# 220: Good post that, HP. Thanks for sharing it.

#216 by behram1 on September 21, 2006 7:14pm PT
``This is what a great hero of Iran wrote in the Washington Post, about Iranian mullahs ``

Personally, I dont agree with both but it is not a bad idea to look at the other POV too.


Letter to Mr. Ganji
Your well-intentioned letter is addressing the people of a nation that are being scared into giving up their liberties in exchange for security


September 21, 2006

I read with interest your earnest appeal in ``Letter to America`` posted in Washington Post today. I appreciate and share many of the views you`ve expressed and the necessary measures needed to ease tensions between Iran and the United States. I also fully understand your lingering bitterness and bias against Iranian government which is a natural reaction to your unjust and gratuitous 6-year long incarceration. What I found perplexing was your total lack of acknowledgement of the human rights violations you so vehemently abhor by the country your letter addresses.

The history of the United States did indeed begin with the establishment of a civilized nation under a Constitution. But the American people also demanded and eventually received the Bill of Rights which guaranteed that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press, and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. These privileges were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as ``unalienable rights.`` They were also called ``natural`` rights, and correctly described by James Madison, fourth American President and one of the original contributors to the Constitution, as ``the great rights of all mankind.``

If you had an opportunity to keep up with or catch up on world affairs, United States in particular, in the last few years, you would be shocked to learn that those very rights are under attack and flagrantly violated in America today.

Forty days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, U.S. government shoved through and Congress passed, with virtually no debate, the USA Patriot Act giving the government the power to access medical records, tax records, and information about the books its citizens buy or borrow, and the power to break into their homes and conduct secret searches without telling anyone for weeks, months, or indefinitely.

Just ask Mr. José Padilla, a U.S. citizen, who was arrested by authorities on May 8, 2002, at Chicago`s O`Hare airport and held incommunicado without due process. Or Mr. Esam Hamdi another American citizen captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by the U.S., labeled ``illegal enemy combatant``, and detained for almost three years without any charge. Or hundreds of other persons who were swept up, detained, or sent to secret CIA prisons overseas to be tortured and interrogated. Don`t these acts, by your own definition, make the current ruling American regime also irresponsible and dangerous?

It is nice to see that you are promoting direct talks and taken a position against outbreak of another war against what you`ve correctly described as a large and populous country like Iran which would only lead to further destabilization of an already disturbed region, thanks in large to unwise military adventurism on the part of US/UK and their ever-shrinking coalition of the bribed.

Mr Ganji, your well-intentioned letter is addressing the people of a nation that are being scared into giving up their liberties in exchange for security; and where some are slowly waking up to the reality that the very government you`re pleading for help to address human rights violation in Iran, is doing everything to suppress those same rights both within its own borders and at other gulags and detention camps set up across the world at the expense of its own citizens.

Words are cheap: Addressing the UN General Assembly, Mr. Bush proclaimed that ``the goals of this country is to help those who feel hopeless, to spread liberty, and to enhance prosperity and peace``, while his administration has done everything to destroy hope and undermine freedom by bringing war and terror to many, and financial peace to few. Happiness, peace and security are universal values that promote stability and worth protecting. Prosperity is the fruit of such permanence for all to enjoy and should not be limited to a closed circle of affluent war profiteers.

Let`s hope that your call to peace does not fall on deaf hears and America wakes up to its folly and once again upholds the basic principles it was founded upon.

Daniel M Pourkesali is a member of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. This article was originally published in CampaignIran.org.

mullah masadi:
Now you`re clutching at straws.
When the Qur`an admonishes: ``Obey Allah and his Rasool``,
Unless there is a higher or at least ANOTHER source of Allah`s injunctions (other than the Quran), it would be a totally REDUNDANT statement.

Pray tell, what could this other source be (astagfirullah!) so that, by another stretch of creative imigination, we are asked to understand `obey the Rasool` as meaning obey what he reveals as divinely mandated, or in other words, the Qur`an?

As for Trinity Shrinity, man, you have some serious comprehension issues. I have already ridiculed it on grounds of plausibility, and distanced myself from a subscription to ALL such fairy tales, including that of the Immaculate Conception, which, probably for political reasons, was assimilated into Islam. Care to apply your apologetics to show how THAT Islamic is so logical, btw?

For your info, the laughable explanations from the Church about Three Persons in one God are just that, laughable, but is no more illogical than say, the idea of Man ascending seven heavens, or of djinns and what-not.

I have alrady agreed with you on that Catholic schools in the past got away with a lot of crap that should never have been allowed. So you`re barking up the wrong tree here. Reality check now, buddy: We`re living in 2006, not 1956. Oh wait.. it`s payback time, now, right? That argument would be sooo you!

