|
Friday * Speak for justice The current debate on Iran's foreign policy in the region in general and its position regarding the state of Israel in specific should not be considered solely on the conflicts between Arabs and Israelies or a conflict between Muslims and Jews but rather it should be approached primarily within the context of Iran's national interests ["Just wondering"]. Violence, instability, tension are in conflict with Iran's interests and are among the main obstacles to repair Iran's fragile economy and develop existing relationships and expolre new opportunities. As Iran attempts to establish relationship and develop possibilities with all nations, we must remind ourselves that Iran is a revolutionary country and Iranians in general are strongly devoted and loyal to the goals of 1979 revolution. We should not mislead the world into contemplating whether Iranians do not embrace freedom any longer and our foreign policy cannot be disected from Iranian values. I also add that we as a nation have to still confront many challenges domestically to fulfill our mission but our direction is indisputable and that is our contribution to world peace and stability in the region and so far the whole world (except Israel) has approved. But with independence so comes the responsibility and at times higher expectations. The situation in the Middle East is a real test for our nation to persist upon democratic principles and stand firm on its commitment to permanent stability and peace. We should not fear to condemn militarism, fascism, racism, annexation, ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, assasinations, and terrorism and that is what we are faced with in the Middle East. Israel is a direct and a present danger to peace and stability in the region and Tel Aviv is the only remaining shelter for state sponsored racism and supremacy and its aggression and purpose must be defeated and contained. Israel and AIPAC are distorting the tragic and horrifying facts of their palestinian annihilation policy and hide their expansionist ambitions from the world. Israel is a nuclear power and has amassed the most sophisticated arsenal in the world and has targeted Iran. Israel understands that Iran is categorically rejecting the status quo and refusing to be subjected to the cycle of violence and division. Future generations of Iranians will not view us favorably if we remain indifferent to atrocities and act cowardly. We shall not be deserving guardians of democratic principles and positive role models if we fail to rise for peace and most important of all we shall not stand true to our values and national identity if we failed to speak of justice. To claim our opportunities is not extremism, it is what the world actually expects from us. Insist on it. * Don't tell us "be maa cheh" First of all I am pretty appalled by this kind of tribal mentality ["Just wondering"], that if some country which you agree is committing wholesale crimes against humanity, is not a direct threat to Iran, we need not concern ourselves by taking any position, or our foreign policy should be indifferent to this kind of behavior. I guess it was with this mentality that almost all the western countries and their cronies, including the good old Shahanshah Aryamehr, did not see any problem in having diplomatic relations with the apartheid South Africa. Couple of million dead in Rwanda, BE MA CHE, wholesale human rights violations in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Colombia and the list goes on and on, BE MA CHE? Now, I do not agree with all the rhetorics of the mollahs about Israel and their opposition to any peace deal, of course this is for the local consumption and they know it very well that their policy is not even realistic in light of the fact that all the neighboring Arab countries have accepted that the existence of Israel is an undeniable fact. However, my criticism of you is this business of BE MA CHE, this indifference to the plight of fellow human beings, whether we can do any thing about it or not, is obnoxious. Think about it, an Iranian American, a Canadian Iranian or an Iranian in any western country does have a vote, there are members of congress, senate and parliament that represent this person, this one person can make the difference by the vote and by the opinion. YOU GOT NO BUSINESS TELLING US, BE MA CHE. Just over five decades ago, it was this BE MA CHE attitude that resulted in a genocide of millions of jews, gypsies and communists in Europe. Israel is in violation of dozens of UN resolutions; Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity on daily basis, the only reason it has got away with it is because of the Zionist control of the world press, US in particular, and may be because of people like you, who preach BE MA CHE! * Iran divided Many thanks for a superb