|
October 29, 2001 * Deeply concerned Dear Senator Feinstein, On October 18, 2001 one of your esteemed colleagues, Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican of Utah) submitted Senate Res. 173 calling upon local and federal law enforcement officials "to work to prevent and prosecute crimes against all Americans, including Iranian-Americans." This resolution draws attention to the contributions of Iranian-Americans to U.S. society and condemns bigotry against them. Thanks to your vote and that of other senators this resolution passed by unanimous consent. However, now, it is with much dismay that we read in the press about a draft bill, proposed by you and Senator Jon Kyl which will bar students from Iran from entering the United States. Needless to say, at the very least the Iranian-American community is confused by such a contradictory action and deeply concerned about it as well. Iranians and Iranian-Americans in the US form a vibrant, peaceful, and law-abiding part of the American nation, and stand resolutely in condemning acts of violence and terror. There has never been a terrorism case in the United States involving an Iranian student or immigrant. There is also no doubt about the magnitude and importance of the contributions of Iranian students in the US to advancement of science and technology in this country. We, as professors and scholars of Iranian heritage, bear witness to this fact and are proud of the achievements of Iranian students, as all those seeking the best for this country should be. Iranian students who apply for student visas to the US already go through a rigorous 5-6 week long security check before they are granted permission to enter the US - as opposed to the near instantaneous granting of visas to students of many other nations. Furthermore many Iranian parents and students have a high regard for education in American universities and will be disappointed and disheartened by such restrictions, especially at a time that calls for more dialogue and understanding among all nations. The draft bill proposed by you and Senator Kyl will not only have no effect in limiting the flow of potential terrorists to the US, it will harm US interests in the short and long run, by preventing the best and brightest of Iranians from entering this country - where many who receive advanced degrees stay and make contributions. In the words of Charles Vest, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, speaking about this year's Noble prize in Physics, "This award reminds us once again of how incredibly important it is for our nation's universities to keep their doors and their campuses open to those wonderful people who come to the United States from many other nations around the world to build the tremendous intellectual and human community we have." We are sure, that as an elected official, you have no desires to damage this country's competitive advantage in science and technology as compared to the rest of the world. Your constituency, which includes large numbers of Iranian-Americans and even larger numbers of professionals in the high-tech industry, will not approve of such draconian measures. And we urge you once more to consider the facts - that Iranians and Iranian-Americans form a highly educated, motivated, vibrant, peaceful, and law-abiding part of this nation - before putting your signature down to this bill. It is our hope that you will seek the best interests of this nation, and not propose or support measures that hamper US national and economic security and vitality - to which Iranians and Iranian-Americans make significant contributions on a daily basis. Sincerely, Board of Directors cc: Senator Jon Kyl * Iranians should react I agree with Parveez Shirazi ["Why silent?"] that Iranians should react to the recent initiative by Senator Feinstein to make life even harder for Iranian students in the US. Moving away from political honesty and common sense, the Senator seems to have elected the path of demagogy. Forgetting that the perpetrators of the recent tragic attacks were overwhelmingly from "friendly" Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) she has chosen to administer another easy blow at the usual and familiar demons: Iran, Iraq, Lybia,... I recently sent her an email. You can also express your opinions to her by going to her web site and leaving a message. * Walking on clouds Dear Naghmeh, ["His royal lowness"] The problem with you is that you are Harvard educated (nothing bad about it, mind you). But that makes you blind to the aspirations and wishes of ordinary folks. You are engulfed in your bookish ideas that take you away from hard reality. Ordinary folks neither want your advice nor understand your high ideals. What you are saying in your very long article is to satisfy yourself and the likes of you. If you just walk down from your high lecturing podium and take a few steps on the hard ground, most probably you may be able to see the things ordinary fellow Iranians do. Walking on clouds takes you nowhere. One more thing. Since when have we become so sophisticated, educated -- distinguishing right from wrong -- to really be able to choose a utopian government you envisage for the future of our beloved land? Did the so-called revolution do the job in such a short time? Then I should say ALLAH O AKBAR! SOBHAN ALLAH! Best wishes & regards, H. Hakimi, * No guilt whatsoever While, I cannot agree with the thrust or the conclusion of the article by Naghmeh Sohrabi ["His royal lowness"], I did, regardless of the inappropriate title that does nothing to enhance the piece, find her robustly argued case against Reza Pahlavi to be interestingly provokative. I believe that much of the points presented by Ms. Sohrabi are assertions which require a response, since they are being openly discussed amongst various groups