| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In the Iranian mythology, Great Britain -- "England" -- has a more prominent and more venerable role than those newcomers to Satanhood, the United States and Israel. The no-longer existent England of Palmerston and the Great Game, and manipulations by assorted Curzons, live on in the vivid oriental imaginations to be found both in fictional bulbuls-and-roses Gulistan, as well as in the all-too-real tanks-and-missiles Teheran of Khatami and Ahmadinejad.
That is why the Iranian mobs are so easily brought out to denounce England. Because for them, it was "England" that ruined Persia in the nineteenth century. It was England that severed the Shi'a of Persia from Karbala and Najaf. Of course, in reality it wasn't England at all. The 1847 Treaty of Erzerum was brokered by the Czar of Russia, and was made between the Ottoman Empire (that is, the Turks) and the Persian Empire. And even though it was the Soviet Union that seized a swath of northern Iran after World War II (an idea whose time may have come again), and "England" that was the ally of the Americans, and it was the Americans and the other Western powers that forced a Soviet retreat, still in the popular mind in Persia "England" was to blame. It is true that the English were partly responsible for the coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, for he had threatened the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's concessions – they responded by persuading the Americans to stage that coup.
There is a certain kind of left-wing Iranian, the kind who at first supported the overthrow of the Shah and then found that the real and only winners were the Ayatollah Khomeini and the primitives who make up the Iranian masses. (These masses are not our sort -- not the Nafisi or Bina or Tabatabai sort, the sort who have names like Cyrus and Darius rather than Mohammad, but the sort who actually make up the masses of Iranians that those upper-class secularized Iranians in exile still can't quite recognize or allow themselves to understand, because it would be too painful.) For these left-wing Iranian the entire Khomeini phenomenon can be explained by two words or, possibly, three: "Mossadegh." "Coup." "England." In other words they want to believe, and want us to believe, that Shi'a Islam is just fine, and that if only Mossadegh had survived, and thrived, and the Shah had the feathers of the Peacock Throne clipped, everything would have been all right -- because such people still can't see how the very forces of modernization brought about by oil wealth would naturally unhinge the country.
And its unhingement would in turn naturally cause Islam, the Islam of Khomeini and his ilk, to make a comeback. In this these Iranian leftists resemble the secular Shi'a in exile, who couldn't imagine what Iraq would turn out to be like, and how it would not conceivably rise to the fantastic occasion offered in by the American removal of Saddam Hussein. These "unrepresentative" Best People, in Iraq and in Iran, simply can't face up to what most of their countrymen are deeply like, and deeply like because of Islam. They are embarrassed. They are personally and civilizationally embarrassed and don't know how to face it, deal with it, talk about it.
It is, for them, much easier to mutter about the coup against Mossadegh, which supposedly made ineluctable, a quarter-century later, the takeover by the Khomeinist forces of black reaction. And behind that coup, the Eternal Enemy in the manichaenism that comes naturally to Islam with that Zoroastrian substratum: "England."
That's the kind of analysis too many otherwise seemingly sane and westernized Iranians allow themselves to indulge in. And it's the kind of thing they inveigle the shallowest reporter/writers on Islam -- such as Stephen Kinzer with his "All the Shah's Men" -- into believing, uncritically, and then repeating, as if hearing that the Mossadegh Coup in 1953 is the necessary and sufficient explanation for the rise of Khomeini, and the re-emergence of Islam that, whenever and werever possible, will rise to the surface, whether it is in Kemalist Turkey or Pahlevi Iran, or in any Muslim country that might have allowed itself to believe this particular rasputin was safely under the ice. To blame "England" through its role in getting the Americans to remove Mossadegh just will not do as an explanation, and those credulous foreigners who accept and pass on such stuff are merely holding up their side of a comical folie a deux.
What is of note is that in Iran, the generally observable Muslim penchant for conspiracy theories, and for blaming some Infidel country or people, takes the particular form of blaming "England."
