|
Monday * Many fronts I read the article "Case closed" by Shahriar Zangeneh this morning and I wept. I wept for Ezzatollah Ebrahim-Nejad's parents, for the life he had ahead of him, for the injustice delivered to him at the hands of a country he was serving. But while Shahriar Zangeneh is right to place civil rights on the highest of agendas for judicial reform in Iran. he has overlooked one fact that any strategizing seeker of justice must acknowledge. The fight for freedom and justice occurs on many fronts and one battle never won the war. If we are fighting together we should not diminish the struggles of that "soldier" next to us even if they are fighting on a different front. The economist who struggles to refine policies that will deliver economic justice for many, cannot be separated from the lawyer who seeks to secure the rights of his individual client, they cannot be separated from the editor willing to risk his life and limb to promote free speech. Civil rights go hand-in-hand with economic justice, which goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech and so on. So the fight for freedom and justice is a big one, with many fronts and many battles ahead - as our best and brightest are imprisoned and killed we will need more to take their place. I salute Shahriar Zangeneh for the reason and compassion he brings to this struggle -- in this fight we all need more brothers (and sisters) -in-arms. * Fighting against entire nation Mr. Hedayat,["All had high hopes"] So you say we should look kindly on MKO because: 1- for the sake of "toleration", and 2- because "the Regime" has done bad things? Here's my answer: 1- Toleration has limits, and treason is well-past these limits, and there is absolutely and totally no doubt whatsoever under any objective basis that actively fighting against your own nation on behalf of a foreign invader is pure and simple TREASON, and furthermore: 2- What "the Regime" does is no justification for the actions of the MKO, which by the way was actively supporting the same regime's rise to power and was also one of the most violent organizations within "the Regime" until it was sidelined and its ambitions were frustrated, and then it went off and sided with Saddam. If the MKO didn't like the government of Iran, fine, lots of different people and groups didn't. But that is hardly a justification for the MKO to go and side with Saddam Hussein! That is hardly a reason to go and kill fellow Iranians! The explanation for their actions is quite obvious: they're willing to give away Iran in bits and pieces to invaders, as long as it may provide them an opportunity to come to power. And you say we should be tolerant of that? If so, why don't we just be "tolerant" of Saddam too and just give him Khuzestan? And by the way: 3- You seems to disregard a rather glaring and very obvious difference about the Mojahedin versus all the other anti-IRI dissidents: The Mojahedin weren't fighting against "the Regime", rather they were fighting against entire nation of Iran, on the side of an invading enemy force from another country which has a worse regime and which had the stated intention of dismembering the country of Iran. So don't try to mix other Iranian dissidents with the MKO. I very much doubt that the pro-Monarchists or other Iranian dissident groups, or any Iranian writers and student etc. who you refer to would want to be thrown in with the Mojahedin in anyway at all. The Mojadehdin are still in Iraq and according to Iraqi opposition groups, they act as part of Iraq's armed forces and actively participate in suppressing Iraqi Kurds. They are nothing more than a pro-fascist cult in the service of Saddam. What the Mojahedin did - both as a group, and as every single individual - is totally unforgivable, under any sort of regime with any ideology. Even in the US, providing "material aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime" is treason, and also punishable by death. The MKO should rot in foreign lands, never, ever to see Iran again, with nothing but their shame to comfort them. * Hard to forgive I read Mr Hedayat's essay on the Mojahedin ["All had high hopes"] with interest. He rebukes those who brand the Mojahedin as traitors for failing to learn from years of living in countries with democratically-elected governments and not exercising tolerance of others' point of view. I think this misses the point that what the Mojahedin did, in fighting alongside the Iraqis in the war, would constitute treason in any existing democracy. In the World Wars, British soldiers who deserted the army just to get back to their families were shot -- let alone those who switched sides. To this day, the only offence for which the death penalty still exists in Britain is that of treason. Those members of the Mojahedin who died in the trenches of the Iran-Iraq war were not fighting the Islamic regime in Iran. They died fighting Iranian soldiers defending Iranian soil from the enemy, and for those of us who lost loved ones in the war, this is very hard to forgive. * Hilteresque This letter is in response