzin Malaki  ;  [e-mail]

Revelando las mentiras de la historia

En la historia y en la historia social hay muchas mentiras, mentiras que han influenciado el destino de la humanidad y desviado la planificación y el futuro, mentiras como las siguientes:

La invasión a Irán por Alejandro de Macedonia, la mentira más grande de la historia;

La invasión a Irán por los Árabes nómadas, la segunda mentira más grande de la historia;

La invasión a Irán por Chengiz el mogol, la tercera mentira más grande de la historia;

Mentiras significativas como la guerra de Gadesiyyeh y la batalla de Chaldran;

Mentiras sobre las culturas, como el helenismo…

Análisis e investigación de todas las mentiras de la historia en el blog:

Movimiento para erradicar las mentiras de la historia de Irán.

Únase a este movimiento y vea el mundo desde una perspectiva distinta.

 Tour de Irán,  visite todos los lugares históricos e interesantes, a muy buen

precio y con un excelente servicio. Favor contactar a: http://www.khoonegeli.blogfa.com

  Tour of Iran;  visit all the historic and interesting places, competitive prices and excellent service, please contact : [e-mail] & [e-mail]

    The lies of history, Ancient history, Aryan history, The history of ancient Persia, the history of the art, the history of Alexander, the history of Hellenism, the history of the Arabs, the history of  Genghis Khan and the Mongols, the history of the Uzbeks, the history of democracy and the revelation of the lies of history.

Hellenism the big lie

  Hellenism

  Hellenism the big lie of the colonizers and the West

      Imperialists and colonizers influence all social and cultural as well as other aspects such as internal and external policy making of the underdeveloped and colonized countries which they dominate. This influence takes several forms and shapes, open and hidden as well as true and false. The influence takes shape in form of interfering in social, administrative and historic events of the dominated countries. They invent schools, philosophies, religions and much such nonsense in order to show themselves to be superior and us to be inferior, we must passionately defend our history and take it away from enemies paws.

      Since the beginning of 19th century colonizers who had taken over almost the whole world with massacres, lies and force were looking for their genealogical tree and the making of their superior race. For a couple of centuries before that they tried hard to make Rome as a symbol of culture and government and science and present a base for their antecedent but in Italy and Roman history there were not many useful evidence except for a few ruins that were not of much use for proving their race as superior, so they invented the lie that is known as Hellenism and made it big and important.

      Underneath the mosques of Istanbul, the capital of the Ottomans, which were previously the Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire, they found papers that were not worth much during the Ottomans rule and there were not those who could read them well. They took these papers to London and Berlin and Paris and translated them and attached a whole lot of lies and stories to them and presented them as history and old events. These bits of papers were in their time written lies that were used in the Eastern Roman Empire to justify the Church and Synagogues and the making of a fabricated country in Anatolia and the Western part of Greater Iran and the Middle East.

      Dear friend do not be so simple as to be fooled by these lies, please search for the real truth. Let us not allow the fabricated Hellenism be used to attack the world especially the Greater Iran. Why did they not invent the Parthianism? Have you asked yourself yet, where and how did the first documents of the fabricated Herodotus come from? Anush Ravid will no longer allow such lies be sold to the nations and it is hoped that you help with important task.

      Hellenism was first used by a German historian in 1836 and thereafter it was used to distinguish a historic, political, cultural and artistic period in Greece marked by the appearance of governments in the fabricated Greek Empire's regions after the death of the fabricated Alexander the Great. The historians of the colonizers placed this period between 330 and 27 B.C. Why they did not extend this period to after the birth of Christ merits further thinking and questioning. The geographical regions Hellenism is supposed to have covered were north to south Russia, India and southern Egypt, Northern Africa and the Mediterranean coast. They considered the city of Taksila in Pakistan as belonging to the Hellenic era's works. They stupidly claim that after the conquest of the East by Alexander of Macedonia, there appeared a fusion of thoughts, religions and arts from East and West which changed the Greek architecture. Those stupid writers in order to attack the cultural richness of the Greater Iran write that; events, complexities and surprising advance of the Hellenic culture resulted in an architectural method with a huge and varied scale which was far superior to what a classic town and country could do at the time which needed a special advancement. Those idiots do not realize that this statement is in itself an obvious confession that Hellenism is a lie.

      At the time of the invention of Hellenism we see the influence of the colonizers over the Ghajar dynasty which is clear to everyone; of course one can extend this interference to before and after the Ghajar period because essential and radical changes to Iran's social history had not been brought about to counter their interference. However, after two Imperial wars and the inability of the old colonizers to rule the world and their acquisition of new methodology which we call neo colonization, possibilities have risen for the nations to bring about useful and practical strategy to counter this influence.