of Iranians who share an interest in the future of their country. However, it is not an essential pre-requisite that we should all end up agreeing once any such debate is conducted. As someone who has been a political activist for the past two decades, with roots in the previous regime, I do not categorize the re-establishment of a system of constitutional monarchy in place of the current obscurantist regime as "retrograde". This is a topic that must ultimately be addressed by the Iranian nation as a whole. Indeed, the likes of Ms. Sohrabi must be given the opportunity to argue their case -- as must everyone else, but in the end it is the will of the majority that must prevail. If Ms. Sohrabi chooses to criticize Reza Pahlavi for not giving people the credit they deserve for having become a "critical and aware polity", then she should not in turn preempt the very same people by adopting a somewhat condescending posture as regards to a potential choice that they may wish to exercise. The majority of other points made by Ms. Sohrabi are ones that have commonly been made by those who have consistently opposed Reza Pahlavi and the option he presents for the future of Iran. While, I respect their objections, which at times go beyond logic and enter the realms of emotions, I find them to be shallow and irrelevant to the types of issue confronting our nation at this time. Ms. Sohrabi must understand that the new generation of Iranian constitutionalists -- not monarchists -- who are probably around the same age category as she is herself (not her father's generation) feel no guilt whatsoever about what transpired in 1953 or 1979. This is based on the solid belief that if one political constituency was responsible for causing the revolution, then all other political constituencies bear a similar responsibility for serving as a stepping stone for the brutal theocracy that has blackened the reputation of our country and brought so much damage to our people in the course of the last 23 years. Moreover, there is no desire on the part of the movement which is being spear headed by Reza Pahlavi to turn the clock back to the past. Indeed, the restoring the monarchy is not even on the political agenda advocated by him and Iranian constitutionalists. What is being advocated is the replacement of the current system with a secular democracy for which a new constitution will be required. The drawing up of a new constitution will require elections for a constituent assembly that will then debate the future form of the country (i.e., republic or constitutional monarchy). Reza Pahlavi has offered to use his unique position as an internationally known personality to lead a "unity ticket" for the attainment of this objective. However, neither Ms. Sohrabi nor anyone else is obligated to join this campaign or to accept his leadership. What we can strive to achieve, irrespective of our feelings, is the kind of constructive political discourse that will allow our people to make an aware and accurate assessment of the various arguments that are advanced. Given the experiences of the past two decades, we must put an end to the whole process of hurling mud at one another, and concentrate more on the important work of establishing a progressive secular democracy that respects the human rights and dignity of all Iranians at all times. * We should just be patient I really enjoyed Naghmeh Sohrabi's piece on Reza Pahlavi ["His royal lowness"]. I agree with her that those Iranians who are putting all hopes on the son of the former Shah are dead wrong. I understand the older generation being nostalgic about the Pahlavis, but the truth is that one just can't trust them. The coup of 1953 brought the Shah back to power and destroyed the hope for democracy in Iran for decades. Whether we want to believe it or not, Iran is now slowly going toward democracy. Most revolution go through phases. It's true that during the past 22 years Iran has been ruled by religious dictatorship, but it is just a phase. In its first stage, the British revolution went through Cromwell's dictatorship before going back to the autocratic rule of Charles II. Only after 40 years through the glorious revolution an effective constitutional monarchy was established. In France, the revolution went through a period of terror. Then Napoleon took power before the previous dynasty took over again. But they did not last either. The country went through the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 before a new fragile republic was formed under Louis Napoleon Bonaparte. He became an emperor in 1851, but eventually his defeat in the hands of Germany ended the monarchy for good in France in 1871. Therefore, it took France more than 80 years to establish an effective Republic. My point is that we should give the revolution in Iran a chance to go through its proper phases. Maybe it will take decades, but the revolution will succeed in the end. But bringing a former son of the Shah will only slow the process. He just can't be trusted. How do we know he will not make the mistakes of his father and destroy every hope for democracy in Iran for a long time? Based on the examples of the former Pahlavis, one should know better than to trust Reza. His grandfather's rule was established in the Majles Moassessan, under the constitution. Dr. Mossadegh tried to warn the country and while he praised Reza Khan as an effective leader, he warned the people of his authocratic nature. Mohammad Reza Shah was not even half as strong as his father, but due to his ties with the West he established an even more harsh atmoshphere than his father. I am not trying to down play the Shah's accomplishments. I think he did try to modernize the country and he kept us in peace for 25 years, something that Khomeini and his unwise and illogical policies failed to do. But Reza