March 26, 2007

ETHNICITY UBER ALLES:

The Most Un-Islamic Republic of Persia (Spengler, 3/27/07, Asia Times)

Iran's uninterrupted tantrum over the portrayal of the 5th-century BC Persian Empire in a US film is very Persian, but not at all Islamic. It has gone unnoticed in the shouting over 300 that the Koran explicitly welcomed the destruction of the pagan (Zoroastrian) empire at the hands of the Byzantine Christians a millennium after the Spartans and their allies defended the pass at Thermopylae. Iran's identification with pre-Islamic Persian paganism is decidedly un-Islamic.

Writing of the destruction of the Sassanid Empire at the hands of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius at the Battle of Issus in AD 628, the Koran hailed a "victory for believers", namely the Christian monotheists of the Eastern Roman Empire, over the Persian heathens. The Romans at first would be defeated (as they were when the Persians occupied Jerusalem in 615), but they would rise and win again, and "on that day, the believers shall rejoice" (Sura 30, verses 2-4). The Sura is by no means obscure, for Islamic scholars cite it as an example of a Koranic prophecy that came true.

That does not square with the declaration last Friday of Iran's embassy in France denouncing the local release of the film 300: "Throughout history, the Iranian culture has always advocated peace ... As a result, any wrong image about Iranian culture will be void of value and will be accordingly judged by those familiar with the history of the world."


Even setting aside the Sunni/Shi'a divide, folks who were fretting about the danger of a united Islam waging war on the West never reckoned with Persian contempt for the Arabs.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 26, 2007 7:17 AM
Comments

Concerning the previous thread where you said:

If the Iranians started sailing around NY Harbor or the mouth of the Thames you think we'd not stop them?

The answer of course is, no we wouldn't unless they were in our territorial waters - unlike the Brits kidnapped by your Iranian buds who were in international waters. You may as well have sided with the NoKos during the Pueblo incident. Soviet boomers used to cruise up and down our coast during the Cold War, just outside the limit. Not once did we attack one of their subs.

And as for your follow up statement:

The Iranians have a freer society than we do."

Now that I've picked my jaw off the floor over that one, would you care to elaborate?

In the meantime, we need to come up with a nick name for you. "Lord Haw Haw" and "Tokyo Rose" have already been taken. How about "Jihad Judd" or "the Mullah's B***h" (MB for short)?

How long are you going to defend Evil and be its spokesperson?

Posted by: Pez at March 26, 2007 11:10 AM

Taking down Communism never led to uniting the inmates of the jailhouse of nations, as we have seen. Likewise, removing this or that dictator within the spiritual jailhouse allows the confusion of the enemy to boil over.

When tyranny falls, it would be unnatural for for peoples, sects, factions and whatever to go their own ways. At the end of history, all that is not the world government becomes San Marino and Andorra.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 26, 2007 11:16 AM

Bingo! The North Koreans won the Pueblo incident too.

Posted by: oj at March 26, 2007 12:31 PM

BTW: My jihadi name is Mullah OJ

Posted by: oj at March 26, 2007 12:42 PM

Isn't it ironic that the senior military commander is a Greek? as someone pointed
out,

Posted by: narciso at March 26, 2007 2:43 PM

His heritage is Greek. He's an American.

Posted by: erp at March 26, 2007 3:39 PM

Not Ayatollah OJ? Of course, you are too young to be Grand.

Posted by: ratbert at March 26, 2007 4:58 PM
« THE NEXT W: | Main | BECAUSE THE BANLIEUE'S NEED A POLITICAL PARTY TOO: »