by Eradatmand

Civilization is series of known and accepted measures of conduct to coordinate a civil lifestyle. Civilization is based on many historical elements such as culture. However, enjoying an ancient culture does not necessarily constitute a healthy and thriving civilization for any people. For example, a nation that suffers from low literacy rates among its population cannot usually uphold freedom  of speech.  

The uncivilized reaction of some spectators during official meetings in less-developed nations may be broadcasted, but they should never be vouchsafed by indifferent media. 

Throwing shoes at a president of any foreign country while he or she is visiting is neither moral nor an effective way to communicate. 

While we hold Mr. Bush responsible for many economic and moral misjudgments, and he deserves impeachment, we should not allow any demeaning act against the person of our president in any social gathering. What transpired against Mr. Ahmadinejhad in Washington and his being ridiculed by biased media was just based on freedom of speech, while he deserved more representing an oppressive government! The U.S is a better nation than that. Our children must be taught the value of free speech and respect for all even when they are out of line. 


Recently by EradatmandCommentsDate
Marriage and Younger Generation
Nov 12, 2012
Oct 30, 2012
You believe in God!
Jul 16, 2011
more from Eradatmand


by Shekar on

You obviously don't think this is a rude reply when someone criticizes your conduct or a point you have made:

... so I don't really give a sh*t. :-)

But it is.  You questioned people's allegiances and I replied to you politely.  Leaving may not be an option for you for various reasons, but you will have to be more civil if you have to stay.

On second thought, and since JJ doesn't seem to mind your abhorring conduct and language on this site, I will share something with you.  I'm gald you don't really give a sh*t about anything, because there might be nothing left of you if you did.  Hang on to everything you've got Zion!




Polite Criticism? Rude?

by Zion on

How was I rude? and since when suggesting someone should leave, or asking stuff that are non of ones business is considered "civil" "criticism"?
Surely you jest.



by Shekar on

Is this the best you can do?  Your response to civil criticism is to use cheap language?  You are a bully, the point is proven by now.  But why?  Why do you feel the need to be so rude?  Iranians have been so nice to you on this site, but you go around labelling them and harassing them when you disagree with their points of view.  Why?  What is your problem? 

Even if this site lets you get away with it, it doesn't mean it's right and as users we have a right to object. 

Niloufar Parsi

shoo doggie!

by Niloufar Parsi on

Bush has no sole. being booted out of iraq on his last trip there, he finally knows that he has failed, and finds himself in the ranks of world politicians who had poo thrown at them by the very people who were supposed to be grateful. in his last days in office, his administration hangs on a shoestring. what is next? perhaps he should become a shoe salesman in order to try and redeem his sole? in any case, no one will be rushing to follow in his footsteps, which is a relief to the world at large. apparently, the Arab world is marking December 14 as the 'kundara' day, which mean the 'shoe' day.

The message from iraq is clear: shoo doggie!



That's about it.

by Zion on

'May I suggest that ... you spend some of your time on websites where...'

No. You may not suggest. It is none of your business.

'However, becoming tiring for me, so I protest.'

Good for you. Your opinion became irrelevant very fast, so I don't really give a sh*t. :-) (Especially about how you think everyone else is supposed to behave.)

Take care.



by Shekar on

Thank you. 

1. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of concern about another user’s method of operation on the site, bullying and belittling anyone whose opinion she doesn’t like. Iranian Americans have allegiances to the great United States of America. They are critical of Islamic Republic of Iran, but love Iran. Being displaced helps them have compassion for many other displaced and mistreated in the world. They are in the US, because this great country has given them a home and rights which they did not have in Iran, protected by the exemplary Constitution of the United States of America. First and foremost what they love is US Constitution’s First Amendment in which freedom of speech is guaranteed for every citizen of this country. They have a right to their opinions and many of them express those opinions. When another citizen of United States of America ridicules their right to speak their minds, they protest, and they have a right to that protest. Please respect people’s rights without questioning their allegiances. In the very heart of that allegiance lies their right to speak their minds.

2. The man who threw the shoe did something desperate and rude. This, I assume, was his way of protesting the injustices he felt he and his nation had suffered. Throwing shoes at a world leader is not acceptable behavior and I will not defend it.