analysis of the encirclement of Iran by hostilities that in large part have been brought on in the past twenty years ["Just wondering"]. Funny you should mention the Tonb islands as an example of a flash-point. When the Mohammad reza Shah Pahlavi decided to take back these islands he set into motion the most sophisticated form of preparatory/groundwork diplomacy in the annals of Iranian froreign relations -- to the point that America endorsed the takeover, and Britain did not even blink at the end. The events of the November 30, 1971, and the landing of Iranian troops on these idlands was the most significant Iranian naval operation in the Persian Gulf since the time that in 1622 Shah Abbas with the help of the English kicked the Portuguese out of Hormuz and Qeshm islands. But, I digress. Regarding the general pitch of your commentary, I hasten to add your despair is less pointed than mine, because as I see it not much of Iran will survive territorially in the next fifty years if the current external conditions and internal maladminsitration (nadanamkari) continue. Iran has always had tensions (tashanuj) on its borders so that is not a new phenonmenon. In Iran we have also seen the rise of separatist sentiments in the form of the Mahabad and Tabriz governments right after World War II, the Gilan (Iran) Republic during World War I; the separatism of Sheikh Khazal and the Baluchis are all well documented. What kept Iran territorially intact from 1907 onward was the foreign desire to keep the country in one piece. The Brits wanted Iran as a wholesome bulwark against the Russians, and later the same sentiment had the Amercians challenge the Soviets and keep Iran in one piece and "independent." At the same time a homegrown form of nationalism often backed by tribal militarism was able to keep the stray provionves and tribes in check. None of that exists now. The tribal militarism has lost out to the pluralistic urban groupings. The East (Russia) is now off into the remote section of the Caspian and does not even border Iran anymore. The West (Amercia), judging from Al Haig's remarks about the therapeutic effects of an Israeli attack on Iran, would not shed any tears if Iran fell apart at the seams, even though a mildly aggressive Iran would give the Arabs rationale to pump back the petrodollars into Amercian arms. And, I do not see Islam in any of its manifestations, inlcuding shi'i, to give Iran the elan vitale that it needs to keep itself together, unless ...... * Don't kid yourself Let me begin by telling that the biggest threat to Iran is our own incompetent politicians and the way they have been running down the country ["Just wondering"]. As for Israel, don't kid yourself. The damage to Iran by Israel lobby in Washington has been enormous. Let's not forget ILSA. All the sanctions and pressures on Iran from the rest of the world can be traced backed to the Israel's activities. Our own dumb politicians have been a great help to Israel in damaging our national interest. * A few things Quoting Jahanshah Javid: "I cannot think of one thing Israel has done to threaten Iran's national security" Well, I can think of a few things. First, the Israeli lobby's successful efforts to impose unilateral economic sanctions on Iran. Second, Israel's insistence that Iran is a threat to her national security, despite the overwhelming superiority of Israel's armed forces, not to mention the fact that Israel possesses an arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, plus the means to deliver them, and continues to accuse Iran of pursuing the same goals! Third, Israel is about as democratic as apartheid era South Africa, therefore it is our moral responsibility to protest racial injustice and bigotry, not to mention outright theft and murder, the same way that South Africa was ostracized for her treatment of blacks. Fourth, the military alliance between Israel and Turkey is a very serious national security threat to Iran, and we all need to be concerned about it. No one is arguing for the destruction of the state of Israel, not even the IRI (despite the rhetoric). It is in fact the state of Israel that is bent on destroying the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and harassing her neighbors. Sincerely, Shahram Mostarshed * Question Iran's foreign policy I enjoyed your commentary but I am assuming that your question regarding why there is an anti-Israel policy is rhetorical. It seems to me that Iran's Israel policy is a little bit like the U.S.'s Cuba policy -- it serves domestic politics AND it provides a pretext for engagement in areas that are far from hom e["Just wondering"]. Your opening comments about Israel's human rights abuses and sympathy for the Palestinians in their dispute with Israel are likely shared by most Iranians. To put it another way, it is a rare point of agreement