Pahlavi is the son of that father. He might say now that he wants democracy, but in the long run he can't be trusted. I think we should just be patient and wait for gradual change in Iran instead of putting our hopes on a person like Reza Pahlavi. * Popular vote is the only way Naghmeh Sohrabi's piece, "His royal lowness", seems quite contradictory to an educational background possessed by someone of her calibre. Her research and studies regarding her country seem to have been concentrated on a century other than the one we're living. It's more than obvious that the opinions she has expressed in her essay spring not from actual modern socio-political events in Iran, rather from personal dispositions. She has criticized Reza Pahlavi for stating his disregard for the election process exercized by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The fact that the process of reform is an impossibility within that system is another matter. However, she seems to believe that the elections, at least were a legitimate platform, where citizens were enticed to play an active role in their country's political blunders. She is unfortunately misguided by the number of voters that took part in those elections and seems to think that the counted votes represented desire rather than desperation. I personally would like to see the outcome of the elections if an actual secular-minded democratic candidate were given the opportunity to participate. Surely, she does not think that the choices provided for the people represented any other idealogy OTHER than that of the Islamic Republic. If I were to be deprived of nutrition for weeks and all of a sudden had a choice of eating a dead cockroach, or a dead cockroach covered in chocolate, of course I'd choose the latter. The Iranian people have chosen the chocolate covered dead cockroach twice already and are now desperately seeking for more choices. And this time they've taken their ambitions so far as to demand for the German Chocolate Cake (with no cockroaches). Naghmeh has also openly expressed her discrepancies with a possible referendum. She seems to think that the Iranian people should not even be given the choice of monarchy regardless of what shape they're in. And again, we're back to those same limited options and perhaps she would provide for her people a more motley bach of cockroaches this time around. This is proof why someone like Reza Pahlavi would be a perfect leader for a referendum project. Because he has clearly adapted the true notion of a referendum pointing clearly to the idea of "popular vote". There is also the same old argument of "well, what has he done for the past 22 years?" Normally this question is asked by those who have actual resentment toward the royal family anyway. But, since I'm truly impressed by Naghmeh's educational background, I believe that she would gladly consider a legitimate analysis. Let's see here, the man left Iran when he was a teenager and has obtained foreign education. Now, if he were to stay in Iran, of course we'd not be discussing this issue either way, for he would more than likely so not exist. He has enhanced himself through academic means and prepared himself for future service to his nation. I'm sorry but speaking on national television in the defense of his people and separating them from the filthy deeds of their government IS indeed service to his nation. Risking the lives of his family and himself with the IRI's dirty track record of overseas assassinations is indeed service to his nation. Or did you expect him to lead an opposition group at the age of 20 so that you could scorn him for his lack of education, the fact that he's too young and inexperienced. Either way, he is set for prejudgement as a result of his father's mistakes. I'm not necessarily an advocate for monarchy nor am I trying to inveigh Naghmeh's idealogy. However, I believe that our generation has learned that their fathers made a big mistake, that personal vendettas don't mix with politics and that a popular vote is the only way to socio-political relief. Maybe she just doesn't like the Dalas Cowboys. * Royalist propaganda disturbing Thank you so much for posting your article on Iranian.com ["His royal lowness"]. It was a very intelligent and informed look at both the current and previous political situations in Iran. As an American born Iranian, it also disturbs me to hear a lot of propaganda from Royalists here in the United States. I'd call the Islamic Republic less than an ideal government but to go around saying the Shah's Iran was flawless and on the road to greatness is absurd. Unfortunately on Iranian.com I read a lot of articles that come from a reactionary point of view. For instance anti-Islam essays that read more like impulsive rhetoric written in a fit of rage than poltical commentary. For myself, I am not religious and do not feel religion has any place in government, but it is the manner in which their arguements are presented that disturb me most. Your article however, was very eloquent and very amusing. Your level of intelligence and education about surrounding the matter is quite clear. I hope to come accross your name again. Best, * Heard enough of "roshanfekran" I am getting tired of hearing people like Naghmeh Sohrabi putting down monarchy and in particular the Pahlavis ["His royal lowness"]. I mean, it is because of these know it all, so called "roshanfekran" that our country is in such a state that it is in now. These are the same "roshanfekran" who marched in their thousends in support of Khomeini and his savage and brutal collabrators in order to overthrow the Shah. Instead of them admitting to their mistakes and confessing that they are not that "roshanfekr" and apologise to the Iranian nation for their actions which have helped to destory our country, they still go on slagging off the