That is something to think about during these days, day 2, or is it 3, or even 4, of this, the New Hostage Crisis, created under the baleful eye of a direct participant in the previous example of Persian androlepsy -- the smiling, utterly fanatical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Posted by Hugh at March 29, 2007 3:08 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Muslim though process...blame all others but not thyself....
...Muslim behaviour around the would clearly demonstrates why you do not want these people in your neighborhood....Ban Muslim Immigration now...
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 29, 2007 3:49 PM
England.....England...such a beautiful name. Where has mighty England gone?
What I propose to solve the hostage crisis has been suggested by others here and there:
Blair discreetly contacts Mahmound Amadinjehad:
"Hey shorty...er Napolean...er...Mahmoud..., you've got 48 hours to release the 15 hostages, unharmed."
Failing that (as Iran would) England would blockcade Iran's ports simultaneoulsy destroying her oil refineries. England gets a big assist from the only true power that guarantees the conitnued freedom of Her Majesty's commonwealth).
The ball is now back in Iran's court.
Does Iran kill the hostages? I don't know. Maybe. I sincerely don't care. Cold? Yes. However, the lives of the 15 hostages were forfeit when they were captured (without resistance, but that sums up the entire EU pretty well, doesn't it?). For you faint hearted dhimmi apologists and democratic liberals (but I repeat myself)this is what is known as WAR. Your muslim benefactors understand what I mean even if you do not.
Posted by: omvi at March 29, 2007 3:52 PM
The UK goes way back in Persia as far as exploiting and bringing to market its oil. Where would any of these dead head Muslim nations be without the superior technology of the infidels? The oil would still be in the ground of course. And not funding the fat puercos who rule Saudi and the allah intoxicated Shiites who run Iran--->>>>
Anglo-Persian Oil Company
From Wikipedia
The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was founded in 1909 following the discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman, Iran. It was the first company using the oil reserves of the Middle East. APOC was renamed 1935 in Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and eventually became the British Petroleum Company (BP) in 1954, as one root of the BP Company today.
Posted by: dennisw at March 29, 2007 3:58 PM
They are now using the female hostage to spread propaganda on Britain's presence in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/iran.uk.sailors/index.html
"TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran released Thursday what it says is a second letter from captured British sailor Faye Turney in which she criticizes British policy in Iraq.
"Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?" said the letter, addressed to the British parliament and released to media organizations by the Iranian embassy in London."
Posted by: Harpua at March 29, 2007 4:01 PM
The Persian people just have so much potential. They are so much better than the Arabs. I just pray they can get rid of their Ayatollah overlords. They deserve a lot better than the psychotic strain of Islam that rules their nation. The world would be so much better without an Islamic Iran
Thanks for nothing Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They gave Iran to the Mullahs on a silver plater
Posted by: dennisw at March 29, 2007 4:05 PM
""Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?" said the letter, addressed to the British parliament and released to media organizations by the Iranian embassy in London."
....the reply....NOPE...
at March 29, 2007 4:08 PM
Frankly, what brings "Iranian mobs" out ain't the Persian equivalent of the Quebcois' Je Me Souviens (= I remember the Plains of Abraham, where the Brits defeated the French). It's money.
Just as in Lebanon, where the anti-March 14 forces are the beneficiaries of Hezbollah's largesse (regardless of whether it comes with the usual price tag of ceding part of your home to be a rocket launcher or providing shock troops), I'm sure whatever the grievance being bruted about -- from Danish cartoons, to Israel's mere existence, to British navymen supposedly in Iranian waters -- the "Death to [fill in the blank]" banner carriers are largely members and family of the Republican Guards, the Basijis [sp?]and not the average Iranian, who is fed up with the country's wealth that isn't pocketed by the mullahs being pissed away on Palestine, Lebanon, nuclear weapons, etc.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 29, 2007 4:19 PM
Iranians would be better served to blame their own leaders, and do something about it! l am sick of hearing about all these iranian people wanting democracy and we see no actions from them. l know there must be some brave person fighting the system and
may God give them strenght, but they need a huge movement. Islam 's brainwashing of their followers allow themselves to believe that they are the victims, and so not much will change. they need a spark that began the AMerican Revolution, and if more aggressive the French Revolution which was a whole lot bloodier, but the elites paid a very high price, and the net that was used to kill them was too big unfortunately.
at March 29, 2007 4:57 PM
The female prisoner, while understandably in a tight spot, is not helping her country. Even as the British government shows evidence to prove that the sailors were not in Iranian waters when kidnapped, she is undercutting them by agreeing with the Iranians.