And btw, it`s pure BS that ``churches are so widely scattered``, and nothing but unadulterated crappola that ``..schools run by them are so widely scattered and they use all kinds of tactics to deceptively convert people and their children.`` but at least it offers an insght in a parnoid mind: When people covert to Islam, it is because they are moved by its sublime message. But Muslims converting to other faiths is simply a sign of some hanky panky. Rrrright!

`` In the 1990s one of your Church members was claiming on PTV that Christians now number 10% of the population, a gross exaggeration but it gives clear insight into what they want to do.``

``My`` Church members? I didn`t know they`d opened A Unity branch in Pakistan. Where is it, dude?
Please supply concrete evidence that the figure of 10% is a `gross exaggeration`? I can provide credible sources that claim that the offical 4% is a gross understating.

Re: # 217 by masadi on September 21, 2006 7:21pm PT

Dear masadi:


{... You want to prove points by posting propaganda? Sure as hell wont work with me. }

Of course it will not work for you, and I know that. You have no intellect and all this humming is due to your vibrating nature.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram`s copy pasted article states <<< The official ideology of the ruling clerical regime considers all humans to be less than adult and says that without the supervision of the clergy, they will act like children, if not madmen. According to this clerical theory, the people are most virtuous when they are most docile. >>>

Actually the US elite not only considers their own people like children which they then abuse (talk about mass child abuse), it considers the entire globe as children and animals who can`t think for themselves and so need policing and control. Further don`t make a big deal of political prisoners in Iran when the US supported Shah regime did the same, bring some of those political prisoners and other brutalized by the Savak and let them cry crocodile tears in front of the Whitehouse and see what reaction it gets. You want to prove points by posting propaganda? Sure as hell wont work with me.

This is what a great hero of Iran wrote in the Washington Post, about Iranian mullahs

Akbar Ganji is an Iranian journalist and writer.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001583.html

Letter to America

By Akbar Ganji
Thursday, September 21, 2006; Page A25

My brief journey to your beautiful and amazing country began in New York City with a symbolic hunger strike in front of United Nations headquarters. Its purpose was to bring to the world`s attention the plight of political prisoners in my country, Iran. We demand that all political prisoners in Iran be freed. I am certain that you appreciate our desire for freedom; it was, after all, the main principle upon which your country was founded.

My American journey commenced shortly after I was released from prison in Iran. I spent six years behind bars on the bogus charge of endangering national security. I came here bearing a message from a movement whose members are hard at work promoting the values of democracy, human rights, social justice and civil liberties. We want our country to play a positive role in promoting peace, security and cooperation in the region. To achieve our goals, we need the support of the entire world, particularly your vast and powerful country.

To end the tensions between our countries, we appeal to your natural sense of independence, liberty and fairness -- to your belief that the pursuit of happiness is not just the prerogative of some classes or nations. Happiness, peace and security can be achieved and sustained when we succeed in making these values universal. The sense of physical pain as well as injury to our sense of human dignity and self-esteem are common to us all. No less common is our shared sense of peace, security, joy and laughter.

The history of the United States as a nation begins with the establishment of a polity based upon a constitution. In modern Iran, that is still a relatively new idea. Although it dates to our Constitutional Revolution of 1906, we have in fact achieved only some of the goals of that revolution. We are, a century later, still struggling to create a polity based on a constitution and the rule of law.

Even the 1979 revolution could not turn this dream into reality. The political and ideological forces that came to dominate that revolution denied the people the right to exercise their free will. The official ideology of the ruling clerical regime considers all humans to be less than adult and says that without the supervision of the clergy, they will act like children, if not madmen. According to this clerical theory, the people are most virtuous when they are most docile.

This is similar to the concept of the ruler as shepherd and guardian, and the people as flock. The official ideology of the Islamic regime calls for fully implementing this idea in the political domain. The idea is not, of course, limited to the world of Islam. Religious fundamentalism, whether it appears in Islamic, Christian, Jewish or Buddhist hue, shares the desire to humiliate the people and deny them their rights.

In Iran, we hope to achieve our goal of a new polity and a new constitution not by violence but by following a peaceful and democratic path. And in this struggle we need moral support from all freedom-loving people around the world -- particularly the United States.

We want the world to know that our rulers do not represent the Iranian people and that their religion is not the religion of the entire nation. We ask that in shaping its policies toward the Iranian regime, the United States not overlook the interests of Iranian civil society. In particular, we hope that America listens to those in Iran who fear that policies intended to contain the current crisis might in fact lead to a greater crisis, and to war.

We are convinced that the outbreak of a new war in the Middle East, particularly against a large and populous country such as Iran, would destabilize the region and the world. And it would deprive us of the chance to found a peaceful and democratic political order. We are also against policies, such as economic sanctions, that bring extraordinary hardship to the lives of ordinary Iranians.