monarchy and belting out the same shit out of their mouth which destroyed our country in the first place. In fact, what I want to know is if monarchy is so bad and you are so in love with republic system why don't you get the hell out of your safe haven in whereever it is and go back to Iran. Meanwhile, for the sake of the rest of us Iranians who have suffered enough already as a result of actions and comments by people like you, keep your thoughts to yourselfe, because we have already heard enough of people like you. As they say, actions speak louder than words, so why don't you just get lost back in Iran and live the life that you so much desire. * Appalled by the denial My many thanks to Naghmeh Sohrabi for "His royal lowness". Especially the "Khejalat kesheedee?" part! I just couldn't stop laughing bitterly at the extent of historical denial you found and pointed out justly in the royal family mindset. So he hasn't heard of the revolution and any other major events in Iran , at least not in his website? Great! I am 29 and moved to US from Tehran about a year ago and I am just appalled by the denial or intentional ignorance some people here show in regards to what has happened and is happening in Iran.When in Iran, it wasn't very hard to see who and how many writers and artists and other people are trying to make positive changes in the very limits of IRI even at the expense of their own life. But here out of Iran due to a lack of a genuine public sphere for Iranian immigrants, it is so easy to come to believe that it would be the task of power-hungry revengeful Reza Pahlavi to be our savior and our next political leader. While his being power-hungry is understandable on Nietzchean terms, but hiding it effeminately by (ab)using Western democratic dicourse is the most deceptive and disgusting thing he can do to the very nation he aspires to lead. I will always admire your disenchanting articles specially for my generation, who someday in Iran would need to have an opinion about him and people like him with similar claims. I just hope that some day there would be a radio or TV here other than the "reactionary ones" (what a good term) for the people like you. Again my many thanks, Khashayar Beigi * Overly optimistic towards IRI I read your article on Reza Pahlavi and thought it was most excellent ["His royal lowness"]. However, I don't agree with your somewhat overly optimistic treatment of the current government of Iran and it's questionable accomplishments. Having lived through the time before and after the revolution, I assure you had the populace known how their revolution would be subjugated by the religious mollahs, they would never have risen up against the Pahlavis. So what you have now is merely a slight moderation of a larger betrayal of the people of Iran. Now they are pretty much helpless. It is unclear how the government would react to a more liberal election result. I bet they won't accept the result. Something has to break the spell. Anything, even the return of a less than exciting Pahlavi is better than this. It is important to not forget, that this government has become the most brutal in Iran's history, having killed outright and imprisoned more of it's own people than any other before it. For that they don't get off so easily in my book. I certainly wouldn't praise them for being stupid and occasionally losing control over their stranglehold. * Youth responding positively to Pahlavi Naghmeh Sohrabi ["His royal lowness"] does not like Reza Pahlavi's sweatshirt and does not find his background, his qualifications and his leadership qualities comparable to the other "thinkers" that she knows (and may be she will be kind enough to introduce them to us, one day). One wonders, why is it then that she is alarmed at the thought of monarchy returning to Iran? Could it be because she has realized that the same millions of Iranians (particularly the younger generation) who voted for Khatami (that she appears to promote as one of her "thinkers") are now responding positively to Reza Pahlavi's call for "non-violent resistance", and that there is a very real chance that the people of Iran may vote for the return of constitutional monarchy in a free referandum? Ms. Sohrabi seems to find it hard to understand how people may want monarchy in the 21st century, but fails to justify how she finds the DEVINE RULE of MOLLAS in Iran acceptable, in the 21st century?! Is it because mollas have superior pedigree, better intellect, higher qualifications or, perhaps, more fashionable sense of "sweatshirt" (more to her taste)?! Best regards, * Iranians are NAMAK NASHNAS Ms. Sohrabi is the typical "modernist", "educated" Iranian ["His royal lowness"]. The kind of individual who believes in having a "creative" approach to finding a solution to Iran's management. She wants us to forget the fact that Iran is an ancient country with a complex social structure, and an even more complex ethnic and cultural mix. She wants Iran to be operated like Texas or New York. YES!!! Let us treat Iran like a corporation, and change its management, and when it performs better we shall have an IPO in the USA where she lives. We Iranians are NAMAK NASHNAS. Every time I read or hear someone criticizing the Pahlavis I thank GOD that YOU and people like you are in ghorbat. I become glad that YOU suffer when the Americans call you "f----ing foreigner". STAY THERE. Just to make YOU and people like YOU happy... the Pahlavis shall not return. Not because YOU do not want them back or the Iranians for that matter. It is because the US and Britain do not want them back. YOU and I have no say in this just like we had no say in the so-called "popular" movement in 1979. Truly we are NAMAK NASHNAS. And for this reason we are punished daily with the mollas. This is what we deserve, a bunch of rulers that treat us