This thread appears to have been intended to inflame passions and bring out prejudice against Iran and Iranians. That is my biggest gripe about it having noticed it only now. As for the supposed topic of the thread: 1- The Tehran Times is an English language mouthpiece of the regime which engages in offering propoganda. The paper itself has no serious circulation within Iran. 2- The author of that piece didn't need to necessarily believe in what he was writing since he is propogandist. The same way the people at FOX who push their propoganda aren't always trying to spread the truth. 3- It is not an unknown practice among propogandists to try to undermine one group/individual/organization by associating it with another one that they deem "unpopular" among their readers. For instance, attempts here in the US linking Saddam Hussein to Al Queda, or now Iran to that organization. Or, even as evidenced in this thread, the ignorant (probably conciously so) attempt to label Iranians as Arabs. Propoganda does not win by the factual content or accuracy of its propositions, but by whether there is enough of an ignorant grass route to fall for its distortions! In the meantime, many propogandist assertions are meant merely to rile up and attack its targets, putting them on the "defensive" having to explain the real facts. 4- The piece in the Tehran Times does show that "Zionists" are believed to be an "unpopular" breed for those who are the readers and targets of the paper (including Arab media, most of whom don't read Persian but follow Iranian news through English publications). The attempt here is to undermine the credibility of Al Jazeera -- and more broadly any form of Arab nationalism that brings it at odds with either Iranian natonalism (e.g., the Persian Gulf episode) or regime ideology. 5- All that said, shame on those publications, to include recently the National Geographic, who are pandering to Arabs by aiding and abetting an attempt to change the conventional and popular name for the body of water known as the Persian Gulf -- one that hopefully be known by that name forever.
This thread is almost as good as the "Smack-Off" prelims in the MLS Rivalries forum. Where's Loney's entry ?
Now, that is a constructive illumination/background on the "media source" that spawned this thread, although I do not see why you think the thread starter "intended to inflame passions and bring out prejudice against Iran and Iranians." The article is ridiculous, and it is not unreasonable to question whether the author or his readers actually believe it. IMO, a defensive, possbily insecure Iranian decided to make himself an easy target by overreacting, assuming the worst case, and selectively distorting other people's words.
well IF you want to compare broadcasting channels to funding terrorism, cnn is on top of that list as it paid Alqaeda $200,000 for each interview so why won't you expel cnn on top of that.
That's funny, because the exact reciprocal is resoundingly true. It's your barbaric "european" anscestors who believed brutally colonizing and/or massacring tribal natives in North America, South America, and Africa was something to take pride in. The Persians controlled over 4/5th of the known world ("known" from a Greek and Persian perspective) during the reign of the Achaemenids. Persia/Iran has been a superpower (and at times, the only superpower) during the following spans of history: 559-300 BC (the Achaemenid empire), 250 BC-226 AD-651 AD (the Parthian and Sassanid empires, respectively), around the 1000s AD (the Samanid empire), 1501 AD - 1736 AD (the Safavid empire), 1786 AD-...the decline of Iran's influence, reach, and power on the world front (the Qajar dynasty). Self-delusional historical revisionists like yourself, who have no grounding or interest in the nature of this world's history [aside from things that confirm that which they'd like to hold a firm belief in], should not involve themselves in matters beyond their cognitive scope. I'm not going to type up a hundred page long list of revolutionary Persian accomplishments (it's been done plenty of times before in book* format), and the current state of Iranians in diaspora as it pertains to how they immensely benefit the societies that have taken them in. If you can't objectively acknowledge such things on your own time and effort, you aren't really of "conversion" value. *A set of written, printed, or blank pages fastened along one side and encased between protective covers.
Roar! politic nerds it's your lord the almighty persiantiger blessing you with yet another response, bow down bitches. Whoa segroves my bitch i said "bow" not bend, now put your collar which reads the holy words of "persian tiger" on it back on your fat neck you alchoholic casino running dumb piece of cheese. The sad thing is some of my other american female dogs like gringo-tex and a few who have posted here actually kiss this one's buttocks for some reason. MLS rivalries king of smack? pathetic. I is da World rivalries king biatch. Vuht? Bring it on chickly didly googooly........SLAP! now that you're sleeping with the fishes don't do what jackson does to small boys, remember it might be O.K to sleep with em but not to do other stuff to em so your stick being able to pleasure small fishies is understandable but not a good excuse. Die Motha Fu<ker, Co<k Sucker. p.s your dad's mr.slave from south park die slow bitch die slow.