I agree with omvi in a way. If the soldiers believe that their government will do anything, offer any level of appeasement, to get their return, it makes sense why they would surrender without a fight. If, on the other hand, they believed that once they were captured by the Muslims, their fate was solely in the hands of their captors, they might have fought back, causing a "great loss of life" as Tony Blair put it. That's what soldiers are trained to do.
Posted by: special_guest at March 29, 2007 5:01 PM
“Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough!”
"Have at you mo-foes!!"
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 29, 2007 5:26 PM
They were ambushed as they were descending the ladders into their bobbing inflatables.
They were on the blindside of the merchant ship, the HMS Cornwall could not get nearer due to shallow waters.
They were lightly armed with pistols and rifles, whereas the Iranians had RPGs and anti aircraft guns.
The fact that none of them opened fire on the Iranians shows discipline and a good assesment of the situation.
However, I dont understand why they werent given some warning by their supporting helicopter.
Posted by: MrTommyAtkins at March 29, 2007 5:51 PM
And even though it was the Soviet Union that seized a swath of northern Iran after World War II (an idea whose time may have come again)
Wasn't Turkey allied with Germany in the war? And Greece with the Allies? So how come they didn't have the forsight to return to Greece what is rightfully theirs - that European bridgehead which Turley has occupied for far too long!
Free Konstantinopoulos now!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 29, 2007 6:32 PM
I agree with omvi in a way. If the soldiers believe that their government will do anything, offer any level of appeasement, to get their return, it makes sense why they would surrender without a fight. If, on the other hand, they believed that once they were captured by the Muslims, their fate was solely in the hands of their captors, they might have fought back, causing a "great loss of life" as Tony Blair put it. That's what soldiers are trained to do.
Posted by: special_guest
Excellent point. Or if they were captured fighting they might be a bit more defiant if they knew that all MILITARY options to secure their release would be empoyed in an IMMEDIATE manner!!
What is this NONSENSE!!!!!
All these poloticians do is talk talk talk. Yes POLOticians!!!
I don't like bLiar very much. He presided over the moslem takeover of England.. he's the British Schröder/Chirac.
Thank God both bLiar and Shitrac will soon be gone.
Both countries must now move to the right or all will be lost.
Germany voted a lot more right than before but the result is a muddle-coalition of dhimwits. Even the formerly "conservative" CDU/CSU are going multikulti on us.
I hope that France and Britain will get no-compromise governments next vote.
Schröder was a multikulti muesli-eating appeasement-minded wimp. Chirac and bLiar are calculatingly corrupt money-grubbers who are selling out in full knowledge of what they are doing.
The effect is the same. Be it a Dhimwit selling you out or a traitor. Either way, you're getting sold down the river.
Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 29, 2007 6:52 PM
No need to worry, the UN is on the case now. A statement expressing "grave concern" has been issued I'm sure that will do the trick:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/iran.uk.sailors/index.html
"Security Council issues careful statement
Meanwhile, after huddling for several hours, members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Thursday on a press statement expressing "grave concern at the captures and continued detentions" of the sailors and marines. It was read to reporters by current council President Dumisani Kumalo of South Africa.
Britain had sought a far stronger statement.
The statement appeals to Iran to allow consular access to the British personnel and appeals for their early release.
The hours of negotiation, Kumalo said, were necessary because members wanted a statement that was "very factual ... no political twisting of anything that happened."
Earlier, Ghana's ambassador and other diplomats told CNN some nations were questioning in whose waters the British personnel were and were reluctant to issue a demand.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with Mottaki on the sidelines of the Arab League summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Thursday to talk about the situation.
Ban "expressed his wish to see an early resolution of this problem," a spokesman for the secretary-general said at the United Nations."