like animals, and dissolve us in acid tanks to get rid of opposition. Just a silly example is the Azadi Stadium that we take so much pride in. Built in the early 70s by this "measly dynasty" that strikes fear in every team that enters it. Or the railroads that connected Iran together. Or the universities. Or the removal of the hijab and giving women rights of education and work. Just for YOUR record, Saddam feared this measly Pahlavi so much that even when the Shah was still alive in exile he did not dare attack Iran. I do not want the monarchy back in Iran because we do not deserve it. We deserve Massoud Rajavi, and Pistachio Rafsanjani. Face it!!! This is what YOU, and creative people like you brought to Iran. Namak Nashnas. Suffer, and stay and get buried in the U.S. As for "YOUR GENERATION... speak for yourself... you need a lot of learning to understand the deep rooted need for a monarchy in Iran. Meanwhile enjoy California, and then when Iran changes for the better you may have it on a plate. * Can't people will a monarchy? Sohrabi has done her homework ["His royal lowness"], but what is exactly wrong with a monarchy? Are all societies capable of having a democracy? Can't people will a monarchy? There are many more questions, but it would be nice if she started with some constructive comments. * Wrong, ignorant Most of the arguments in Naghmeh Sohrabi, "His royal lowness" are erroneous, wrong, stupid and ignorant. And I don't have time to write about all of them one by one. So I just concentrate on one point. She defends the elections in the Islamic dictatorship, and then she even drops lower and defends the Islamic Republic's constitution. Reza Pahlavi was indeed very accurate to state that the Islamic constitution is the only constitution in the world which is not based on popular sovereignty. You don't have to be a genious to work this out. In Islamic Republic's constitution Vali e Faqih and the unelected mollas have all the power. You can read it in theory and see it in practice. I don't understand how Ms. Sohrabi can not see this. Then comes her funny statement: "Statistics on the elections show that in the 1980s when there WAS this kind of pressure on people to vote, the number of people who voted in elections was still less than the 20 million votes Khatami has gotten each time." In the 80s the number of TOTAL eligible voters were less than half of today, that is less than 20 million. The only reason Khatami has got more NUMERICAL votes than others in the past is that the population in Iran has doubled in the past twenty years. Otherwise the percentages in all the so called elections in the Islamic Republic have always been more or less the same, and in line with all other Banana republics! Regards, * Never professed return to monarchy Once again, as a non-monarchist, I have to come forward and defend Mr. Reza Pahlavi against other non-monarchists such as Ms. Sohrabi who have chosen to attack Mr. Pahlavi, the person, rather than his ideology, political agenda and ideas ["His royal lowness"]. Ms. Sohrabi utterly discredits the works of many Iranians who work tirelessly to provide an alternative television program to Iranians in Iran. She carelessly calls their efforts "gibberish" and "reactionary". I would like to know how long she has spent watching an Islamic Republic program to know what propaganda and gibberish really is. At the beginning of her article, Ms. Sohrabi contends that Mr. Pahlavi's supporters and indeed Mr. Pahlavi himself, profess a free society where Iranians can choose their destiny in a democratic manner. However, she soon begins to resort to innuendos telling us how she thinks Reza Pahlavi wants to bring monarchy back to Iran! As far as I know, Reza Pahlavi has never professed the return to monarchy. Please do not muddy the argument just because you don't like the man. Ms. Sohrabi begins to tell us how she hates his web site. How he is not supporting charities. My answer is, so what? I ask you, how is that relevant to Mr. Pahlavi's political agenda? Please allow me to remind everyone that Reza Pahlavi is not running the Red Cross. His agenda is to unite all of us against these backward rulers who have hijacked our homeland. Ms. Sohrabi seems to be upset that Mr. Pahlavi has called the Iranian revolution a catastrophe. She seems to have a hard time admitting that we Iranians made a grave mistake listening to an old backward man who belonged to the dark ages. She goes on attacking Mr. Pahlavi for criticizing the elections in Iran. This is really mind boggling to me! Out of 200 people who applied to become the next president of Iran, only a handful was deemed qualified to run for the office. In her view this can be called an election! Ms. Sohrabi seems to be upset by the fact that Reza Pahlavi has indicated that he wants to lead Iranians to a non-violent national uprising against the mollas. She indicates, "I"m curious to know why exactly he should lead it and not anyone else?" Whom are you exactly referring to when you state anyone else? I would like to know. Give us some names please. Please don't get me wrong. We all should be critical. But, I also think we need to be accurate and provide alternatives as part of our argument. Mr. Pahlavi does not have to get involved in Iranian politics. He is married, wealthy and could spend the rest of his life enjoying his kids. However, he has chosen to make a difference. I respect him for that. In my view, as Mr. Pahlavi has indicated himself on many occasions, the underlying slogan in the future Iran must be "democracy". The form of government that democracy takes shape in, is rather secondary. Twenty-two years ago, Iranians opted to vote for a form of government, rather than securing the ideals of social and economic freedom. We must not make the same mistake again. As a thirty something, I can relate