ANCIENT PERSIA 2500 yrs ago!
Posted on 05/16/2004 12:29:41 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Discussion Board on this DLS topic A Sunni Arab terrorist group in Iraq, claiming to be working for al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, displayed a video on an al Qaeda website (the Arab language Muntada al-Ansar Islamist Web site) showing the beheading of American businessman Nick Berg who was apparently kidnapped in Iraq earlier. Berg’s body was found on May 9th outside Baghdad. The beheading was announced as retaliation for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by American troops. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, has been the most active, and most senior, al Qaeda operator in Iraq. The United States is offering a ten million dollars reward for his capture. Many of al-Zarqawi’s followers are in Fallujah and currently fighting American marines.
The Muntada al-Ansar web site regularly announces which terrorist group is claiming responsibility for attacks. The recent suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia were announced on the site. The use of videos of attacks and murders of captives is considered a recruiting tool and good propaganda. The videos are rarely shown on English language web sites, as they are intended for the hard core terrorist audience. Al Qaeda knows that such videos will turn off many in the West, but has found that it does wonders for al Qaeda recruiting and contributions. Al Qaeda has been unable to win any meaningful victories, so they invent success by declaring the slaughter of people via suicide bombings, or beheadings, to be a victory over the enemy. Historically, this doesn’t work, and such atrocities simply inflame the opposition. Consider, for example, the September 11, 2001 attacks and what the United States has done to al Qaeda since then.
Al Qaeda is taking advantage of a uniquely Arab concept of “victory.” Having been on the losing side of history for so many centuries, most Arabs accept just about anything as a “victory.” For example, Saddam Hussein declared himself the winner of the 1991 Gulf War because he was still running Iraq after it was over. Of course, the main, and widely publicized, reason he was still in power was because Arab nations refused to join the coalition to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait unless the U.S. agreed NOT to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Earlier, Saddam gained much perverse praise from the Arab world for getting Iran to agree to stop the war that had raged between the two nations throughout the 1980s. This war began when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, in an attempt to grab some Iranian oil fields while Iran’s armed forces were in disorder following a revolution in which Islamic radicals overthrew the king (Shah) of Iran. The Iranians quickly got their act together, pushed the Iraqis out of Iran and spent the next eight years trying to get to Saddam. For thousands of years, the Iranians (or Persians or Parthians or whatever) have been pounding Arab armies into the ground. So Saddam’s ability (via the use chemical weapons and billions of dollars worth of Russian arms) to stop (if not exactly defeat) the Iranians, was, to many Arabs, a real victory.
Now all this Iran/Arab stuff plays a special role in Iraq. To the surprise of many Sunni Arabs, the Shia Arabs fought, during the 1980s, to defend Iraq from the Shia Iranians. Actually, about three percent of Irans population is Arab, so in some cases you had Shia Arabs fighting Shia Arabs in this war. But the Iraqi Shia Arabs (over half the population), via a combination of fear, nationalism and financial incentives, were compelled by Saddam (a Sunni Arab) to serve in the war against Iran. What was being played was the race card. The Iranians are an Indo-European people, and have been defeating, and generally lording it over the Arabs, a Semitic people, for thousands of years. Memories are long in this part of the world, and in this case, ethnic memory trumped religion. Normally the Sunni and Shia Moslems do not get along very well. Conservative Sunnis consider the Shia heretics. And the fact that most Shia are Iranians does not help matters either.
Al Qaeda is a basically a Sunni Arab organization that attracts recruits who are not Arabs, but who MUST be Sunni. Al Qaeda was founded by members of the conservative Wahabi form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia. To a Wahabi, even contact with infidels (non-Moslems) is forbidden, and it is the duty of all Moslems to convert or kill the infidels. One should not lose sight of al Qaeda’s core values and goals. When you do focus in on those values and goals, the video of an American civilian being beheaded makes some kind of perverted sense.
Ding Ding!
