Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

From 'countercurrents' a quiz on Iran - with answers afterwards.



Can You Pass The Iran Quiz?

What can possibly justify the relentless U.S. diplomatic (and mainstream media) assault on Iran ?

It cannot be argued that Iran is an aggressive state that is dangerous to its neighbors, as facts do not support this claim. It cannot be relevant that Iran adheres to Islamic fundamentalism, has a flawed democracy and denies women full western-style civil rights, as Saudi Arabia is more fundamentalist, far less democratic and more oppressive of women, yet it is a U.S. ally. It cannot be relevant that Iran has, over the years, had a nuclear research program, and is most likely pursuing the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, as Pakistan, India, Israel and other states are nuclear powers yet remain U.S. allies—indeed, Israel deceived the U.S. while developing its nuclear program.

The answer to the above-posed question is fairly obvious: Iran must be punished for leaving the orbit of U.S. control. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, when the Shah was removed, Iran, unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, acts independently and thus compromises U.S. power in two ways: i) Defiance of U.S. dictates affects the U.S.’s attainment of goals linked to Iran; and, ii) Defiance of U.S. dictates establishes a “bad” example for other countries that may wish to pursue an independent course. The Shah could commit any number of abuses—widespread torture, for example—yet his loyalty to the U.S. exempted him from American condemnation—yet not from the condemnation of the bulk of Iranians who brought him down.

The following quiz is an attempt to introduce more balance into the mainstream discussion of Iran.

Iran Quiz Questions :

1. Is Iran an Arab country?

2. Has Iran launched an aggressive war of conquest against another country since 1900?

3. How many known cases of an Iranian suicide-bomber have there been from 1989 to 2007?

4. What was Iran ’s defense spending in 2008?

5. What was the U.S. ’s defense spending in 2008?

6. What is the Jewish population of Iran ?

7. Which Iranian leader said the following? “This [ Israel 's] Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

8. True of False: Iranian television presented a serial sympathetic to Jews during the Holocaust that coincided with President Ahmadinejad’s first term.

9. What percentage of students entering university in Iran is female?

10. What percentage of the Iranian population attends Friday prayers?

11. True or False: Iran has formally consented to the Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative with Israel.

12. Which two countries were responsible for orchestrating the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s populist government of democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, primarily because he introduced legislation that led to the nationalization of Iranian oil?

13. Who made the following address on March 17, 2000? “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”

14. Which countries trained the Shah’s brutal internal security service, SAVAK?

15. Does Iran have nuclear weapons?

16. Is Iran a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

17. Is Israel a signatory of the NPT?

18. Does the NPT permit a signatory to pursue a nuclear program?

19. Who wrote the following in 2004? "Wherever U.S forces go, nuclear weapons go with them or can be made to follow in short order. The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy. Though Iran is ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, most commentators who are familiar with the country do not regard its government as irrational. … (i)t was Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran, not the other way around; since then Iran has been no more aggressive than most countries are. For all their talk of opposition to Israel , Iran ’s rulers are very unlikely to mount a nuclear attack on a country that is widely believed to have what it takes to wipe them off the map. Chemical or other attacks are also unlikely, given the meager results that may be expected and the retaliation that would almost certainly follow.”

20. What percentage of Iranians in 2008 said they had an unfavorable view of the American people?

21. What percentage of Iranians in 2008 expressed negative sentiments toward the Bush administration?

22. What were the main elements of Iran’s 2003 Proposal to the U.S., communicated during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, and how did the U.S. respond to Iran’s Proposal?

23. True or False: Iran and the U.S. both considered the Taleban to be an enemy after the 9/11 attacks.

24. Did the U.S. work with the Tehran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq both before and after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq?

25. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, who said the following? "The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States ."

26. Who wrote the following in 2004? “It is in the interests of the United States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the ‘democracy deficit’ that pervades the Middle East …”

Iran Quiz Answers :

1. No. Alone among the Middle Eastern peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Iranians did not lose their language or their identity. Ethnic Persians make up 60 percent of modern Iran, modern Persian (not Arabic) is the official language, Iran is not a member of the Arab League, and the majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. Accordingly, based on language, ancestry and religion, Iran is not an Arab country. ( http://www.slate.com/id/1008394/ )

2. No.

-According to Juan Cole, the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, Iran has not launched such a war for at least 150 years. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p.199.)

-It should be appreciated that Iran did not start the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s: “ The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq’s long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. Iraq was also aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War)

3. Zero. There is not a single known instance of an Iranian suicide-bomber since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. ( Robert Baer; The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower; Crown Publishers; New York: 2008.)

-According to Baer, an American author and a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, it is i mportant to understand that Iran has used suicide bombers as the ultimate “smart bomb.” In fact there is little difference between a suicide-bomber and a marine who rushes a machine-gun nest to meet his certain death. Therefore, while Iran had used suicide bombers for tactical military purposes, Sunni extremists use suicide bombing for vague objectives such as to weaken the enemy or purify the state.

4. $9.6 billion. ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e25279.htm )

5. $692 billion. ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e25279.htm )

-There is also little doubt that Israel could defeat Iran in a conventional war in mere hours. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p p.206-7.)

6. 25,000. It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. After the 1979 Islamic revolution, thousands of Jews left for Israel, Western Europe or the U.S., fearing persecution. But Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s first post-revolutionary supreme leader, issued a fatwa, upon his return from exile in Paris, decreeing that the Jews and other religious minorities were to be protected, thus reducing the outflow of Iran’s Jews to a trickle. ( http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html )

7. Ruhollah Khomeini. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York : 2009; p.201.)

-This wasn’t a surprising statement to come from the leader of the 1979 Revolution as Israel had been a firm ally of both the U.S. and the Shah.