to Reza Pahlavi. He advocates a modern and free economic system. A free society where people have the right to choose. Mr. Pahlavi supports a non-violent movement, something that I dearly cherish. Above all, Reza Pahlavi advocates unity among all Iranians no matter what their political philosophy is. We Iranians desperately need to be united now. Ali Sarshar * Drive to Qom in half the time I just wanted to say Marhaba! vaghe'an barikala. ["His royal lowness"] My thoughts exactly, but better written than I could ever express. I spent 10 years of my life in Iran under Shah's regime and since I left, I have gone back to Iran several times. The last time was a month ago; I traveled for a week straight and saw things that never existed during his reign. For instance, we owe many of the new freeway systems of the country to the mollas. Instead of driving in two-lane old roads, you can drive to Qom in half the time on the bozorgrah. Anyway, people need to open their eyes and see beyond superficialities. Aghl beh cheshm nabayad basheh. In any case thank you and keep up the excellent job. * How harder could it get? Somebody once told me "in the 1978 revolution an intelligent fleet of uneducated mollas defeated a fleet of educated but unintelligent intellectuals." Come to think of it that is a simple but meaningful statement. ["His royal lowness"] Well, many years have gone by and many atrocities have taken place in our motherland and the turban headed and bearded men are still ruling us. Meanwhile we claim to be the so-called Persians who as ever before are trying to separate ourselves from the dominated Arab-Moslem Middle east. It is so sad to see all the current organizations are trying to conform with the current reforms of the so called moderate mollas and not put into consideration that, it is still the hardline (Taliban alike) clergy who is running the Shaw. It makes me wonder how a nation (Iranians) can be individually so successful and not uniform an a society. The European Union has already confirmed these bearded creatures and is treating them as a business partner, which is highly expected of a business organization. Business does not consider any aspects of the human sufferings. It is cash money that counts. With American government and the imposed Iranian government relationship is like a hidden affair. It does also make me so amazed that we are still bitterly blaming the previous government of Iran for what is happening now. We should take a moment and think how was it possible to change a government in1978 and not possible now. Are we talking about loosing lives and hardship. How harder could it get? Could it really be worse than loosing our dignity, self pride, respect, freedom and basic human rights, etc. As far as standards go the Islamic Republic of Iran is not that different to the Taliban regime and us Iranians not too different from the poor Afghans. The only matter that we are really good at is boasting about our past history and what we can individually do. Well, as a reader of iranian.com who has read so many point of views in the last couple of years and I have come to the conclusion that not only the Western world is supporting the ruling bearded men of Iran but also so many of our outside Iranian organizations. Please do not get me wrong, truth hurts. Finally as an individual who has spent many years outside Iran but also inside for long periods, I would like to urge all of us lets think again and see how we can paralyze the ruling disliked mollas of Iran and bring about a sound economy and politics not only to Iran but also the whole region where we are located. The last couple of weeks crises that have taken place in the name of football is a good beginning. All we now need is a leader who for once ignores the present push by Europe & US to make something out of those mollas in order to achieve their goals in Afghanistan. Let's do what we have to do and not be fooled by others or not betray our country. Let's not repeat the history over and over again and keep blaming others for our lack of political intelligence. Well the grounds are fertile and people are looking for outside support. Who will it be. Can be anybody but please no more religious organization since everyone is sick & tired of this religious concept ( I mean Mojahedin Khalgh). Let's hope nature is in our favor. Let's join our voices and share our common goals rather pin pointing our differences. We Iranians deserve much more on this planet. RK * Staunch supporter I am a staunch supporter of His Imperial Majesty Reza Pahlavi and take objection to your sending me such unsolicited material, which are offensive to any Iranian in his right mind. ["His royal lowness"] If you do not remove me from your list immediately, I will contact my Internet service provider. Good Day, * Results of boring beliefs Religion is used to justify people's political agendas which most of the time have nothing to do with the ethical foundations of the faith ["Anthrax of the masses"]. If it was Them, Al Quida, they claim to be Islamic. Protestant verbally assaulting Catholics in Northern Ireland claim to be Christian. Of course, they are not really Christian, they are not really Muslims, as they subvert and distort and ignore the fundamental tenets of their faiths. The problem, in a nutshell, is that if you are allowed, and encouraged, to believe in God, on the basis of your upbringing and psychological needs alone, you can believe in anything. I do not think religion allowed Protestants to attack Catholics and vice versa is Northern Ireland, it did not enable them to justify their hatred: faith spawned that hatred. Then, the Twin Tower terrorists and the authorities that restrict, maim and imprison their citizens, and the Northern Irish combatants, and the Chinese bent on the destruction of Tibetan Buddhism, and