I remember when I found out the hard way that Segroves is an Indian. But I find it amusing that, after chastising the American for our treatment of the people who were here first, you define the "known world" as the part of the globe known to the Greeks. I'm sure that Indians both Western Hemispher and sub-continental, as well as East Asians, Eskimos, sub-Saharan Africans, and aborignial Aussies appreciate your expansive notion of 'the world.'
He means the known world of 2500 years ago when North America had not been discovered yet: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/PERSIANS.HTM
Oh God Mani, are you back with this weak sauce? Man, in how many threads are you going to post your pathetic knowledge of history?
My point exactly--known by whom? Really, I'm not offended, I just think you look foolish by making grandiose claims about the 'known world' instead of sticking to the facts--which is that Persia was an important and powerful civilization in the ancient Near East and has a long and illustrious history. Why do you move the goalposts with this "known world" silliness? It really, really doesn't impress anyone.
Do you need more sources or do you have a source that says otherwise about the known world in 450-400 BC?
The known world by all the civilizations that existed at that time! And I didn't write that article it's academic material of Washington State University!
Did anyone say anything about China? China's first real unified states were the Ch’in dynasty and Han dynasty (221-207, 202 BC-9 AD) We were talking about the known world and states of 400-500 BC
So by 'civilization' you mean 'unified nation-state.' Thanks for clearing that up. This roll-eyes thingy is fun, isn't it?
Oh, I don't know, how about India? Magadha, Gupta, etc. Persia only touched NW India. The Persians controlled the world as it was known to THEM, and not even. They certainly never controlled the Greek states.
Why are you taking information on China from Persian websites? What about the Chou dynasty? I'd certainly call that centralized enough. Just because they didn't control all of what is called China today doesn't mean they weren't "unified states", especially since the Persian Empire was largely composed of satrapies, not of wholly controlled nations. The Roman Empire it was not.
No, China's civilizations are as old as any other civilization but the Chinese cultures were not known to any other non-Chinese civilization untill very recent times. The "known world" in 400-500 BC was mostly West Asia, North Africa and Southern Europe.
Can you provide a link that supports this argument? Show me one article that says "The Persians controlled the world as it was known to THEM" Persians controled 4/5 of the world known to Greeks, Egyptians, and any other major civilization that existed at that time.
...if you lived IN West Asia, North Africa, or Southern Europe. Really, that's all I'm saying. Can't you find a better way to promote Iranian culture than overblown false claims? Except for a brief period of expansion westward, the various Persian Empires were regional powers, were they not?
History is, ultimately, an exercise that involves generalization that try to discriminate relevant from irrelevant facts, with the latter issue colored by certain (shall we say) 'civilizational biases'. Such generalizations perforce omit a lot of details. In this exercise, from the perspective of those who write about Western civilization history, it is rather conventional to talk about the Persian Empire ruling much of the then known world. Of course, what is meant by that is the world known to the ancient Greeks. There were, of course, other regions unknown to the Greeks, but they are not deemed to have played any role in the development of Western Civilization history -- nor played any role in shaping or understanding it. Hence, they become irrelevant when history is being written from that perspective. I see nothing wrong with those who remind us that the world did in fact encumpass other regions and civilizations even at that time, but by the same token I don't think it is inappropriate for someone (writing in English) to continue the conventional historical usages on this issue either. From the perspective of today's political events, the importance of Iranian history, in any case, is not so much in the real historical facts, but Iranian perceptions of it and its meaning. Otherwise, until more recent times, Iranian understanding of their historical past was quite distorted and not always complete, with that understanding mainly based on a history that contained a lot of mythology in accounts as presented in such works as Ferdowsi's epic The Book of Kings (Shahnameh). In terms of Iranian perception of their history, however, there is a remarkable and singular continuity: Ever since the demise of the Achaeminids, Iranians have clinged to the notion that they are the legitimate flag bearers of a "glorious past", with that notion passed from one generation to the next even as the details regarding that "glorious past" have at times been forgotten and other times been distorted. But that pereception of the Iranian past, having survived from one generation to the next, has itself been a key force in Iranian history: This expression of "Iranian exceptionalism" has essentially given Iranian history an "ideological motif" -- one that has shaped past events and promises to color future ones as well.
You are hopeless! Persia of 350-500 BC wasn't a "regional power" it was the was the largest empire the world had ever seen and the very first superpower ever made. Most scholars agree with this fact. Exerpt from Kenneth M. Pollack's The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran and America (Random House, 2004).
Wait a minute. Who the hell cares if Persia was the biggest superpower in the world circa 400 BC? Today their culture revolves around which bare hand they wipe their asses with. The left one, correct?