-According to Cole, Ahmadinejad quoted this statement in 2005 yet wire service translators rendered Khomeini’s statement into English as “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map.” Yet, Khomeini had referred to the occupation regime not Israel , and while he expressed a wish for the regime to go away he didn’t threaten to go after Israel . In fact, a regime can vanish without any outside attacks, as happened to the Shah’s regime in Iran and to the USSR. It is notable that when Khomeini made the statement in the 1980s, there was no international outcry. In fact, in the early 1980s, Khomeini supplied Israel with petroleum in return for American spare parts for the American-supplied Iranian arsenal. As both Israel and Iran considered Saddam’s Iraq a serious enemy, they had a tacit alliance against Iraq during the first phase of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. It should also be noted that Ahmadinejad subsequently stated he didn’t want to kill any Jews but rather he wants a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. While Ahmadinejad’s preferred solution is a non-starter, Israel ’s refusal to pursue a comprehensive peace creates space for Arab hardliners whose agendas do not include a realistic peace with Israel .

8. True. Iranian television ran a widely watched serial on the Holocaust, Zero Degree Turn , based on true accounts of the role Iranian diplomats in Europe played in rescuing thousands of Jews in WWII.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJljqWQA ... re=related )

9. Over 60%. ( M. Axworthy; A History of Iran : Empire of the Mind; Basic Books; New York : 2008.)

-In fact, many women—even married women—have professional jobs.

10. 1.4%. ( M. Axworthy; A History of Iran : Empire of the Mind; Basic Books; New York : 2008.)

11. True. In March 2002, the Arab League summit in Beirut unanimously put forth a peace initiative that commits it not just to recognize Israel but also to establish normal relations once Israel implements the international consensus for a comprehensive peace—which includes Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories and a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee crisis. (This peace initiative has been subsequently reaffirmed including at the March 2009 Arab League summit at Doha.) All 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, including Iran , "adopted the Arab peace initiative to resolve the issue of Palestine and the Middle East … and decided to use all possible means in order to explain and clarify the full implications of this initiative and win international support for its implementation." ( Norman G. Finkelstein; This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion; OR Books; New York : 2010; p. 42.)

12. The U.S. and Britain . ( Stephen Kinzer; All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New Jersey: 2008.)

-According to Kinzer, Iranians had been complaining that the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) had not been sharing profits on Iranian petroleum with Iran fairly; and Iran’s parliament (Majles) had tried to renegotiate with the AIOC. When the AIOC rejected renegotiation, Mossadegh introduced the nationalization act in 1951. In response, Britain and the U.S. organized a global boycott of Iran which sent the Iranian economy into a tailspin. Later, the military coup was orchestrated that reinstalled the shah. (One irony is that Britain itself had nationalized several industries in the 1940s and 1950s.)

13. Madeleine Albright: U.S. Secretary of State , 1997 -2001. ( Stephen Kinzer; All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New Jersey : 2008; p.212.)

14. According to William Blum, a highly respected author and journalist, "The notorious Iranian security service, SAVAK, which employed torture routinely, was created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel in the 1950s. According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, Jesse J. Leaf, SAVAK was instructed in torture techniques by the Agency. After the 1979 revolution, the Iranians found CIA film made for SAVAK on how to torture women." (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Torture_RS.html)

-According to Reed College Professor Darius Rejali, one of the world’s leading writers on the subject of torture and the consequences of its use for modern society, “[T]he Iranian revolution of 1978-1979 was the revolution against torture. When the Shah criticized Khomayni as a blackrobed Islamic medieval throwback, Khomayni replied, look who is talking, the man who tortures. This was powerful rhetoric for recruiting people, then as it is now. People joined the revolutionary opposition because of the Shah’s brutality, and they remembered who installed him. If anyone wants to know why Iranians hated the U.S. so, all they have to do is ask what America ’s role was in promoting torture in Iran . Torture not only shaped the revolution, it was the factor that has deeply poisoned the relationship of Iran with the West. So why trust the West again? And the Iranian leadership doesn’t.” ( http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002387 )

15. No.

-"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program …” “ We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.” ( U.S. National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities November 2007

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf )

-According to U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Chief Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, "The bottom line assessments of the [National Intelligence Estimate] still hold true, " … We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the [nuclear weapons] program." (http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/g ... 5_1438.php)

16. Yes. ( http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04 ... -Iran.html )

17. No. ( http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04 ... -Iran.html )

18. Yes.

-According to Juan Cole, The NPT specifies that “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Therefore, as long as Iran meets its responsibilities under the NPT and continues to allow inspections by the IAEA, it is acting within its rights. The sorts of research facilities maintained by Iran are common in industrialized countries. The real issue is trust and transparency rather than purely one of technology. Yet, Iran has not always been forthcoming in fulfilling its obligations under the NPT.

The Ford administration of the mid-1970s produced a memo saying that the shah’s regime must “prepare against the time … when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply.” Iran ’s energy reserves are extensive, so that fear was misplaced. But Iran already uses domestically 2 million of the 4 million barrels a day it produces, and it could well cease being an exporter and even become a net importer in the relatively near future. (This helps explain Iran’s focus on nuclear energy. Yet, the desire for nuclear weapons isn’t irrational either.) Ford authorized a plutonium reprocessing plant for Iran , which could have allowed it to close the fuel cycle, a step toward producing a bomb.

In the 1970s, GE and Westinghouse won contracts to build eight nuclear reactors in Iran . The shah intimated that Iran would seek nuclear weapons, without facing any adverse consequences beyond some reprimands from the U.S. or Western Europe . In contrast, Khomeini was horrified by the idea of using weapons of mass destruction, and he declined to deploy chemical weapons at the front in the Iran-Iraq War, even though Saddam had no such compunctions and extensively used mustard gas and sarin on Iranian troops. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009)

19. Martin van Creveld: Distinguished professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem . ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/opini ... _ed3_.html )
-It should not be surprising that Creveld would deem it rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons. "For more than half a century, Britain and the US have menaced Iran . In 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh, an inspired nationalist who believed that Iranian oil belonged to Iran . They installed the venal shah and, through a monstrous creation called SAVAK, built one of the most vicious police states of the modern era. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was inevitable and very nasty, yet it was not monolithic and, through popular pressure and movement from within the elite, Iran has begun to open to the outside world – in spite of having sustained an invasion by Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged and backed by the US and Britain.
At the same time, Iran has lived with the real threat of an Israeli attack, possibly with nuclear weapons, about which the ‘international community’ has remained silent.” ( http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=8533 )



20. 20%. ( Juan Cole; Engaging The Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York : 2009; p.197.)