between you (along with other Iranians) and the leaders of the Islamic Republic. Most Iraqi's likely hated Saddam Hussein and probably did want to go to war with Kuwait in 1990-1, BUT many also agreed that Kuwait was an Iraqi province, lost to the whims of British imperialism (even though British imperialism created Iraq -- but that's another discussion). Taking an anti-Israeli stance is easy way for an oppressive government to "relate" to its people on some level -- populism without responsibility or cost (unless a war breaks out, of course!). It also provides a pretext for an Iranian "presence" in the Mediterranean -- in Lebanon, for example. Why is the presence at all in the interest of Iran? Well, it may be an outgrowth of Iran's longtime desire to be a bigger fish in the region. The Saadabad Pact, the marriage of Crown Prince Mohammad Reza to Egyptian Princess Fowziyeh, the decades long dispute with Iraq over the Shatt al-Arab, the occasional massing of troops on the Afghan border, the seizure of certain islands in the Persian Gulf -- whatever practical foreign policy objectives these undertakings served they also tied into a desire to be more than pawn in Western imperialist strategies and, later on ,to be more than just a gas station for U.S., European and Japanese motorists. Does not the goal of "exporting the Islamic Revolution" allow at least some measure of global purpose in a way that "oil producer" and "U.S. ally" or "2,500 Years of Monarchy" did not? I realize that I am in danger of psychoanalyzing Iran's foreign policy (which I am not, I admit, qualified to do), but taking Israel off the list of Iran's enemies may not be enough to improve Iran's foreign policy prospects. I would hope that there are ways to engage potential disputes with Iran's ethnically diverse population and regional neighbors that does not immediately create a list of "threats" and enemies that we must defeat or be destroyed by. If Iran has a sense of what its minorities or neighbors value, why not engage those interests in a constructive fashion now with the idea that there is more to be gained by sharing the wealth and power in the region rather than fighting over it like dogs over table scraps. But to close, I think it is very important for Iranians to question Iran's foreign policy and I really appreciate your beginning that discussion in this forum. Best, * La grande illusion That was an interesting article ["Just wondering"]. Thank you. I remember when I first left Iran I used to think Israelis were evil. Then I met a few and noticed how the Israelis middle class actually was quite similar to the Iranian middle class. In fact, it seems they have more in common, culturally speaking, with Iranians than with American Jews. What's also interesting is Israel's closeness to Turkey. Israel, a nation established mostly by Holocaust survivors, having good relations with Turkey, a nation which has yet to acknowledge what it did to Armenians in 1915. Ironic, isn't it? All this reminds me of Renoir's film "La grande illusion". Often hostile parties have the most in common. * Subtle threat This is in response to your article wondering if Israel is a threat to Iran ["Just wondering"]. For starters, any decent human being reading the news emanating from that part of the world should be dismayed by Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. However, to answer your question concerning Iran, if you believe that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, then actually Israel can be considered Iran's friend on one hand, and an enemy or threat, on the other. The friend part relates to an event about twenty-something years ago during the Iran-Iraq war when Iran launched an unsuccessful attack on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor on September 30, 1980. Since we weren't able to do the job, on June 7, 1981 Israel initiated an air attack on the same Iraqi Osirak reactor, destroying it, thank God. Just imagine if that reactor was not destroyed, and Saddam was able to build a nuclear weapon, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have lobbed one of his warheads on Teheran in his "war of the cities" missile campaign. He used everything else at his disposal (nerve gas, etc.), so I'm not being overly dramatic. Also, he could have contaminated the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields for many years to come with radiation from a nuclear device instead of just setting them on fire. We don't even need to think what that would have done to Iran's and also the world economy. On the other hand, the "threat" consideration from Israel towards Iran is not a physical military-type threat, but a more subtle one. It comes in the form of "influence". It is obvious that the U.S. Congress is tremendously influenced by the Israeli lobby and in some instances this can border