Some more here @
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/478-828.asp
--Al Qaeda is taking advantage of a uniquely Arab concept of “victory.” Having been on the losing side of history for so many centuries, most Arabs accept just about anything as a “victory.” For example, Saddam Hussein declared himself the winner of the 1991 Gulf War because he was still running Iraq after it was over. Of course, the main, and widely publicized, reason he was still in power was because Arab nations refused to join the coalition to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait unless the U.S. agreed NOT to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Earlier, Saddam gained much perverse praise from the Arab world for getting Iran to agree to stop the war that had raged between the two nations throughout the 1980s.--
Funny stuff. Baghdad Bob really thought he was right.
"Funny stuff. Baghdad Bob really thought he was right."
I almost forgot about him. He was hilarious.
The Iranians have been ruled by non Iranians since they fell to Islam. First ruled by the Arabs and then by Mongols and then by Turks. The modern period under the last Shah and on is the first time Iranians have ruled Iranians. The above statement is a gross distortion.
From my middle east history classes and lab work, I would tend to agree.
Sorry if I was not clear. Under the the Shah, they had a great military, a great movie industry, a great peiod of trade with the west on persian rugs among other things.
They have lab work in history now? What, you get into a time machine and go back to see what happened?
Not right!
Arabs merged in the great and strong Persian culture.
Hundreds of poets and writers raised to defend THE PERSIAN HERITAGE.
Moreover Mongols and Arabs left the country in the hand of Iranian born rulers. They invaded Persia but left it in the hand of Persian rulers.
Shah Ismail declared Iran as a Shiite country to oppose Sunni Othoman Empire and many Persian kings ruled after Shah Esmail.( 14th Century I guess )...
ANCIENT PERSIA 2500 yrs ago!
PANG!
Shah Ismail was a Turk in ethnicity. The fact that barbarian invaders adopted the sophisticated Persian culture is nothing new, for example German barbarians were not Romans but they adopted Roman civilization-but they were not Romans. The Pahlavi were the first "ethnic Iranians" to rule Iran/Persian in centuries-since Persia fell to Islam. Except for a brief period of rule by Indo-Aryan Pushtans from Afghanistan (The ghilzai Dynasty (1722-1729)) the rulers of Iran have been Arabs for a short period and then Persianized Mongolo-Turks until the early 20th century.
The Greek Empires.
Greek Empire lasted a few years right after the Alexandre invasion. Yeah, but not so many years!
Parthians & Sasanid dynasties drove Greek out of the land of Persians.
http://www.parstimes.com/Iran_history.html
I hope to one day see a free Iran but the articles premis that Iran has been ruled by Iranians is off base. Iran has been ruled by non-ethnic Iranians who adopted to Persian culture on and off since 649 A.D. when Zoroastrian Sassaind Persia fell to the Arabs.
Islam enslaved the ethnic Iranians. The Pahalvis should have not re-embraced Zoroastrianisim and re-converted the nation.
Oops - it is getting late - this should read - Islam enslaved the ethnic Iranians. The Pahalvis should have re-embraced Zoroastrianisim and re-converted the nation.
The Sassanids established an empire roughly within the frontiers achieved by the Achaemenids, with the capital at Ctesiphon. The Sassanids consciously sought to resuscitate Iranian traditions and to obliterate Greek cultural influence. Their rule was characterized by considerable centralization, ambitious urban planning, agricultural development, and technological improvements. Sassanid rulers adopted the title of shahanshah (king of kings), as sovereigns over numerous petty rulers, known as shahrdars. Historians believe that society was divided into four classes: the priests, warriors, secretaries, and commoners. The royal princes, petty rulers, great landlords, and priests together constituted a privileged stratum, and the social system appears to have been fairly rigid.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/sassanids/sassanids.php
It's a shame that so many people in this country-even some of those people who occupy high offices-don't truly understand the underlying causes and ultimate consequences of the Iran-Iraq War, which was the first real Persian Gulf War of the Modern era, if you exclude the military expedition Nasser sent to Yemen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.