21. 75%. ( Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; ( New York : 2009); p.197.)

-One wonders what the percentage of Canadians—or Americans—held the same view?

22. According to the Washington Post, “Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces … an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States , and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran …” ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 27_pf.html )

23. True. According to Ali M. Ansari, Professor of Iranian history at the University of St. Andrews, “[K]hatami, moved quickly to offer his condolences to the US President [after the 9/11 attacks]. … [T]he Iranians soon recognized the opportunity that now confronted them. The United States was determined to dismantle Al Qaeda, and in the face of Taleban obstinacy decided on the removal of the Taleban. Nothing could be more amenable to the Iranians, who had been waging a proxy war against the Taleban for the better part of five years. … The collaboration which took place both during and after the war against the Taleban seemed to inaugurate a period of détente between Iran and the United States … It came as something of a shock therefore to discover that President Bush had decided to label Iran part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ … Now it appeared that the [Iranian] hardliners within the regime had been correct after all; the United States could not be trusted …” ( Ali M. Ansari; Modern Iran: The Pahlavis and After Second Edition; Pearson Education; Great Britain: 2007; pp. 331-332.)

24. Yes. ( http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how ... cy_in_iraq )

-One wonders what the Bush administration thought the party name entailed? Would it have been unreasonable to assume it had good relations with Iran and might support an Islamic Revolution?

-In 2007, the party, showing good public relations, changed its name to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq .

25. Flynt Leverett: Senior director for Middle East affairs in the U.S. National Security Council from March 2002 to March 2003. He left the George W. Bush Administration and government service in 2003 because of disagreements about Middle East policy and the conduct of the war on terror. ( http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590 )

26. A task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and chaired by two prominent members of the American foreign policy establishment, former CIA director Robert Gates and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, recommended “a revised strategic approach to Iran.” Their report included the above statement. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false )

Jeffrey Rudolph, a college professor in Montreal, was the Quebec representative of the East Timor Alert Network, and presented a paper on its behalf at the United Nations. He prepared the widely-distributed, “Can You Pass the Israel-Palestine Quiz,” which can be found at,
http://www.countercurrents.org/rudolph180608.htm


This quiz is from:
http://www.countercurrents.org/rudolph240410.htm

I've always given kudos to the Iranian govts for not giving a rats @ss about what the west or US has to say.

According to Cole, Ahmadinejad quoted this statement in 2005 yet wire service translators rendered Khomeini’s statement into English as “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map.” Yet, Khomeini had referred to the occupation regime not Israel , and while he expressed a wish for the regime to go away he didn’t threaten to go after Israel . In fact, a regime can vanish without any outside attacks, as happened to the Shah’s regime in Iran and to the USSR. It is notable that when Khomeini made the statement in the 1980s, there was no international outcry. In fact, in the early 1980s, Khomeini supplied Israel with petroleum in return for American spare parts for the American-supplied Iranian arsenal. As both Israel and Iran considered Saddam’s Iraq a serious enemy, they had a tacit alliance against Iraq during the first phase of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. It should also be noted that Ahmadinejad subsequently stated he didn’t want to kill any Jews but rather he wants a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. While Ahmadinejad’s preferred solution is a non-starter, Israel ’s refusal to pursue a comprehensive peace creates space for Arab hardliners whose agendas do not include a realistic peace with Israel .

Absolutely, Arab hardliners agenda does not include realistic peace with Israel. How can they when their leadership had sold themselves mainly to American, British led coalition interests in the region.

Arabs can never initiate realistic peace under allied led coalition couse it's against Allied's interests therefore Arab interests...Allies set up israel using the country and it's administration as a hub for controlling economic and political interest in ME, once ME is under control, then ME bocomes a regional hub to control central Asian politics and economy. Therefore any failure to control middleast and failure to stop political uprise or new civilisation rising and spreading from middle east means allies loosing political power all around the world, especailly against Russia since Russia has lands central to both Europe and Asia...
Now besides Russia, allies now have another threat coming from China and India by size.(Pakistan, Afghanistan have already been seized if not ceased completely)
So middle east is politically becoming evermore critical an important hub in the eyes of allies, Something that should never be lost at all costs.. Now we will see how this reality will effect developments in ME and future of Israel..

Iran certainly will always get the slap on the face..becouse no indipendent and strong civilastion should rise from ME..To stop such civilization from rising they should never be allowed to own nuclear power and strong armies, continue to stay in poverty and under sanctions..any ME academicians and intellects posses ideology that contradits emperial power interests should be eradicated just like the same way they do it for the ones coming from Saddam regime.(At least this is what we've seen so far)

This Just reminds me what Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Minister at the time of the Khilafah’s demise in 1924 announced to the House of Commons:

“We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the
sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we
must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be
intellectual or cultural unity.”

If You don't believe this then see how superpowers of the day view Islam and it's opposing leaders and itellects as threat to its very existence...This is one of the reasons why I am %99.9 behind Iran's current administration.

Here is another info which tells us what happens to regimes and leaders who don't cooperate with emperalist hegemony..
According to UN figures %84 of Iraqs higher education institutes are burnt down,looted and demolished.
Those nations which planned invasion of Iraq are systematically killing young scientists of iraq, one by one according to the list they prepared since 1991 by using ethnic backgrounds as spying agents in cooperation with interior and defense ministry of iraq.

Some of the organised iraqi nationalist groups in interior and defence ministry report that "death squads" been set up by American/British/Israeli led secret services have assasinated more than 7000 intellects up to now..This is not all and are only registered figures coming from Baghdat morgue..

Mossad mission: Murder Iraqi scholars
Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:47:45 GMT

More than 500 Iraqi scientists and professors have been murdered by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, an Iraqi newspaper reports.