suicide cults, female circumcision, Catholicism-catalyzed Aids, ploy-religion "holy" sexism, "devout" homophobia, "sacred" racism, and the Hindu assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, the Sikh murder of Indiana Gandhi, all the usual suspects are not an anomalous scum mutated from the mass of good worshippers, but predictable results of the beliefs that bore them. In my inner most feelings, my brightest intuition, my deepest direct connection to the world, I knew that faith, as a methodology, as a way of making decisions, is a quivering parasitic monster, a sick and malignant, intellectual self-destructive cancer in the mind of humanity. No argument necessary. I have faith that faith is wrong. My belief alone is undeniable evidence. And therefore it is so, not just in my mind but actually so; faith is bankrupt. It is not even the case that faith is used merely to justify what people want to do anyway. * No better, no worse Regarding Setareh Sabety's article on secularism: ["Anthrax of the masses"] While I am a full-on secularist and I believe that religion as a whole is used as easily as - -if not more easily than -- other ideologies (and I count the neo-liberal "shock-theray" recipes among the more apparently virulent fascist, Stalinist and Zionist versions) to mobilize murder and oppression, I don't think that Islam is necessarily any better or worse than any of its non-, mono-, or poly-theist counterparts. It's just that as Iranians we have a visceral experience of Islamism as a means of repression and exploitation. That said, I disagree with Setareh's assertion about it being better living in Sharon's Israel than in Hamas's Palestine. Even as a feminist who recognizes the ease with which Islamic edicts lend themselves to sexist and gender-repressive measures, I cannot condone the kind of widespread repression and murder Israel exercises in the Occupied Territories, nor would I want to be a silent accessory to that. Having said all that, I think Moji Agha's constant refrain of comparing Setareh to the Taliban is absurd [Blame blindness]. Let's get real: voicing an opinion -no matter how disagreeable (and I find her opinions far from disagreeable) or strident -- is nothing like the practical exercise of repression. Setareh -- even if she gets on a rooftop and screams against religion -- is NOT comparable to the Taliban because she does not have the kind of political, military, and practical power a state or a para-statal organization such as the Taliban have. She wasn't supported by CIA money, or the Pakistani secret service, she hasn't murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents , she hasn't repressed women and contributed to their murder through medical and financial neglect, she hasn't forced people of other religions (specifically Hindus) to wear badges as if they were Jews in Nazi Germany and she hasn't lined up members of other ethnic minorities in a desert and shot them dead in a row. In fact, to compare her voicing of her opinions to the kind of repressive measures Taliban exercise is an attempt to silence her rather than engage her arguments and it reminds me of those times in recent Anglo-American history where anyone remotely on the Left was silenced by being called a Stalinist - or the other version of it: anyone demanding civil liberties in the USSR was called a bourgeoise! * Only the dead have no religion Another religion hater, unthinking, babbles on ["Anthrax of the masses"]. A religion is only a "system of beliefs", even an atheist has a system of beliefs, anti-god, that's his religion. One who reads horoscopes and believes them, goes by them, has a religion. One who goes by the animals to tell him the weather has a "system of beliefs", or religion. Only the dead have no religion. * Problem is mankind itself So Ms. Sabety is now blaming religion... "Anthrax of the masses", was it? She is amazed by "all this God talk". She laments the chauvinism of religion. And having read Machiavelli, she admits "I am all for military intervention". I would suggest to her that she first lament hypocrisy, especially her own. A few weeks ago we were witness to her heart warming story of how she had proudly bought her first American flag. Of course, waving the American flag is not chauvinistic (and certainly a show of conformity may help maintain the health of a Middle Easterner's teeth). After all, religion, not nationalism and greed, was the root of world's most devastating conflicts... that is if you exclude Rwanda, Iran/Iraq war, Vietnam, Cambodia, almost all Latin American civil wars, not to mention those other minor conflicts like the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Ms. Sabety needs to better understand the human psyche. The problem is not religion, it is mankind itself. Religion is just another tool to use people, along with nationalism, etc. Through million years of social evolution, Humans have developed a need to belong to a social group. It is this need that is manipulated by a few to control many more. If one is pragmatic, one accepts and advances this cause to ones own end (as in Machiavelli). If one is idealistic, one rejects all forms of chauvinism and subsequent conformity. Ms. Sabety cannot sit on both sides of the fence. Let me put it another way, if dead civilians are collateral damage, then the term applies to all victims, including the innocents of Sept 11. If they are not collateral damage, then why advocate a military intervention? And by the way Ms. Sabety, where was this terrifying strain of anthrax developed? Could it be the secular state whose colors now decorate your porch, and whose soldiers and military leaders you bravely urge on to the plains of Afghanistan? * Mani and Mazdak: reformists I read the letter from with great intrest. In his comment about fundementalism he equates Bin ladin