on the ridiculous in terms of US foreign policy especially with regards to the Middle East. Israel considers Iran a threat, so it applies pressure on the U.S. to keep the "threat" in check. The extension of the U.S. sanctions against Iran, and other such type actions are examples. This type of subtle threat from Israel can be far more dangerous than a military strike in some cases, since there is really no star wars' defense that Iran could use against it. I guess instead of buying armaments to deter such a threat Iran could spend money and hire a top-notch Washington D.C. lobbyist to counter all the Iran-bashing that goes on. The sad truth is that Israel has the U.S.' ear on issues concerning Iran, and unlike biblical times when Iran (Persian Empire) could do no wrong towards Israel (just read the Old Testament, its like reading a history of Iran, especially the Book of Ezra, Daniel, etc,), nowadays it's a different story. That is where I see the threat. * Not our fight Bravo for a nicely written piece ["Just wondering"]. I have been echoing the same sentiment for many years myself. The Palestinians have elected their leader; Mr. Yasser Arafat. The entire Arab world supports Mr. Arafat. Who are we to say what's best for the Palestinian people? When we were fighting Sadam, not a single soul in the Arab world (including Palestinians) came to our defense. This is not our fight. We have no business there. It is even more saddening to see many Iranians in the west showing the same feeling. I believe the root of this pro Palestinian sentiment among Iranians is not because Iranians are for Palestine per se. It is deeply rooted in the fact that many Iranians are anti Semitic. As you pointed out in your editorial, why aren't we concerned about the atrocities in Chechnya or Bosnia? How come no one mentions America's latest gift to the people of Afghanistan, the Taliban. One would think many of us Muslim Iranians would come to the support of our Jewish countrymen when they were wrongly accused of being spies for Israel. It never happened. One would think many of us Moslem Iranians would protest discrimination against our Jewish neighbors whose ancestors came to Iran more than two thousand years ago. It never happened. Our pathetic answer always seems to be, "well Israel does the same to Palestinians". Shame on us. * After the horse has bolted With regards to your recent leader article on Israel & the lost chances far as the Caspian is concrned ["Just wondering"], isn't it a bit like bolting the stable door long after the horse has bolted? The geopolitical situation of Iran has always been clear. But what's been lacking is a united approach and more importantly, honest/descent governments who could look after Iran's interests before individual personal, political or religious interests. Regards, * Fortress for the West I agree with basically all of what you mentioned ["Just wondering"], except possibly the one about Azeri population. Islam is multicultural and Iran being an Islamic society follows that, for example Ayatullah Khamenei himself is Azeri. Anyhow, as for Israel, yes they are a big threat. Why? Because they, i.e zionists, are the ones who have made the bad publicity for Iran among the Western countries. They are the ones pushing for the sanctions against Iran, they are the ones always talking to USA and the West that Iran is a 'threat' to Europe etc., and they own most of the Media (and a whole lot of the companies and wealth I might add) and as such use it to influence the politicians in the various country into anti-Iranian actions. If you have been involved in working against the sanctions on Iran with the organization IIC (www.iic.org), you could easily see how much power the zionist lobby has. They managed to gather together basically 95 out of 100 senators, and hundreds of congressmen in a matter of days, when the Bush administration seemed to be wanting a 2-year extension, with the zionists wanting a 5-year one. Other issues are propaganda films such as "Not without my daughter" were filmed in Israel and the mere purpose was to picture Iranians as anti-American wife abusers and kidnappers. So that's the polito-economical one. Now for the second reason, that we as muslims should show solidarity with the oppressed, in this case in the Holy Land, is quite reasonable. They have stolen land, driven millions of people into exile and a miserable life in refugee camps, they have killed thousands of others, they have even occupied parts of other countries with which we have good ties such as Syria and Lebanon and where there exists a significant amount of shi'ite muslims. On top of this they are sitting on some of the holiest shrines of Islam >>> FULL TEXT * PEOPLE have a right to exist Personally, I think that Israel is a threat to the entire world because it is a "rogue nation" with a nuclear