The report stated that the killings were part of a mission to get rid of those Iraqi nuclear specialists and university professors that refused to cooperate with the Zionist regime.

The assassinations were carried out by Mossad and the US Defense Department - the Pentagon.

So far 350 scientists and 200 professors have been surreptitiously murdered by Israeli Mossad commandoes, deployed to Iraq exclusively to carry out these atrocities.

According to the US State Department, these killings came after Washington's attempts to entice Iraqi scientists to cooperate with the US failed.

Many specialists living in the US also refused to comply and fled, seeking refuge in other countries. Those willing to cooperate suffered grueling interrogations and even torture by the hands of US officials.

According to the Al-Bayna newspaper, Tel Aviv sees these scientists posing a threat to the security of the Zionist regime, and has decided the best way to deal with this is to assassinate the offending intellectuals.

The Pentagon expressed its approval of such a scheme seven months ago, dispatching back-up for the Israeli commandoes, and also providing them with full personal records of the targeted victims.

The scholars are killed far from their homes in staged scenarios, taking advantage of the regularly expected bomb attacks happening every day in Iraq.

FBA/BGH

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=34 ... =351020201

Meet the current mafia state...Mr. spoilt prat of American/British led allies coalition .
(I call them like this becouse they enjoy their status as killjoy and surrender themselves to do the dirty work assigned to themselves from greedy west instead of advocating peace and regional prosperity)

Isreal...

As the Israeli aggression continues against the Muslims in Gaza, Muslim and many non-Muslims across the world have demonstrated against the atrocities committed by the Zionist entity. As images continue to be beamed across the world of dead bodies dumped outside hospitals and the bombing of schools even the influential pro-Israeli elements in the media are finding it difficult to justify Israel’s aggression. Attempts by some to secure a ceasefire are falling on deaf ears as the US continues to stand in the way of such actions.

The Western world since the creation of Israel has supported the Zionist entity – it is virtually impossible for Israel survive on its own. Understanding this is crucial as this defines who should be targeted in the current crisis and the stance people should take generally towards Israel.

British Strategic interests

Theodor Herzl is credited with founding political Zionism, a movement which sought to establish a Jewish state, by elevating the Jewish question onto the international scene. In 1896, Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), offering his vision of a future state; the following year he presided over the first World Zionist Congress.

In 1907 British Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman formed a committee with France, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. He gathered specialists in history, geography, economics, oil, agriculture and colonialism – to study possible ways to assure the continuity of European colonial interests. In his directives to the committee members, he outlined that empires grow in power to a certain extent, expand then gradually disintegrate and collapse. He asked them to find a way for delaying the fate of European colonialism which had reached its peak, at the time, when the sun never set on the British Empire. The committee’s key recommendation was: "There are people (Muslims) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects." Prime Minister Henry Bannerman, Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907

Although Argentina and Uganda were considered for the establishment of a Jewish homeland Britain viewed the plight and outright racism Jews experienced in Europe from a strategic perspective. With the Ottomans on its final legs Britain and its European power brokers were determined that the Muslim world should never be able to unite and threaten Western interests ever again. David Fromkin, Professor and expert of Economic History at the University of Chicago describes the actions of the European colonialists: “With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty.” European colonialists led by Britain used the Zionist call for a Jewish homeland to achieve their own strategic interests in keeping the Muslim world in never ending wars with this entity never threatening colonial interest ever again.

Strategic support

Although British influence in the Middle East has been replaced by American influence the US is committed to protecting Israel, guaranteeing her security and securing a prosperous standard of living for the Jews living there. However this is not out of any moral obligation but due to strategic interests. It is these interests that have resulted in support of all types to Israel. With the population of the Palestinian territories forecasted to overtake that of Israel’s by 2019, Israel needs a strong economy to attract Jewish migration from across the world and then to maintain a high standard of living for them.

A cursory glance at Israel’s economy shows it is poor in natural resources, Israel depends on imports of oil, coal, food, production inputs and military equipment. Through a variety of agreements, deals and support from the West Israel has managed to develop the foundation of an industrial economy. With a population the size of Scotland Israel has an economy worth $185 billion. The European Union, US, Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Jordan and Egypt, have signed free trade agreements with Israel which means they all trade without any restrictions to trade, this has helped Israel in procuring raw materials.

Foreign markets are an important source of revenue for Israel, due to having a very small domestic market (due to its small population) it is forced to search for foreign markets to generate wealth. Industrialised nations generally focus 10% of their economy towards foreign trade (imports and exports). However 30% of the Israeli economy relies on exports, which is very high. Israel’s main exports 10 years ago were Jaffa orange and other agricultural products. Today’s exports are increasingly high-tech, an estimated 80% of the products Israel exports are high-tech and electronics components. However Israel is finding it is light years behind Japan, China and Germany in this very competitive sector. 40% of Israeli exports end up on US shores even though the US can make the same agricultural goods and computer hardware cheaper and of better quality.

Because of the strategic role Israel plays in the Middle East it has been spoilt with military hardware and technology which would have otherwise taken it decades to develop. The US spends over $5 billion every year in military aid where it funds foreign militaries, Israel is the largest recipient of this, receiving $2 billion every year, whilst $1.3 billion goes to Egypt. This has given Israel a huge advantage over its surrounding nations. The US is expectedto provide Israel with $30billion in military aid between 2008 and 2017

Britain the original father of Israel has never let its spoilt child down. The British governments own figures show it is selling more and more weapons to Israel, despite questions about the country’s use of force. In 2007, Britain approved £6 million of arms exports. In 2008, it licensed sales 12 times as fast: £20m in the first three months alone. Britain provides Israel with many of the technological components used in its military hardware. The licensees covered the export of armored vehicles and missile components that Israel regularly uses against the Muslims of Palestine. Major British companies such as HSBC, British Airways and British Gas have interests in Israel, trade is now well above £2.4 billion. In addition, many Israeli companies see the UK as an attractive placeto grow and expand their businesses. The UK, as an international financial hub, is the doorway to a world of opportunities for companies and entrepreneurs. More than 200 Israeli companies have set up operations in the UK, and that number continues to rise. Another 40 Israeli companies have already chosen the AIM (Alternative Investment Market – Market for new upcoming business which has fewer conditions compared to the FTSE100) stock exchange to raise capital, rather than the more expensive and distant option of the US.