with Mani, Mazdak ["Bin Laden not an aberration"]. With respect to my fellow Iranian ,this is a total misinterpretation of history and is not supported by facts. Mani and Mazdak were actually reformists who represented that strata of Zoroastrians that had been disenchanted with fundementalist Zoroastrian priests (mogh ha -- magies). Mani and Mazdak are comparable to Martin Luther who opposed fundementalism in Christisnity and protestant church is the result of his struggles. How could one call Mazdak a fundementalist when his ideology is very liberal even today? Because of the deep rooted religious believes in Iran thoughout the history ,the carriers of the torch of freedom appeared from within the mainstream religion. Bin Laden strives, in his conviction, to reassert fundemental of Islamic faith, wheras Mazdak struggled to change Zoroastrianism in very drastic measures. Our dear friend is well advised to take into account the socioeconomical causes of Mazdakism / Manechism. Similar popular uprisings of Iranians during Islamic era against Arab domination are recorded by the leaderships of Abu Moslem, Babak, Maziar, and Afshin to name a few. I think our friend owes an appology to Mani and Mazdak for equating these great thinkers and heroes with a fanatic madman such as Bin Ladin. With warmest regards, * Refresh your memory Dear Setareh, ["Anthrax of the masses"] You say: "When all is said and done, for all this blood shed in Palestine and bombing in Afghanistan and Anthrax up the noses of mailmen, we have Muslim fundamentalism and bin Laden to blame.For all this unbearable mess we have their notion of Islam to blame..." It seems to me that you have no clue about the root of problems in the Middle East. Have you not heard of all the atrocities of the US foreign policy in that region... If you want a reminder, please read the numerous articles written here and in other places... Here are some points to refresh your memory: 1. Supporting oppressive and dictatorial regimes, such as those of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia... 2. Stopping any effort by the people of those regions to establish a democratic government... the best example in Iran with the overthrow of the government of Dr. Mosaddegh, and the most important is the Taliban regimen and Bin Laden himself. 3. Supporting even the biggest blood suckers like Saddam , during the Iran-Iraq war. Just a reminder that more than 1 million Iranians were killed and almost 1 million were crippled. There are evidences now that the Anthrax, was given by CIA to Saddam to be used against Iranian people in that war. The very same anthrax , that is being used now to attack the innocent postal workers here in the US. 4.The most important of all, if the unconditional and full support of the Zionist regimen of Israel. You are blaming Islam as the cause of all the problems, without mentioning that Israel is also committing all the crimes in the name of Judaism. You need to know that the crimes that have been committed by the foreign policy of America in those regions and in other parts of the world would have lead to "uprising " of the people... REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGION. People of any religion or ideology, will not tolerate oppression any more... there is rise in the global consciousness.America needs to admit that its foreign policy has expired.... Tonight, I will pray for the children of Afghanistan and Palestine who will be killed... * Real culprits Dear Setareh, ["Anthrax of the masses"] Thanks for your good article. Yes, as you may agree, the problem is the forces that create god and religion and alike. I remember in the 50's and 60's when Ali Shariati would come from Paris to Mashad and we would get together at their home or at Taher Ahmad Zadeh's place. Ali would always emphasize on the "Zar, Zoor Tazvir" triangle at all levels (from the village kadkhoda, gendarm, molla to the country's Shah, army, and aytollahs). I am sure you would say it much better than I can that it is those who push the balance toward ignorance (by misleading masses etc) who are the main culprits. The super greedy, super rich of the world who only see and try to amplify the ugly side of human beings, spend billions through the media to mislead us. The truth is that the US is so powerful, so advanced that if we use our positive and constructive forces in any of the areas of art, humanities, science, technology etc., the world would far more admire the efforts of the majority of us in this great nation rather than hating us due to our destructive foreighn policies over the decades. Remember? ... Zahmati mikesham az mardom e naadaan keh mapors. I thank you again for your valuable efforts. * Real bullshiters In the Anyway section I saw a certain Rose Parvin proposing a global solution to our problems. I understood why it is put in the Anyway section. Nevertheless some psychologists and psychiatrists are real bullshiters. Mrs. Rose Parvin's website not only confirms what I think but also it is tragic to see how much people can use the weaknesses of people in distress to expand their own ideologies. I sometimes wonder what we have learned from our experiences in the 20th century. Regards, * Shattered hate Dear, dear, Wonderful sir, Your website has just now saved me from a lifetime of anti-Arab sentiment. I will not bore you with the details, but my reaction to recent events has included a mounting racism and cultural fear/hate, which your glorious existence has completely shattered. I am in your debt. * Jer nakhorin Ehtemaalan az aksi ke tu sitetun gozaashtin ["Angylina"] manzuretin ine ke begin kheyli openin. Movaazeb baashin kheyli open nashin ke yek dafegi az vasat jer bekhorin Heyfe site be in ghashangi nist ke in chizaa ro behesh ezaafeh konin?
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group