to Mr. Hedayat's letter regarding the issue of the Mojahedin: "All had high hopes" Dear Sir, You start by claiming that you are not a supporter of the Mojahedin, but your entire article is filled with underlying ideological support for this political group. Like most supporters of Mojahedin and other extremist political groups that have each contributed to the destruction of our country, you like to mix up the basic facts with political absurdity to paint an image that fits your personal ideals. I do not want to use the unique and truly democratic forum of Iranian.com to launch a personal and useless attack against you. But, I do want to politely point out a few basic cold facts that you conveniently left out: First, the Mojahedin existed before the creation of the Islamic Republic and were in fact one of the most active opposition groups against the Shah. I would like to note that I am in no way a supporter of the monarchy, but any Iranian with a right state of mind and a unbiased and pure patriotic love for Iran can conclude that the overall state of Iran during the Shah's rule was much better than it has been during the rule of the mollas or it would be under the rule of fascist and tyrant groups such as the Mojahedin, communists, mollas or any other non-democratic political groups. If the Mojahedin claim that they are the voice of freedom for Iran, then why were they carrying out political murders and other types of destructive activity during the Shah's rule, when Iran was beginning to make significant progress in social and economic areas? Compared to the track record of the current government, it is effortless for the leaders and supporters of these malevolent political groups to claim that the destiny of Iran would be improved under their authority. But experience should teach us that a political configuration filled with uncompromising and fundamentalist principles will never be able to achieve a political venue where the true vote of the majority will dictate the political, economic and social direction that a nation takes. When listening to the Hitleresque speeches of Mr. and Mrs. Rajavi, it is very easy to observe the fanatical and systematic violence that their political theories are built upon >>> FULL TEXT * Washington not safe from terrorists Has Aref Erfani khodesh ra zadeh be koocheh ali chap? ["What he eats belongs to the people of Iran"] Or is he seriously ill informed? Thank you sir, for your beautiful tourist guide of Washington where Reza Pahlavi lives and for using the attractions of Washington DC to claim that actually Reza Pahlavi is not risking anything at all by sticking his head out. May I then remind you that Paris is a far more beautiful city than Washington. Yet all the beauty and comfort of this city did not manage to save the likes of Dr. Bakhtiar, General Oveisi and the son of Ashraf Pahlavi from being assassinated. Bakhtiar was hacked to pieces in his own house and the other two assasinated in the street by the agents of the Islamic Republic. There are many more examples of people killed across Europe, the enteratiner Farrokhzad and many others in Germany and yes, quite a few in the lovely city of Washington. So please don't insult our intelligence. Living outside Iran does not provide safety for anyone whilst a gang of terrorists are in control of our country. * Dogmatic My response to Mr. Aref Erfani's letter ["What he eats belongs to the people of Iran"] is: Mr. Erfani's ideological orientation (which is proven to be a total failure, dead and buried, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and ...) is quite evident from his obsession with materialism (money) and his nonsensical drivel which is indicative of his deep frustration and desperately childish attempt to discredit Reza Pahlavi and his successful campaign towards liberating our country. No matter how bitter Mr. Erfani might feel, how dogmatic his views or what he might say, the fact is that Reza Pahlavi is who he is and his unique standing in the contemporary history of Iran is beyond dispute. Mr. Erfani has to face the fact that the people of Iran, having already experienced the consequences of similar rhetorics before, will not become "flock of any shepherd" again, and will make the right decision at the right time. Finally, I would pose the following questions to Mr. Erfani: a) If "talk is cheap", then what is he afraid of? Is he afraid that the people of Iran might know better? b) If Reza Pahlavi is not a leadership material, then who in his opinion is? Perhaps Mr. Erfani could indulge Iranians and provide them with his choice of qualified candidates. c) In Mr. Erfani's Iran of tomorrow, what would be the place and rights of those Iranians who do not share his ideology and prescribed form of government? * Piled together The photos by Abbas are brilliant ["Old and new values"]; so true, so incredibly precisely true. More than ever, I want to go home, and there's nothing nostalgic about it. But I do think you have at least 3 or 4 different photo essays there. They'd be more appreciated if they weren't all