The European Union describes Israel as “one of the EU's most established trading partners in the Euromed area ranking as the EU's 25th major trade partner,” on its European commission website. EU-Israeli trade is an all time high of €14 billion. The EU has a €30 billion arms industry that is competing internationally with the US and China, for these reasons the EU allows EU nations to compete freely in the arms markets, the EU hopes to encourage a restructuring of the continent's fractured arms industry so it is better able to tackle international rivals. Hence what Israel does with the arms purchased from the EU is of little concern to the EU

Political support
Israel is essentially a military aircraft carrier for the US and the Western world in the region. However Western support goes beyond providing Israel with military hardware and includes political support. The US Congress was notified in July 2006 in the midst of the Lebanon-Israel conflict of the sale of $210 million worth of jet fuel to Israel. The Defence George Bush Security Cooperation Agency noted that the sale of the JP-8 fuel, should it be completed, will "enable Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory." and "The jet fuel will be consumed while the aircraft is in use to keep peace and security in the region." It has been speculated that the US has also provided Israel with “bunker buster” bombs, which will be used to target the leader of Hizbollah and destroy its trenches. The US has also jointly developed the Arrow Anti-Ballistic Missile Program. The world’s only national operational missile defence system designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles, the Arrow is the most advanced missile defence system in the world. The development was funded by both Israel and the United States. Not only does the Arrow protect Israel, it has also provided the US the research and experience necessary to develop additional defensive weapons systems.

The Western world has also afforded Israel political support throughout its history. We witness again and again the veto of continues UN resolutions condemning Israel. Zalmay Khalilzad is reported to have received explicit instructionsfrom his superiors at the US State Department to torpedo any initiative proposed by the Arab bloc which is designed to grant the Security Council the status of an official arbiter that will have direct involvement with the current disentangling Gaza crisis. In July 2006 the United Nations Security Council rejected pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported the US was the only member of out the 15-nation UN body to oppose any council action at all. The US provided Israel with precession guided bombs which the British government denied any knowledge of landing and refuelling at British airports.

The Western world has created a lop sided balance of power structure in the region by spoiling Israel with military technology. This has given Israel an immense advantage over any negotiations in the region and it is this reason why Israel unilaterally continues with settlement construction to alter the very face of the region. The maintenance of this balance of power was no accident it has been carefully constructed to ensure US strategic interests are maintained. This is the reason the US is applying huge pressure on Iran for developing nuclear weapons, as this would change the geopolitics of the region. The US is also horrified of the deal signed by Russia and Iran for the S300 missile defence system. Such a missile defencesystem will completely alter the rules of the game as Iran could systematically take out 100 jets or missiles simultaneously

Conclusions

The current aggression we are witnessing has US blessings written all over it. Without US and Western support Israel would never be in the position it is in today. The Western world has also ensured its puppets in the Muslim world work with Israel and contribute towards strengthening it. From this perspective we should not miss the point and call for a halt in Israeli aggression as this would be the same as asking the dog to stop barking. Dealing with this problem requires an entity that has the will to threaten this Western strategic interest, the Arab nations collectively can pose such a challenge with the political will. The Muslims armies have the ability to change the status quo as each of the rulers in the Muslims world relies on the army to remain in power.

It should also be remembered that the US refuses to allow Israel to share the influence in the region with her. In order to prevent Israeli expansion and the spread of Israeli influence in the region, American policy has been based on isolating Israel from the rest of the region in an attempt to curtail her and minimise her role in the quest to solve the Palestinian issue and the Middle Eastern issue. US policy is centred around establishing a Palestinian state to act as an instrument of containment; by establishing a host of international guarantees and by bringing multinational forces to be deployed along the borders between Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries - Jordan, Syria, Egypt and the future Palestinian State. The American policy has also been based on working towards the internationalisation of Jerusalem, as America sees this internationalisation as a solution to the sensitive crisis of Jerusalem that would guarantee a strong American presence through the presence of the United Nations. Israeli invincibility is a myth and Israeli control on the global levers of power is an even bigger myth.

http://adnan-globalissues.blogspot.com/ ... -west.html

Now I guess we also see why iran has to stay shia and be supporters of shia regimes in the region standing upright against allies hegemony. In return we see why araps have to fall out with iran continuously since this situation is the objective of western powers through the puppet leadership or Araps.
Who is benefiting from all of this anarchy?...of course noone other than currupt leaders and capital holders who lay their hands on the dirty wealth at the expense of dying innocent people/soldiers and children, what is there for the people of ME countries..of course false promises and baits such as, so called "liberation- of hearts and minds"- "human rights" etc. My only hope that at least China and to some extent Russia and India gets stronger, so that this will leave some room for Arabs to have some sort of manoeuvre to repulse some of the imperial influence.

Berrin you have some serious cut and paste talent man

shafique wrote:Iran Quiz Answers :

1. No. Alone among the Middle Eastern peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Iranians did not lose their language or their identity. Ethnic Persians make up 60 percent of modern Iran, modern Persian (not Arabic) is the official language, Iran is not a member of the Arab League, and the majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. Accordingly, based on language, ancestry and religion, Iran is not an Arab country. ( http://www.slate.com/id/1008394/ )

1) All Iranians of Iranic origins are not Arabs by language, nor ancestry! That's common sense!!

2) Since when religion was a standard to distinguish Iranians from Arabs?! That's totally stupid!
They both follow same religion, Islam. If they're pointing at the Shia sector, STILL it's wrong. There are MORE Shia Arabs than Persians in the world. Shiasm itself is an Arab based sector and was introduced brutally towards the Iranians who resisted it before few centuries ago. The vast majority of Sunni scholars & imams were Iranians for the record.