3. The world leader at whom the shoes were thrown has been a source of contention and embarrassment for many Americans in this country. Those who didn’t like him did not throw shoes at him. They went to the polls and voted for his party’s opponent. Now that was neither desperate nor rude.

4. When I mentioned your committed presence, I was referring to your seeming to be present at all hours and on many threads, giving your opinions about matters. I am delighted you find this site’s subjects and discussions interesting enough to comment to your liking. However, your constant and aggressive picking on other users and trying to question their allegiances and preferences is becoming tiring for me, so I protest.

5. So, if you have allegiances to US and Israel, what brings you here? What is your interest in Iranians? Do you think some of the people on this site need to be taught some lessons or corrected somehow, and this is your contribution to setting the world right? May I suggest that instead of picking on the most educated immigrant group of this country, criticizing them for voting for Obama and for having liberal views, you spend some of your time on websites where in the same great United of States of America people are defending ideology and thoughts which really need to be set straight? They are free to speak their minds, too, but some of them could do with a bit of enlightenment.  I am sure your energy can be put to optimum use in those circles.



by Zion on

You are not going to get any info about my background. My comments are all you'll get. However your question of allegiance is not completely without merit, so I'll give you an answer there.
My allegiance is to both countries, USA and Israel, because they are both liberal democracies and allies. One does not exclude the other. If there comes day when this is no longer the case, then logically that would mean at least one of the two can no longer be considered a liberal democracy. Then my allegiance will be to the one that remains a liberal democracy (based on my understanding of the situation.)

This however does not mean that in any given case in our time, the two necessarily act in unison, or that I should condone any policy at any time. It is case by case. I give you an example. When Israel sold missiles to Russia, the United States rightly objected. In this case I am on the side of the US. Similarly when the United States give way to states like Saudi Arabia or Iran, and when she unjustly pressures Israel, the only true democracy of the region and her close ally, to win favors among arabs for whatever reason, be it war in Iraq or oil deals, then I am on the side of Israel because she is on the right in such situations. This is a self-consistent attitude precisely because the two states are liberal democracies, where rightful dissent is not only legitimate, but expected from responsible citizens. This is actually the very essence of a liberal democracy. You can't have such consistency when one or both parties are tyrannies, especially if they are fascistic death cult worshiping systems like that of the current regime in Iran.
None of this entails in any case propagating false allegations and clear attempts of demonization of the land one has allegiance to. That much should be clear by now.

Thanks Aziz. You are exactly right.


why personal attacks?

by Aziz (not verified) on

The debate is not about Zion.

The shoe thrower must ask himself a simple question:

Would he have thrown his shoe at Saddam?
If yes, I have no more to say.
If no: (Too afraid of the consequences) then the shoe thrower and the rest of Iraqi's owe Mr. Bush a Big Thank You.



by Shekar on

You brought up a very good point about where people's allegiances lie.  You seem like a very interesting individual to me. 

May I ask where your true allegiances lie?  I only ask because of your user name and your very committed presence on 

Are you an Iranian?  An Israeli?  An American?  A Zionist?  All?  So are your allegiances to Zion, to Israel, to US, or to Iran?  Thank you.


On true allegiances

by Zion on

LOL. Keith Olbermann and his usual diatribes are now sources to prove allegation?!

Waterboarding a terrorist murderer to break up fascist terror groups and save lives... that is what you use to demonize...ehem... "your" country? You know what the allied forces had to do during WWII to break the back of Nazis?

There are of course always soldiers who abuse their authority in all similar situations. The free land catches them eventually and convicts them as America has done, more than any country in the face of the earth in all history. Waterboearding this mass murderer is definitely not such an instance, and most people in the know and with brains who realize the necessity of extracting information from these goons and the limited time available agree it is not torture...Keith Olbermann might disagree but Keith Olbermann, and his fans, simply do not belong to this category.
(Even if some "legal experts" want to discuss the gray zones and delicate issues involved in the definition, this issue can't be used as the basis for alleging "America is an occupying country who engages in torture and rape of Iraqis..." What is it you mean? Your hero shoe thrower was upset because this fascist mass murderer was waterboarded?...[sigh])
To twist this and cry out America as "torturing and killing, raping, bombing civilians", and so on, is precisely what America's worst enemies do. It is their almost exclusive hallmark, and it is very revealing of where someone's true allegiances lie when they consistently utter them any opportunity that they get.



by IRANdokht on

in support of the previous comment about torture etc...


