It's an editorial, not a news clip. There's a huge difference that needs to be registered. There are just as many "wacko" conspiracy theories printed in the US press in the form of editorials.
Other than Jeep and Kevin Costner (a.k.a Dances with Wolves), what US whites "ride the Sioux or Cherokee thing."
No, that is not what you "snipped". The quote you attributed to me is this, "I'd guess they do. If not, then hopefully they don't." While what I actually stated is this, "If Tehran Times is a respected source for most Iranians, I'd guess they do. If not, then hopefully they don't. I don't know anything about them." If those two versions of reality are interchangeable for you, then I have little choice but to dismiss you as: 1) a lying crapbag, 2) dimly unaware of how easy it is to review the record of your posted words, or 3) just too gutless to admit you made a mistake. Or, perhaps, you are just selectively self-enlightened.
I didn't make a mistake you incompetent fool. You just corroborated what I stated. You forwarded two sentences, I made a comment on them. You asked me how I arrived at the conclusion I made, I provided one of the two sentences and my interpretation. Then you asked me to quote you in full, in which case, I proceeded to quote the portion I snipped (i.e. the first sentence). I have enough confidence in the average intelligence of this forum's members to believe that they can weed together two sentences quoted separately, but treated the exact same way. Although, as with any other probability based assumption, outliers exist- namely, morons like you. The fact of the matter is that both sentences, either taken independently, or taken together, connotate the same thing. You haven't even attempted to show how the two sentences complement each other in a fashion that would degrade the two mutually converging opinions I formed of each of them, in isolation. If you're worried about what I placed in the quote tags, don't worry your pretty little head about such technicalities. Those last brain cells are precious, cling to them like flypaper.
Oops, I almost forgot: 4) all of the above -- a lying crapbag, who is dimly unaware of how easy it is to review the record of your posted words, and just too gutless to admit a mistake.
Actually, ancient Iranians left Europe for the Iranian Plateau. They left behind a bunch of inbred monkeys who used "witchcraft" and "chants" as a medical practice, while they went on to perform cataract surgery in Persia.
How exactly does that link make you right you fvcking by-product of circle jerks? What does an article on the comments of an Arab, Iraqi sheikh have to do with that of an editorial in some obscure Persian, Iranian newspaper? Even if you could provide some source (upon exhausting google) for an Iranian story of similar extraction, my stereotypes still apply to you just as well as yours would to me or any other random Iranian. Now go back to fingering your cousin.
In the mean time, I'll wait for you to do exactly that. Until then, you've officially conceded that you belong in the illiterate c0ckface hall of fame (record and reference, it's official). Somehow, because you have trouble focuing on specifics, you believe that throwing your arms in the air in despair by providing us with a string of nonsensical, vague, rhetorical fragments is going to help your case.
That picture is actually real--it's a work of perspective, the spiders are normal camel spiders (which are big, about the size of tarantulas IIRC, but not as grotesquely big as they're made to look out in the picture), but the angle that the shot is taken at makes the eye compare the spiders to the soldier standing in the background, which of course makes them look huge. To get a better perspective of their size, compare them to the shirt cuff of the soldier holding them--they're big spiders, but they're not anything out of "8 Legged Freaks". The giant spider sermon is a different story altogether, that was just some sheik talking out of his ass (altho it could've been inspired by the camel spider picture, which has been circulating around the internet--and presumably in Iraq--for year or so now).
You might want to reconsider this path of comparing medical -- or social, political, economic, scientific and technological -- advances in Europe and Iran or any Islam-dominated region. It's a sad fact, a symptom of narrow intolerance, but there is no comparison. Europeans also struggled with religion-imposed limits on progress, but have largely overcome them. 13 centuries down the line, can you say the same of Iran or any Islam-dominated society? Does stating that truth make me selective or self-enlightened?
Like it or not, Iran was a formidable world power up until roughly 300 years ago, and it has spent most of its history as a world power. The fact that Iranian society is being held back by Islamic dogma in relatively recent terms, still isn't accounting for what Iranians immigrants have contributed to various scientific and non-scientific disciplines across the globe, and still does nothing to tarnish its glorious past (in the scientific and cultural sphere).