It bothers me everytime they use religion to distinguish between nations. You got ancesstory, language, culture, etc. Religion varrys a lot and is not a fixed standard. Like the Christians in Syria, or even Egypt and Lebanon for instance, they exist in millions, does this also count to distinguish between Arabs and Iranians?
As if Egyptions and Lebanese were ethnic Arabs anyways

^You obviously feel strongly about this one extra word in the answer (which is only saying that Iranians aren't Arabs) - but the point the author was making is that this 'obvious' fact isn't so obvious to many people.

He does make the point that Iran is predominantly Shia - so perhaps he mean't 'religous sect' instead of 'religion' - so he is aware that Iran is a Muslim country.

As for Shia theology originating in Arab lands - I would contend that is debateable.

And, the Lebanese are indeed ethnically Arab, despite the protestations by some Maronite Christian Lebanese that they are 'Phoenecian' or non-Arab . Interestingly, Arab nationalism and identity first gained prominence in Lebanon because the non-Muslim Arabs there were concerned that their culture was being subsumed and lost in an 'Islamic' identity (they wanted to highlight an Arab identity that was separate from the religion). I recommend 'A Hosue of Many Mansions' by Salibi- he covers what the various versions of Lebanese history are and gives us the academic view of what the reality is.


That said, are there any other points from the Quiz that you don't agree with?

Cheers,
Shafique

As an Iranian, I could not pass the quiz! It contains very new and fantastic information to me.
Regarding item #6, I should say that I have never seen or heard an Iranain person to face any problem with Jewish people.
We live with them, we trade with them and interesting thing is that, many of Jewish population in Iran are all among wealthy people. We always address Jewish people as wealthy and good traders in Iran. They have business, they have their bank accounts, they pay tax, they attend tenders, they go to the same schools we go, they have a good life. They are protected.

Other thing I want to add, I am born in a state in Iran with majarity of Sunnis living there. Some of my very best friends are among Sunnis. Yes, we have some arguments with Sunnis. In university, during Islamic courses, there are always challenges, but, at the end of the day, we live together.
Tell you something, as an Iranian, we never ask other Muslims this question: Are you Shia or Sunni! This is an odd question and naver happens. For a job interview, no Muslim in Iran is being asked. For trading, we never ask. For education, we never ask. Just for marriage, we have some considerations but there are lots of couples, one Shia and the other Sunni.

Yours.

mahmoodb wrote:As an Iranian, I could not pass the quiz! It contains very new and fantastic information to me.
Regarding item #6, I should say that I have never seen or heard an Iranain person to face any problem with Jewish people.
We live with them, we trade with them and interesting thing is that, many of Jewish population in Iran are all among wealthy people. We always address Jewish people as wealthy and good traders in Iran. They have business, they have their bank accounts, they pay tax, they attend tenders, they go to the same schools we go, they have a good life. They are protected.

Other thing I want to add, I am born in a state in Iran with majarity of Sunnis living there. Some of my very best friends are among Sunnis. Yes, we have some arguments with Sunnis. In university, during Islamic courses, there are always challenges, but, at the end of the day, we live together.
Tell you something, as an Iranian, we never ask other Muslims this question: Are you Shia or Sunni! This is an odd question and naver happens. For a job interview, no Muslim in Iran is being asked. For trading, we never ask. For education, we never ask. Just for marriage, we have some considerations but there are lots of couples, one Shia and the other Sunni.

Yours.

this quiz and its answers is biased. As Iran'e regime is anti Israel regime but not anti jewish people. ( no i m not a supporter of Iran's regime, but as they always announce they respect other religions and their people)

We ask if they are sunni or Shia in Iran! in lots of companies they would ask this in the interview, or we should fill the form which asks the religion and sect. when we take entrance exam for the university we should fill the religion and sect in the first page etc etc...

Maybe government sector companies ask about the religious sector. However, if even they do not ask, it is mentioned in the ID card of all Iranians. But , I meant that this question is not for seperating Shia and Sunni in work space or in university. I have studied in Sharif University of Technolgy and I had Sunni friends. So, the question is not a reason for seperation.

^^^haha! I have studied in Sharif university too!

in Government and lots of private companies they ask this.Right, they never tell this will effect your employment, but who knows...

shafique wrote:
As for Shia theology originating in Arab lands - I would contend that is debateable.

And, the Lebanese are indeed ethnically Arab, despite the protestations by some Maronite Christian Lebanese that they are 'Phoenecian' or non-Arab . Interestingly, Arab nationalism and identity first gained prominence in Lebanon because the non-Muslim Arabs there were concerned that their culture was being subsumed and lost in an 'Islamic' identity (they wanted to highlight an Arab identity that was separate from the religion). I recommend 'A Hosue of Many Mansions' by Salibi- he covers what the various versions of Lebanese history are and gives us the academic view of what the reality is.


That said, are there any other points from the Quiz that you don't agree with?

Cheers,
Shafique

1) Shiasm was born in Arabia, and by Arabs. It was exported to Iranians by Arab shiite scholars who originated from Iraq (Kufa/Karbala), Bahrain region, and Jabal Amel in Lebanon. This is an un-debatable fact.

2) Lebanese people are NOT Arabs, sorry mate but you're missing a lot here. Lebanese people originally are Pheonicians, be it Muslims or Christians or agnostic. The thing is, Muslim Lebanese tend to consider themselves as part of the Arab people due to the common religion and also the language which they totally adopted already. The Christian lebanese believe that accepting the Arab identity would end up in Islamizing them, and they don't want that. This is the whole story!

This mess is all due to mixing up religion with ethnicity/people. It's just wrong

-- Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:01 pm --

mahmoodb wrote:Other thing I want to add, I am born in a state in Iran with majarity of Sunnis living there. Some of my very best friends are among Sunnis. Yes, we have some arguments with Sunnis. In university, during Islamic courses, there are always challenges, but, at the end of the day, we live together.
Tell you something, as an Iranian, we never ask other Muslims this question: Are you Shia or Sunni! This is an odd question and naver happens. For a job interview, no Muslim in Iran is being asked. For trading, we never ask. For education, we never ask. Just for marriage, we have some considerations but there are lots of couples, one Shia and the other Sunni.