The impotence is astonishing. A carefully worded statement is the response to this act of war? I've heard stories that the Soviet Union used to deal with muslim hostage takers by responding to the terrorists' demands with the head of one of the hostage-takers' family members in a box. I understand it was very effective.
Posted by: Harpua at March 29, 2007 7:06 PM
Allahfanculo:
I don't like bLiar very much. He presided over the moslem takeover of England.. he's the British Schröder/Chirac.
No he didnt. All Blair has done is
sign up for European Human Rights Act with no exemptions and not kept control of Britains borders (leftist crap). For that - he is guilty.
The real damage was done in the 1950's/1960's when politicians encouraged immigration from Muslim countries. They were too stupid to realise the damage it would do. In the case of France, De Gaulle actively encouraged Arab relationships as a counterbalance against USA (his jealousy of the USA means that France is paying now, 50 years later for his stupidity).
We have a 2nd generation growing up now, native to these countries (like Abdullah)
Germany has lots of Turks
Britain has lots of Pakistanis
France has lots of Algerians
Holland has lots of Moroccans & Turks
Spain has lots of Moroccans
Italy has lots of Albanians & Somalians
Thank God both bLiar and Shitrac will soon be gone. Both countries must now move to the right or all will be lost.
Agreed.
Chirac was weak. He has done nothing for France.
Nice bloke - but wrong for France. Sarkozy is likely to do a lot more. He will be tougher.
Brown might be interesting - he is tough - I dont like him, but he might be okay. He has demostrated toughness. Cameron while of the right party just does not seem tough enough. If he gets in power - maybe he might grow a backbone.
Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 29, 2007 7:22 PM
It is easy to be heroic under our faux names on Jihad Watch(except for Mr. Spencer). These soldiers are pawns following orders, hostages, naked in every sense of the word. Rambo ain't to be found. How would any of us act under such circumstances. Were the 52 Americans heroic caught in Iran some years back? In my book they were. They were also paraded in front of cameras.
Blame the Iranians. They deserve it, and much more. Perhaps blame the Brittish government, but they are hostages... as is the US government. We also have 'hostages.' We have about 150 thousand virtual hostages in Iraq. Our boys are also hostages to the Shia. Make no mistake about it.
I don't have all the answers. But there is no shame in being held by thugs. Only when you've walked in these brave 15 Brittish soldiers shoes can you then jaw talk about honor and duty.
Posted by: biorabbi at March 29, 2007 8:10 PM
biorabbi said
It is easy to be heroic under our faux names on Jihad Watch
Eh? But my parents named me "Special Guest". Anyways, I would never make any claims to being a Rambo-type hero, and you never know how you'll react until you're in the situation. And she's apparently got a young child to go home to. All true. But I think surrendering to Muslims would take more courage than fighting them; I don't think I could do it. I would prefer to go down standing up, than have my last moments end up in some grainy video clip.
I hope they all come home safely soon. I hope the price paid is not too high.
Posted by: special_guest at March 29, 2007 10:39 PM
special_guest
"The female prisoner, while understandably in a tight spot, is not helping her country."
I have to disagree. We westerners are smart enough to understand she is under the threat of death. It is understood that anything you say as a captive (really a POW) is ok and to be simply ignored as propaganda. Do what you must to stay alive if you can.
In fact the more she talks and the more she is put on TV the better it makes us look. Here is how we should play it to the world:
"They are preventing a poor mother from seeing her child and no doubt threating her life and making her say such things. They doing god knows what with her. After all they are Islamic extreamist and we know what they do to infidel women."
You know we too can play the game if we had anybody in charge who knew how to stoke the fires of anger. Instead we have idiot political leaders. They have done more damage to our cause then anything this woman can say or do.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 29, 2007 10:46 PM
Wasn't Turkey allied with Germany in the war? - Allahfanculo above
Turkey joined in the First World War on Germany's side in 1914 but remained neutral during WWII. Churchill even visited the place at some point in the war - in his published diaries Alanbrooke expressed concern about his security there at one point because German contractors were working in the vicinity of where he was staying.