piled together. * Not just religionists Dear Sean, ["Happy without faith"] I can not agree more with you about the religionists tendency to force their values down the throat of others who do not share the same beliefs. However in regards to the availability of antisuffering Aspirins, it is not only the religionists who oppose it. There are also those who are concerned about the potential abuse of such legal tools in the hands of criminals. Unfortunately for sufferers, the religionists have a large group of supporters on this issue. * You go way too far Sean, ["Happy without faith"] I read your letter and I believe your arguments are completely valid. Although I am religious at heart, I strongly support the critical analysis of all religious texts and the separation of Church and State. I am not very happy about those who "proselytize" and I hope I have not forced my ideas on anyone. Unfortunately, a great number of "religionists" do not have a basic understanding of science and scientific methodology and cannot differentiate between scientific facts and religious beliefs in a sense that they sometimes mix the two and use one to justify the other. On the other hand, there were people like Dobzhansky, one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of all time, who prayed to "God" and had strong religious beliefs. Martin Gardner, the renowned science writer, openly proclaims that he is not a secular humanist. My only problem with your arguments is that you go way too far in your support and endorsement of "euthanasia". Your line of reasoning is unacceptable even by secular standards. You believe that EMSP (End My Suffering, please) pills "should be easily available as Aspirin, over-the-counter, with 100% guarantee to work, with no complications, pain or vomiting." I think this is a very strong position, especially if the EMSP pills become easily available on a worldwide basis. If so, then millions of people (African, Oriental, Middle-Eastern) will perish in a day or two and the "undertakers" will be as reach as Bill Gates and the Sultan of Brunei. Also, where do you draw the line? Who qualifies for the EMSP pills? Those who suffer physically or mentally or both? Sometimes, mental scars and emotional suffering can be as bad as the physical ones. Suppose, a father accidentally shoots her daughter. Her brain is splashed all over the wall. The father is so overwhelmed by the feelings of guilt and feels so miserable that he goes to the nearest pharmacy, buys a small bottle of over-the-counter, EMSP pills and ends his life. There are enough Iranian girls who prefer to burn themselves than to stay alive and witness the suffering of their jobless, miserable parents. EMSP pills would indeed be a relief for them. I repeat the last paragraph of my article, ["Last refuge"]: "When faced with the naked realities of the world, some people abandon their faiths for good and some cling to their faiths more strongly than ever. The ultimate answer to man's sufferings, if there is any at all, may never be found." Best regards, * No guilty feelings Dear Sean, ["Happy without faith"] Well done. I am ready to kick the bucket & go any time. If it is painless & on my command so much the better. Get my corps cremated, the ashes to the see. Nobody came & nobody left. No guilty feelings for my children, that they had neglected visiting Father's Grave! Absolute useless perception. Best regards, H. Hakimi, * On the contrary Mehrak writes ["One woman, one man"]: "The story is not about Denmark, neither does it claim to be a study of the abuse Danish women suffer in the hands of foreign men. It is the story of one woman and her tragic encounter with one disturbed Iranian man, no more, no less." True. All individuals do not necessarily fit into statistical averages. "Mary" is definitely not a scientific study of abused women either. However, doing some research and information gathering enables the story-teller to give a more credible picture of what he/she is talking about. "After reading your comments I went back and read the story again. I found it to be factual and virtually free of personal interpretations or generalizations about anything pertaining to Denmark or Iran. The author very clearly warns against rash judgments at the onset and states that the intent of "Mary" is not to insult Iranians -- that in fact she has numerous Iranian friends and acquaintances whom she respects". On the contrary I found the story full of such interpretations/generalizations. Where is the factual part? (do you mean anecdotal?) It is probably factual in the same way "Not without my Daughter" was factual. On occasions the story is full of stereo-typical generalizations (...andishidam keh zani zakhm khordehi va az share mardane Irani, ... dar tanhai beh sar mibari..., ... sharhe haleman az zendegie moshtarekeman ba yek marde Irani...). Notice that they are all directed towards Iranian men and not Khan. Do you think if the story were told by an American about John Doe beating his wife, there would be passages about "the agony of living with American men"? "I agree