      In the fabrication of Hellenism much nonsense has been written, for example they say that "the art of Hellenism has influenced the art of the Parthian era a great deal and undoubtedly it is true but we cannot say anything about it because we have nothing tangible from them". Elsewhere they say "there is a great deal of original Iranian art in Hellenism and there is little Greek art in Hellenism which in any case is very transitory and superficial". Hertsfeld one of the agents of the colonizers is a famous researcher into Hellenism who has done a great deal of research in to the art of the Parthian era and he believes that the art of this period is a combination of Iranian and Greek paintings however it can be confirmed that the Iranian art has remained untouched in its original form in this period. One can see that all the stupid enemies of Iran believe that Hellenism is nonsense.

Throughout history colonizers have fabricated history in order to accomplish their objectives, they paint a pretty picture of democracy in the countries under their influence, create such institutions as parliaments, governments council, an independent judiciary and even political and military opposition etc in order to  fooled the people. For example in this age of internet and satellite TV they create virtual caricaturist political movements in order to mislead mass movements and create an atmosphere of division and animosity between the peoples of the Greater Iran and they do this by fabricating history and lies. One of the games played by the same satellite agents is the lie that Arabs, Turks and the Kurds have been historically hostile to each other.   Anush Ravid always asks the dear readers to be vigilant, for example, Iraq and Southern Persian Gulf region is a natural political and historic extension of the Greater Iran and all their affairs both in the past and present has to do with the Greater Iran. If one takes an opposing view saying that in the past they have been hostile and historically estranged, I believe it to be unrealistic, unprincipled and politically motivated and in a way fooled by the enemy's and colonizer's tricks. This is in no way a reason to send troops to or attack these areas politically but one must encourage the finding of historic realities and social history.

    Anoush Raavid / IRAN

   * Campaign for erasing the lies from the history of Iran *

    * Campaign for the removal of lies from Iran's history *

   The above article in full written in Farsi: The attack of Alexander of Macedonia, the biggest lie in history.

  Iran's invasion by the Arabs, the second biggest lie in history.

  Iran's invasion by the Moguls, the third biggest lie in history.

   In order to understand the truth about history read all the articles in Anoush Raavid’s web logs:  

   English:  http://www.raavid.blogfa.com

     Farsi:   http://www.ravid.blogfa.com

  Translated from Farsi by Farzin Malaki  ;  [e-mail]

Revelando las mentiras de la historia

En la historia y en la historia social hay muchas mentiras, mentiras que han influenciado el destino de la humanidad y desviado la planificación y el futuro, mentiras como las siguientes:

La invasión a Irán por Alejandro de Macedonia, la mentira más grande de la historia;

La invasión a Irán por los Árabes nómadas, la segunda mentira más grande de la historia;

La invasión a Irán por Chengiz el mogol, la tercera mentira más grande de la historia;

Mentiras significativas como la guerra de Gadesiyyeh y la batalla de Chaldran;

Mentiras sobre las culturas, como el helenismo…

Análisis e investigación de todas las mentiras de la historia en el blog:

Movimiento para erradicar las mentiras de la historia de Irán.

Únase a este movimiento y vea el mundo desde una perspectiva distinta.

 Tour de Irán:  visite todos los lugares históricos e interesantes, a muy buen

precio y con un excelente servicio. Favor contactar a: http://www.khoonegeli.blogfa.com

  Tour of Iran:  visit all the historic and interesting places, competitive prices and excellent service, please contact : [e-mail] & [e-mail]

    The lies of history, Ancient history, Aryan history, The history of ancient Persia, the history of the art, the history of Alexander, the history of Hellenism, the history of the Arabs, the history of  Genghis Khan and the Mongols, the history of the Uzbeks, the history of democracy and the revelation of the lies of history.

   Personal profile:

      A collection of personal opinions and articles on history and social history by Anush Raavid, blacksmith and history investigator.

      In Anush Raavid's weblogs you read new theory on the fate of the Greater Iran which is the fruit of experience in the field of scientific history and social history, a combination of using new technology together with the knowledge and science the of 21st century. In order to create and nourish values, plan for the future, it is important to know the truth about history and social history of Iran away from lies of the enemies and the idiots.

       In order to promote and continue the movement for eradicating lies from the history of Iran, I have paid attention to an effective and sustainable strategy such as a combination of tangible and intangible arguments with particular specialities. Moreover, alternative credentials and advantages, acquisition of abilities and capacities paves the way for obtaining practical objectives.

       In this era, the enemies of beloved Iran, in geographic competition and with their advantages, try replacing bigger lies with the present lies but we have  vast potentials and contained energies which because of the present situation and lack of mental organization in the new wave and generation have not been used. For the younger generation, giving priority to technology in all strategic analysis and the recognition of the limitations of today's classic model in history and social history is of special importance. I have therefore, taken into account all the above points in my weblogs as far as I can which I hope it to be useful.