Yours.

As far as I've seen, with the consideration of myself being a Persian immigrant who never lived in Iran, yet based on the interaction with other Iranians, I don't see issues between people themselves at all with exception for few ones who don't resemble the majority. Nor I ever heard of discrimination towards jews or kalimis in Iran.

I wonder if you're aware of us, as local Persians of the GCC, with -atleast in the UAE- 85% Sunni Persians, and 15% Shia Persians, there has NEVER been issues among the two groups. But we all agree that there is some discrimination in Iran under the current regime to some extent. Perhaps you're not a pro-monarchy person, but back in the days of monarchy there was no discrimination towards Sunnis in Iran, because shiasm & sunnism was not the issue back them, it was more about secularism & the shah political thoughts. What do you think?

-- Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:08 pm --

shafique wrote: Interestingly, Arab nationalism and identity first gained prominence in Lebanon because the non-Muslim Arabs there were concerned that their culture was being subsumed and lost in an 'Islamic' identity (they wanted to highlight an Arab identity that was separate from the religion).

I totally agree with you on this part surely. But I disagree with you considering Lebanese as Arabs.
The Christians in Levant (Lebanon, Syria) lead the Arab nationalism to fit themselves politically in one way or another, although they were already fit. It was their tool to isolate any intrusion from religion into politics, but as middle easterns, I guess religion will always have it way in our politics haha

symmetric wrote:I totally agree with you on this part surely. But I disagree with you considering Lebanese as Arabs.
The Christians in Levant (Lebanon, Syria) lead the Arab nationalism to fit themselves politically in one way or another, although they were already fit. It was their tool to isolate any intrusion from religion into politics, but as middle easterns, I guess religion will always have it way in our politics haha

Seems to be the hot topic of late, will it bear any sustenance?
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/201 ... tarianism/

Symmetric - I do indeed know that many Maronite Christians are adamant they are not ethnically Arabs and prefer to think they are Phoenicians. I recommended Kamal Salibi's book for a good coverage of the history of Lebanon and his academic assessment of the various views of history.

We don't disagree that the non-Muslim Lebanese led the Arab nationalist movement - but you are arguing that they did this +despite+ not being Arab, not because they are Arab.

As for Phoenecians being a separate race - it's a nice myth, but even the name is not from the region (just like there never were 'Byzantines' - just 'Romans') - the Phoencians were just, Salibi argues, Arabs who lived in Levant and were great sailors and traders. (But that's just me siding with historians on this view - it doesn't really matter to me what people want to believe they are - as long as they don't harm others because of this belief)

As for where Shia theology originated from - that is something we can discuss in the religion forum. My reading of history is that the original split was political and only later became theological - and that the theological split incorporated many 'persian' influences - eg dietary laws resembling kosher (eg not eating prawns, fish without scales) or a notion that priesthood is hereditary (the 'Imam' status is hereditary).


Melika - I'm glad you make the distinction that being anti-Israel is not the same as being anti-Jew or anti-Semitic. I think that is a point that is very often overlooked.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:As for Phoenecians being a separate race - it's a nice myth, but even the name is not from the region (just like there never were 'Byzantines' - just 'Romans') - the Phoencians were just, Salibi argues, Arabs who lived in Levant and were great sailors and traders. (But that's just me siding with historians on this view - it doesn't really matter to me what people want to believe they are - as long as they don't harm others because of this belief)

As for where Shia theology originated from - that is something we can discuss in the religion forum. My reading of history is that the original split was political and only later became theological - and that the theological split incorporated many 'persian' influences - eg dietary laws resembling kosher (eg not eating prawns, fish without scales) or a notion that priesthood is hereditary (the 'Imam' status is hereditary).

1) Regarding Shiasm, there are influences from Jeudaisum, Christianity, and Zoroastriasm. But this does not change the fact that it's ARAB BASED. Read more about Abdallah ibn Saba, the Arab-Yemenite Jew who started this whole thing.
I strongly urge you to read how Persians/Iranians resisted Shiasm, which for GOD's SAKE only shows how they rejected it. Any "significant" influence was introduced surely later on after the Safavid period who were Turkic and not Iranic, for example cursing -loudly- Omar and Abi Bakr and Ayesha was introduced by Safavids, and Iranians were forced to do so, or else get their tongues cut, let alone the Ashura's Tatbeer part. I can see you lack information regarding this issue. Do you even know that for the past 500 years, Iran was ruled by Shia Turkic dynasties who enforced Shiasm with help of Arab Shais (cuz even those Turkic people had no clue about Shiasm nor there were Shia clerics to introduce their beliefs on people, thus Arab Shia were called) they just wanted to force for their political interests to oppose the Ottoman empire (which ironically was also Turk!)

2) Pheonicians are not Arabs, if so then why did they speak Pheonician!? Arabs were NOT sailors, the term "Arab" refers to people of the desert. Do you see deserts in Lebanon? Did the Pheonicians live in desert?
It's ridiculious to just ignore the existence of this great civilization as known as Phenicia and it's people.

Don't mix up all Semites for being Arabs! Arabs are just ONE group of the Semite people.

People in Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine) are a blend mainy of the Semite natives (Aramaens, Assyrians, Israelites Canaanite & Pheonicians), and later on some Roman, Greek, Turkish also joined this mix, and FINALLY the Arabs followed by Kurds arrived being the LAST to join this mixture.

After the Islamic conquest, Arabic became the main language where as other Semite languages faded. Ironically, still there are 3 towns in Syria that speak Syriac language. Those who later chose Islam just followed Arabic language as their religious language and also language of the new state since the period of Umayyids.
George Zeydan and others like Salibi who introduced their illogical thoughts that all Semites are Arabs only wanted to support the Arab nationalism movement during the last days of the Ottoman empire to make sure they get rid of it.