with you: badmouthing races, religions, nationalities and intermarriages is very easy, but so is offering criticism without basis my friend." I offered the basis for my criticism. In a nutshell: I suggested the story-teller to do whatever it takes to present a more credible story, especially, when there might be people in the audience that know more about the Danish society. You rebutted by saying that when talking about the story of an individual, statistics and doing research about the story don't work. Then you suddenly become interested in the "factual" aspect of the story (whatever fact you may be referring to) and continue by saying that my criticism is baseless! Don't you see inconsistencies in your arguments? * At the end of the day Smacked around the face with all that was the complex of having to deal with an Iranian Neanderthal-man-narrative lost in the back streets of loneliness in exile, your story awakened all the hurt and humiliation that has essentially made or broken me, battering and smashing me around the planet while I've been looking for a ground beneath my feet: thank you, I suppose. Cigarette? "Mary" That heartless castration without a narrative that stories of Betty Mahmudis brought on for me -- and I suspect many others who came of age in that age and in this valley -- ever since my encounter with the opposite sex in a languageless and misfiting, not to mention mystifying Gesamtschule, this circumcision, this detouring, this exile, is repeated every time I begin to look at the intersexual relations, the uses and abuses of the unknown Other, --or even the opposite or the second -- particularly among the Iranians I encounter or study. At the end of the day there is nothing to say in the way of rationalization and cover up. At the end, it is yet another one of the cultural and traditional bagages we carry, and which carry us. And by we, I don't only mean Bani Adam... "I'm not your baby," screams Sinead. But in all this it must be noted that particularly tight and congested is the space between the tall buildings in the big apple where the judgment is not even suspended by the most learned of multiculturalist researchers avoiding the undercover agents in Washington Square on their way to lecture halls: I am an Iranian man, and that means something. What it means is only partly related to my neurotic and paranoid efforts to think to this muting background music of a broken record playing anti aircraft machine guns on a dark and repressed Persian night together with the moral police in that wretched religion infested middle school. Ah, fuck it, I don't know what it means. In the end, I bet it was music that saved me, a number of times. Boomboom Cha. There doesn't seem to be an answer to be found by the intellect as is once again evidenced by your example of Mari's Mom, a scholar in her own right, who no doubt has examined the master slave dialectic at one of its deepest sources out on the field, the wild, first hand. The forces of pain and pleasure make us up, but it seems that hurt and lack of trust are not universal plagues in our time any longer, they are our time. Gharbzadegi was another plague that was diagnosed and operated out, but that doesn't even make sense anymore. Do you have a light? I'm out of matches... One wants to cry. To cry out loud, daad! And daad (a cry), or asking for daad (justice) is simply listening to the daad (given). Listening to a history, allowing a daad to come out of the throat of a battered soul: this would perhaps be already doing justice, as we ad-just to the frequency and the wavelength of a faraway radio, perhaps radio free eUrope, telling us about ourselves. Daad dastur (ghaanun Ar.) nist, daad daad ast, and it definitely has something to do with giving, giving of a yawp that eventhough fleetingly vanishing in air, dies with nothing less than a bang: daad, and the rememberace of far, faryaad, memory of far e shahi, far e bozorgi, far e Irani. Dastur e Zabaan is the projection of law over something as formless as a whisper, or as pained as daad. One must remember not to get caught in the laws, and get straight to the music, rhythm and tempo. A dialogue can begin here... I'll have a Weizen please, thanks. And this goes for all traditionalists, class warriors and religious zealots, dogs of war and men of hate: build opera houses and scream the pain; Mari, cry the pain and I will listen. Some things are unseen, but nevertheless heard. The muses scream, and meanings arrive or derive much later. When the roof begins to fall over your head, and the ground shifts below your feet, trying to hang on to an identity that proves so universal and tekraari leaves you lonelier than when you started. In order to deal with Khan, one must rip the language apart and yank it back together, change the tone and the scale, introduce new riffs, think different thoughts, speak different words, do different deeds. It is in the cry of this music that all good and evil transgresses, and with all due respect: Also sprach Zarathustra!
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group