arsenal and a ballistic missile capability ["Just wondering"]. Israel refuses international monitoring and inspection of its weapons of mass destruction facilities and spits in the face of those countries which have signed on to antiproliferation treaties. Israel is also a country that engages in state sanctioned terrorism (deliberate targetting of civilians), hostage taking and assassination of political opponents. In short, it is a bad example for its neighbors and a threat to world peace. However, there is one other point in Jahanshah Javid's editorial that deserves attention: "Virtually ALL Arab states have either accepted Israel's right to exist..." What does this mean? What does it mean that a government has a "right to exist"? Is that a divine right such as was once claimed by kings? I don't accept this idea. Governments do NOT have rights. There is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I don't know of any counterpart for governmental rights. Governments simply exist or don't exist. There is no right to exist. There is a matter of legitimacy, yes. Governments may be legitimate or not. We usually measure this in terms of the degree to which they serve the interest of those that are governed or which fall under the dominion of that government. Democracy is a measure of such legitimacy. Certainly a government which calls itself the "Jewish State" has a questionable claim to legitimately rule over its non-Jewish residents. Similarly, it is hard to see how a government which declares itself an "Islamic Republic" can be truly democratic and fully legitimate. No, I don't accept that Israel has a "right to exist", regardless what some Arab governments (of far worse legitimacy) are willing to endorse. PEOPLE have a right to exist and to live in peace with their neighbors. PEOPLE have a right to be represented by the governments that claim dominion over them. * Always a threat Iran should be actively opposed to Israel not only because of the moral aspect of the issue, but also because it suits Iran's national interests ["Just wondering"]. Israel will always be a threat to Iran, even if there were no such things as Palestinians (as Golda Meir, the Israei Prime Minister, once claimed.) Why? Simple: Israel wishes to dominate and control the Mideast for its own interests. Why? Simple: Because the world is a competitive place, and all nations engage in competition. Israel is far worse: Israel has nuclear weapons, follows a messianic and racist expansionist policy, and has claims to "Greater Israel." Therefore, even if we totally ignore the Palestinians, Israel will be a threat to Iran. Furthermore, Iran's national insterests will certainly not be served by allowing Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby to dictate Iran's policies, and force Iran to look the other way and acquiesce to Israel's blatant violations of every principle of international law and humanity. Iran should under no circumstance AT ALL set such a precedent. If they get their way today on the Palestinians, what's to stop them in the future when they make additional claims? Also, from a moral standpoint, Iran should oppose Israel. Israel claims it has a right to hold onto lands obtained by military conquest, and to drive out the inhabitants and replace them with settlers - blatant violations of international laws such as the Fourth Geneval Convention which ironically, was specifically drafted in response to similar actions by Nazi Germany. The parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany are frightening. Both claim racial/ethnic superiority of their "chosen people" to live in a region which has been "cleansed" of the people of the "wrong" race or ethnicity, both excused their expansionist policies by callng for "breathing room" for their settlements to "naturally expand", both attacked their neighbors while also claiming to be "preemptively defending" themselves, both legalized the torture and murder of people of the wrong race/ethnicity, both engaged in "population transfers" and both pushed people of the "wrong" race/ethnicity into ghettos >>> FULL TEXT * Zionism: Greater Israel Let's get it clear that Israelis are Zionists, not Jews! ["Just wondering"] Zionists do try to present the false image that all Jews agree, but they don't! Then, at the core of Zionism theory (as T. Hertzel defined it and D. Ben Gurion perfected it), is the idea of "Greater Israel", not a "Homeland for Jews". It means that this is not going to stop, Zionists are not going to just be satisfied with the lands west of the Jordan River and north of Sinai! Zionism sees a homeland for itself from Euphrates to the Nile. Now, who is going to stop it from expanding more and more? From Zaayanderood to Zambia does not seem far fetched, does it? There have been native Jews living in Iran and Ethiopia for thousands of