Dear Eradatmand, Although

by Anonymous--1 (not verified) on

Dear Eradatmand,

Although I'm in principle agree with your comments, but (you were expecting this right, the famous but):

- When you talk about the civilized behavior etc. are you considering genocide a civilized behavior?
George Bush arrives in a country where his actions has caused about 1 Million dead and who knows howmany injured, 4 Million displaced, people, about 1 Million refugees in other countries, etc.

In other word let say if Adolf Hitler would come to visit U.S. after his regime had killed millions of people in the "Concentrations camps" including 6 million Jews, would throwing shoes at him uncivilized?

What you are explaining (correctly) is based on mutual agreement, meaning I treat you civilized and expect you treat me also civilized! But we can not expect that we treat someone badly, drop bombs on their homes, kill their people randomly (see Blackwater incident etc.) gather their men and treat them such as what happened in Abu Ghraib and then expect that they will treat us civilized!!


Common sense isn't always there...

by Saman on

Common sense is cute and sure sounds logical on paper, but human behavior isn't always about common sense. The guy (journalist) lived a hellish life in the last few years. He was kidnapped, tortured and lost family members in a world of hell. No matter what kind of upbrining a person may have ... people lose logic when under pressure and depressed.

If common sense always worked ... we would rid world of death penalty and organized torture by governments ... save Africa, find cure for aids/ the poor, end all wars/violence and open free schools around the world.


Throwing shoes at a president of any foreign country while he or

by Faribors maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

Throwing shoes at a president of any foreign country while he or she is visiting is neither moral nor an effective way to communicate.



Thanks Eradatmand

by Zion on

For making valid point backed by reasonable arguments. A rarity here.


So very revealing

by Zion on

'The shoe was thrown towards the leader of the occupying country who personally has authorized bombing, torture, armed raids of civilians homes, rapes, murders and many more acts of hostility towards the people of the reporters country. Not just a visiting leader of a just a foreign country.'

This is clearly what an American would do. Accuse the land with false charges of rape, murder and bombing of civilian homes when the fact is that the death toll in Iraq is due to insurgency, deliberate terrorist attacks on civilians and fighting of several islamist and Baathist groups against each other and the Americans, which has the civilians caught in between.
Very interesting that this supposed American should use the exact same false charges against America as do America's greatest enemies among Islamists and the like. Very revealing. ;-)


shellshocked to immorality, so to speak

by Anonymous Shoe Maker (not verified) on

I don't know who al-Zaidi is, but I speak of his action, what he did in not an act of "uncivilized reaction", but an act of defiance, frustration, and insult to the head of a government that is responsible for destruction of a nation.

If by calling the act not being "moral" one means that he is an immoral person, one has to consider when billions of dollars worth of bombs are dropped on a nation some of the people living in that nation might go crazy. It a natural reaction. One cannot expect shellshocked people to act morally.


You may kiss my shoes

by Aziz (not verified) on

به گزارش ايرنا به نقل از رسا، آيت‌الله خزعلي، دبيرکل بنياد بين‌المللي غدير، در همايش بزرگ ولايت در زنجان اظهار داشت: من کفش خبرنگاري که به بوش لنگه کفش پرتاب کرد را مي‌بوسم.
وي با تقدير از اين اقدام غيورانه خبرنگار عراقي گفت: اين اقدام در واقع پرتاب کفش به نماد شيطان و شياطين زمان بود.


with all due respect

by IRANdokht on

From what I saw of the shoe throwing incident:

1- The reporter was obviously shaken and probably not thinking rationally to consider the image of his protest nor the consequences.

2- The reporter was clear about what emotions had made him throw his shoe by the words he yelled out during the act. I won't paraphrase them, they're available if you look it up.

3- The shoe was thrown towards the leader of the occupying country who personally has authorized bombing, torture, armed raids of civilians homes, rapes, murders and many more acts of hostility towards the people of the reporters country. Not just a visiting leader of a just a foreign country. 

4- What is considered civilized action and what is not? Declaring war on a country based on lies would be considered uncivilized if done by a third world country, why not if done by a super power? Is the act of throwing a shoe a lot more uncivilized than attacking and bombing a whole nation?

5- This subject has been discussed to death already, so I won't be participating in any arguments on this blog.

Thank you