Why don't you see Salibi's picture, and compare to Ali Abdallah Saleh (ruler of Yemen, or tather compare the football team members of Lebanon and Yemen and tell me if you can't see the DIFFERENCE in their features.

P.S: I gave Yemen as an example for Arabs, because they resemble the pure Arab race. To be more specific, go to Hadramout region

Ciao!

symmetric wrote:
1) Regarding Shiasm, there are influences from Jeudaisum, Christianity, and Zoroastriasm. But this does not change the fact that it's ARAB BASED. Read more about Abdallah ibn Saba, the Arab-Yemenite Jew who started this whole thing.

I think this is a question of semantics. The Shia theology is of course still based on Arab personages (notably the Khalifa Ali and his sons).

In the context of this quiz, the point being made (and I agree with you, he should have been more precise) - Iran is a Shia country, whilst other 'Arab' states are Sunni. (This does not mean there are no Shia in Arab lands and vice versa)

However, I'm glad you are aware of the Judaic and Zoroastrian influences on Shia theology - and I'm intrigued that you say Christianity also influenced the theology. It is precisely these influences (Zoroastrian and Judaic) which I believe makes the Shia theology 'less Arab' - as these are aspects not found in 'Sunni' Islam and only surface centuries after the Prophet, pbuh.

symmetric wrote:2) Pheonicians are not Arabs, if so then why did they speak Pheonician!? Arabs were NOT sailors, the term "Arab" refers to people of the desert. Do you see deserts in Lebanon? Did the Pheonicians live in desert?
It's ridiculious to just ignore the existence of this great civilization as known as Phenicia and it's people.

As I said, this not just a 'blind belief' of mine - but rather what I have concluded after reading up on the subject.

Just because people believe Phoenecian was a different language and race than Arab, does not make it so. The people themselves did not call themselves Phoenecian (they called their land 'Canaan') and the archaelogical etc evidence does not show they were any different from other Canaanites - the label just applies to those who lived on the coastal areas and traded. The language they spoke was semitic (and even this is knowledge is based on trace evidence) - and could be as different as Lebanese Arabic is to Yemeni Arabic.

You seem to be under the impression that a person's sailing skills is linked to their race.

It is a bit like 1500 years from now people will argue that the Emiratis of Dubai are a different race from Emiratis of Ajman because the former were great traders and gamblers - perhaps people will cite newspaper reports that state Dubai is a country in support of their view!

I'm also aware that the people of Lebanon today are of mixed heritage - indeed there is genetic evidence of European blood dating back from the soldiers of the first crusade who settled there. However, this mixing is after the time of the 'Phoenecians' and the Lebanese are no less Arab because of this.

As I said, this is what I have concluded after reading up on the subject - and I am indeed aware of what some Lebanese insist in the 'true' version of history.


But hey, perhaps Salibi is wrong - but his arguments and evidence, for me, is compelling.

Cheers,
Shafique

mahmoodb wrote:Tell you something, as an Iranian, we never ask other Muslims this question: Are you Shia or Sunni! This is an odd question and naver happens. For a job interview, no Muslim in Iran is being asked. For trading, we never ask. For education, we never ask. Just for marriage, we have some considerations but there are lots of couples, one Shia and the other Sunni.

Mahmood - this is also an aspect that goes against how Iran is viewed in the West - i.e. that Iranians are obsessed about religion, blood thirsty etc - indeed the word often used is 'uncivilized'.

I guess this just reinforces the point that sometimes we need to go beyond headlines.

(I have to say, I got some of the questions wrong myself and learnt things from it - but then again, I'm neither Iranian or Arab )

Cheers,
Shafique

Ahmadinejad personally placed "made in Taiwan keys to paradise" around ten of thousands necks of young kids before they cleared the mine fields. And Ahmadinejad is still proud of this Basiji history.

The UK is quite proud of the teenagers who fought and died in the world wars in Europe, less proud of the teenagers that were shot for desertion though. We've established that we both do not agree with children being involved in war, but the fact that young men want to sign up to save their countries from aggressors is not something new.

What Ahmadinejad is accused of doing/saying is indeed one of the quiz questions - but I note that rather than address the questions, the tired tactic of diverting attention is rolled out again.

The point of the quiz? - it was meant to over-turn the caricature of Iran that many wish to believe is true.

I guess, though, that some still believe that Iran started the Iran-Iraq war... ?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

I guess, though, that some still believe that Iran started the Iran-Iraq war... ?

Cheers,
Shafique

Well ONE of them did!



Knight

Shafique, I'm not yet done with our debate regarding Shiasm and Lebanese/Pheonician issue. I'm just too busy these days, but I promise you I'll come back soon

Sure - look forward to it. Dig out references - as Keynes once said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind.' My information about Lebanon/Phoenecians comes primarily from Salibi''s book 'House of Many Mansions':

http://www.amazon.com/House-Many-Mansio ... 0520071964

A couple of comments (I recommend the book):

This book isn't so much a history of Lebanon as about how the Maronites, the Druze, the Sunnites, and the Shi'ites hold different views of the history of Lebanon. It is difficult to understand one's history if there is little concensus about what is fact and what is myth. It is this latter aspect, fact versus myth, that Salibi explores. He attempts to outline the history of Lebanon as viewed by each of the major religious/political parties and detail what is supported by historical evidence and what is not. Overall, I feel that he has succeeded. Several points of particular interest include the fact that no group in Lebanon today has any strong claim to have descended from the ancient Phoenicians, and Salibi's discussion regarding the complications of Arabic nationalism versus Islamism is particularly enlightening.

...

Being an academic historian, Salibi wipes out popular versions of the Lebanese history and replaces them with a more analytical, critical, and well-researched version. In the heyday of a never ending debate about the identity of the Lebanese people, an objective historical record is highly needed.
Several Maronite historians should understand that they do not come from a different ethnic stock. They must thoroughly read their historical texts and subject them to historical analysis. Maronite history has become similar to a religious faith: it is not receptive of any historical examination.

The origins of Shia theology should also be interesting - let's start new threads though (probably best in the religion section).

Cheers,
Shafique