years, what is going to stop Zionism from expanding its territory? * Much bigger threat First off, Israel is a much bigger threat to Iran than you claim in your article ["Just wondering"]. Israel easily has the military capability as well as the will power to carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iranian cities and/or military facilities. Would it be rational on their part to do such a thing? No of course not. But we're not talking about rational people here. Israelis are set into a victim mentality, and so whatever they do they justify by claiming self-defense; the "defense of the Jewish people and the Jewish homeland". Remember what happened in 1982 (or 1981?) when Israeli warplanes secretly flew into the heart of Iraq and bombed several nuclear facilities. Several Israeli politicians have openly discussed the possiblity of bombing Iranian cities, including south Tehran. Yes, of course these are the extremist fringe in the Israeli government. But who's ruling the country now? Sharon is by all accounts an extremist (to use the most polite and diplomatic term). It is interesting to note that Iranian mollas, despite all their rhetoric, have NEVER once directly threatened military action against Israel. But Israel has directly threatened military action against Iran. Responding to your other point, just because the Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with us does NOT mean we shouldn't give a shit. Luckily we don't have to worry about being personally affected by it, this is true. But I think any freedom-loving and righteous individual in this world would be concerned when such egrerious human rights violations take place, anywhere in the world. And for our part we need to speak out against Israel and their fascist people every single opportunity we get. * Taafteh jodaa baafteh Ajabaa! Poor Iranians! Everyone and every nation seems to be working against Iran according to your article! ["Just wondering"] Who on the earth you think we are? Taafteh jodaa baafteh?! * Gondeh goozi I read your article and I must say that I found it pretty interesting ["Just wondering"]. I used to think about the same thing till after a lot of research, I found out the main reason(s) Iran opposes Israel so strongly. 1- Iranian government calls itself the only Islamic state In the world. The other Muslim countries, are only Muslim countries. They are (and their constitution) influenced by Islamic laws and culture but their constitutions do not directly follow Islam and Quran. \ Therefore, we the Iranians (or better Persians) had always something to say about other counties and our position in this world. We always wanted to be a sort of power and mess with other countries. Why did Cyrus The Great save the Jews and return them to their home at the first place? Be oon chi bood? In Farsi slang this is called "Gondeh Goozi" >>> FULL TEXT * Monitoring Iran Here we go again with the Israel-Iran thing ["Just wondering"]. Yes, Sharon is the prime minister and yes he is called the "War Criminal" because in 74, he got Jerusalem back. Crime? Well you can call that a crime but in this land, anything goes. For your second question about whether Israel is a thread to Iran, I have to say yes. As I wrote here in Iranian.com while ago ["Reality check"], I served in the Israeli army as GPS-ATA (air to air) Eng. The defence system of Iran (air and ground) runs on IBM-BRAUN OS2, an old IBM operating systems which are known for thier "BACK DOOR" capabilities. MOSSAD (Israeli intellegence services) was the major contributor at the time when installation took place in Yazd and Kerman. For past 20 some years, they have been able to monitor Iran's activities in the region. So much for the facts, but the real point that we are all missing here is that this ain't our war, even if we wanted it. There is too much Western politics involved before even we get to the Israeli settelments. So, maybe you should wonder more. Faryad * Why enemies? This is a very interesting article ["Let's be realistic"] . May I ask you where you live inside or outside of Iran? Iran for many centuries was a good friend of Israel and we fought already together against the Romans. Why do we have to enemies now? (-: Jonathan :-) * Who cares? Why are such insignificant and useless creations of human societies such as sports so important to so many people to the point of fault? ["Let's be realistic"] Which citizen of Brazil or which Colombian is better off because their soccer team makes it to the world cup every time? When did it become important enough to kill or to get killed over any kind of sporting event? The fact is that sports another man made opiate designed to take the publics mind off the more important matters. Romans were the first people to take full advantage of occupying the publics mind with meaningless affairs such as sports. They