Posted by: wallyUK at March 29, 2007 11:00 PM
greatcometof1577, I agree with you. The Western press should be focusing on the illegal treatment of these kidnapping victims. This is another excellent opportunity for teaching the infidels about Islam. As it is, it's being downplayed on the news here in the States; CBS news literally didn't mention it.
Posted by: special_guest at March 29, 2007 11:04 PM
"special_guest" -- a name that is no relation, one assumes, to that "special person" belonging to Steve Martin in "The Jerk."
Posted by: Hugh at March 29, 2007 11:33 PM
"The Persian people just have so much potential. They are so much better than the Arabs."
"from Danish cartoons, to Israel's mere existence, to British navymen supposedly in Iranian waters -- the "Death to [fill in the blank]" banner carriers are largely members and family of the Republican Guards, the Basijis [sp?]and not the average Iranian, who is fed up with the country's wealth that isn't pocketed by the mullahs being pissed away on Palestine, Lebanon, nuclear weapons, etc."
How do you guys know what an average Iranian thinks and what he is?
Did you live there for years?
Do you listen to the same people who told you that Iraqis are talented and educated people and ready for Jeffersonian democracy?
You didn't learn anything from Iraqi fiasco, did you?
Posted by: mik_infidel at March 29, 2007 11:41 PM
[Apologies for being extremely off-topic and for talking about myself, an irrelevant topic if ever there was one. But the question was asked so...]
Nope, no relation to "The Jerk", or to "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid", nor to the "Special Bus", or "Special Education" as some here have suggested. The etymology is that I was looking to form a band at one time. You may have heard of the band called "Free Beer", who played to sold-out (though slightly miffed) audiences in bars all over the country. Similarly, I thought it would be funny for people to look in the adverts and apparently see me opening for half the bands on tour (eg. "The Rolling Stones - With Special Guest", you get the picture). In the event, I chose another band name (which also requires constant explanation), but continued to use the moniker for this blog, because the first time I posted I just had to respond quickly, and didn't take time to think it through. Nothing more to it than that.
Posted by: special_guest at March 30, 2007 12:53 AM
Last night on FOX news, Alan Combs interviewed a former American hostage who had been taken in Lebanon. He said,(to paraphrase), you say what you have to in order to stay alive and that whatever their press shows of our western hostages that make no mistake about it, they are not being treated as fairly as appears.
I agree with dennisw: Thanks for nothing Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They gave Iran to the Mullahs on a silver plater
and I also agree with Zena: Iranians would be better served to blame their own leaders, and do something about it! l am sick of hearing about all these iranian people wanting democracy and we see no actions from them.....
Posted by: pigtails not veils at March 30, 2007 1:17 AM
Well there is agreement everywhere on Iraq, whether its Pelosi, Buchanan, Soros or Ahmadinijad, they all want the US/UK out. Strange bedfellows with very different motives
Posted by: chockfullonuts at March 30, 2007 6:01 AM
"from Danish cartoons, to Israel's mere existence, to British navymen supposedly in Iranian waters -- the "Death to [fill in the blank]" banner carriers are largely members and family of the Republican Guards, the Basijis [sp?]and not the average Iranian, who is fed up with the country's wealth that isn't pocketed by the mullahs being pissed away on Palestine, Lebanon, nuclear weapons, etc."
How do you guys know what an average Iranian thinks and what he is?
Did you live there for years?
[...]
Posted by: mik_infidel at March 29, 2007 11:41 PM
As it happens, mik_infidel, I know quite a few Iranian ex-pats here in Toronto with family still in Iran, read everything I can on MEMRI about developments in Iran, etc. There are plenty of anti-government, anti-I'manutjob forces in Iran who risk their lives daily to oppose the government, the RG and the Basiji. As for what has happened in post-Saddam Iraq, well much credit for the violence goes to... ...Iranian-backed "insurgents" and Iranian government elements operating in Iraqi territory.
If you want to learn something, read up on the rise of European fascism and what it took to defeat it. It was a very long, uphill battle with enormous sacrifice. Israel, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq are only the opening salvos.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 30, 2007 7:43 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)