used gladiators and animals. After all these centuries of social evolution, we are not much better than them! For a change, let's concentrate on something a little more meaningful than who can kick a ball more accurately or harder. Let's ask "why is it that a government like the one in Afghanistan can exist in the 21st century?" Even better, let's find and answer and then a solution to such questions. What does it matter who get in to or wins the world cup!? * Negative image I truly enjoy your magazine and admire your "nothing is sacred" modo. However, I must say that reading the interview by Mr. Nasser entitiled "Cheraa ezdevaaj nakardeham (2)" bothered me. After reading this interview I questioned the real point behind such an interview. Do we really care why a guy in Sweeden doesn't want to get married as well as finding out about his sexual preferences? Not to mention the negative image that it portrayed on Iranian women beautifully brought out by the letter from Roshanak ["This is a sin"]. I have a suggestion. Why not interview people who make a difference in this world like the two Iranian friends who are cycling around the world for peace or talking to prominent Iranian figures like Dr. Reza Ghadiri who recently made head lines around the world as well as in CNN by publishing break through research in the field of medicine. Why not interview a health professional on common medical issues so that some of the more older Iranians who have health questions (sepcially those in Iran) can also benefit. Don't you think we read enough on topics such as dating, marriage and sex "Iranian Style"? Best, * Many don't want to leave For those who have read "No walls" and its related letters, Setareh Sabety's article is reasonable and there were nice and respectable letters about it. On the other hand, we see the letter of Sheema khaanome Kalbasi "More blessings" who doesn't like the letters ["In fairyland", "America is no paradise"] with some MAN DAR AVARDI's reasons. When I read letters who blame others because of their KHESLATHAAYE MAKHSOOSE IRANISHOON, HESAABI HERS MIKHORAM. As an Iranian who has left Iran a few years ago and has been there for several times, I'd like to consult with some who don't live in Iran. If you haven't been to Iran for a long time and just heard about it, please don't make quick conclusions. So many people still enjoy living there in spite of hardships and cannot or don't want to leave their country. What are the hardships? There are probably different from the things that you think. For example, they are not worried about covering their head or being arrested by a PAASDAAR any more. They are worried about some more important things. That is the future and education of their children. Something that your children can get much more easier in America than in Iran. Two basic points: * If a student doesn't have enough income, he can afford it by working a few hours in a restuarant or getting loans. Can we work in a restuarant in Iran and get enough money to survive? what about loans? * Does a student, in America, have to pass the university entrance examination with millions of competitors? Is there any Iranian who loves to study and has not been able to do it here? Haalaa ye kasi mesle Sheema khaanome Kalbasi (va amsaal) peidaa mishe va az hamsaaye Irani va az second generation racism dar Iran sohbat mikone. Khaanom jaan, shomaa age deletoon poreh berin be doostaaye non-Iranian ghor bezanin ke listener khoobi hastand va mohite kheili khoobi baaraye shomaa faraaham kardan. I only had good relations with the non-Iranians when I had sex with them. They could understand me very well after that. Ba Ehteram, * Gays showing off Bravo Ocean Sky ["More important than gays"]. All we need is more gay people tryng to show off their sexuality in our society. I absolutely agree with you that this is a personnel issue for the bedroom and it does not belong to the public. Americans are free to think that being gay is ok, but in our culture is still a no-no and it should remain like that. We don't want be disgraced by the actions of such people. If somebody wants to come and call me a homophobic go right ahead. I am proud to be one. We certainly don't need no homosexual waving the flag of Iran in a gay parade in San Francisco. You people should be ashamed of yourselves and your behavior! Ali-Reza Kasra * Kindest heart Kobra Khanom, ["Lost parents"] I have just read your response to Denise who wrote of her search for her husband's parents. I want you to know I have tears in my eyes because of the sincere concern you have for her and her husband. The first thoughts in my mind were "you have the kindest and most beautiful heart and soul".Thank you for this and I believe your prayers are worth alot. May God be with you today and always!
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group