It is both possible and desirable to solve the problems between the United States and Iran through direct talks. Such diplomacy will best serve the interests of the American and Iranian people if it is conducted in a transparent fashion. This transparency would not only make it impossible for advocates of war to increase tensions but also would help isolate them. Iranian democrats are opposed to secret diplomacy.

If, in the 1980s, the United States had pursued a policy of never establishing ties with enemies of human rights, and if it had given priority to the interests of civil society, it could be reaping the benefits of a successful foreign policy today. And the danger of terrorism would have been less than it is now. In fighting nuclear proliferation, all countries must be treated equally. The Iranian people do not accept double standards in this matter.

We believe the government in Tehran is seeking a secret deal with the United States. It is willing to make any concession, provided that the United States promises to remain silent about the regime`s repressive measures at home. We don`t want war; nor do we favor such a deal. We hope that the regime will not be allowed to suppress its people, foment a crisis in the region or continue with its nuclear adventurism.

But the dangers of the Tehran regime are not limited to the nuclear question. The regime is dangerous mostly because it is willing to brutally trample on the democratic and human rights of the Iranian people. It is dangerous because it is willing to create gender apartheid in the name of religion and to suppress religious and ethnic minorities. Finally, it is dangerous because it considers all forms of dissent unforgivable sins. The real goal of the nuclear program is to make these policies permanent. In its negotiations with the Iranian regime, the West must not overlook this important fact.

Today I stand among a large number of Iranians who live in the United States. Most are now citizens of this country, educated and successful. They owe their success not just to their resourcefulness and hard work but also to the admirable ability of American society to accept strangers and immigrants on its shores, and to America`s cultural tolerance. The large community of Iranians in America is imbued with affection for it. They, as well as the people of Iran, hope that political conflicts will be resolved and replaced by bonds of friendship and peaceful cooperation.

---

masadi, eat your heart out for criticizing this beautiful land of the free and of the brave. You are a snake and a namk haram, and a vibrator.

Respectfully submitted,

PM writes <<< In fact, let us, for reasons of discretion, take Person Y, and Book X so as to not tarnish the the Prophet or the Qur`an, even unwittingly.

If you accept that:
1. The Book X is the unaltered, inconrovertible word of Allah, and
2. The Book X admonishes believers to ``obey Allah and also Person Y``

then it should follow that,
If there is a certain character trait possessed by the Person Y not worthy of emulation,
then the merit of Book X, by extension (refer to #2 above) is called into question. >>>

That is where this person has absolutely no knowledge of Islam and its concept of ``messenger``- rasool. The Quran never asks you to obey person y, it always asks you to obey the ``rasool``- messenger and it explicity makes clear what the duty of the messenger was ``maa aler rasoole illa balagh``- there is NOTHING for the messenger except to convey the message. Nowhere does the Quran present the doings of the prophet as proof of the validity of the message and it states clearly where the proof is, in the book and that we are not responsible and might not have knowledge of what earlier generations did or did not do when it asks us to avoid speculating about things we know nothing about.

Not even the best logicians have ever made a case that the trinity can be ``logically valid`` regardless of the hysterical claims made by some Chrstians that the trinity is like water, ice and steam and other such BS, if you heat up Jesus he will transform into the Holy Ghost if you freeze him he will become the Father, go ahead give such nonsense examples which will only reveal you have no clue about your own concept of Trinity.

Regarding opening up new Churches, it is near impossible to get a second phone line in Pakistan as well that does not mean that there is no freedom to make phone calls, and when Churches are so widely scattered and schools run by them are so widely scattered and they use all kinds of tactics to deceptively convert people and their children why should anyone turn a blind eye to that. In the 1990s one of your Church members was claiming on PTV that Christians now number 10% of the population, a gross exaggeration but it gives clear insight into what they want to do. Nevertheless opening up a mosque in the US is no easy task and Muslims here not only face discrimination based on their names they face a double jeapordy of race, compared to this the way Christians practice and prosletyze in Pakistan and maybe the dimwits like Behram and tahmed didn`t get it when I talked about St. Mary`s- but I went through the same school system, is more freedom than any available here at even the college level. I was told to change the topic many times at the university here when I picked Islam to talk about.

Regarding you answering my questions, you have only ``threatened`` to answer them while not having either the intelligence or the guts to address them. You are a pathetic hypocrite, you have similar ideas about the prophet as does the pope yet you criticize him and fail to criticize others that have done the same while pointing to the validity of Ad Hominem in attacking Islam, which proves that you are not only a hypocrite but a damn fool.

PM u said ``Equal before God, but clearly not before the Law`` how true that is. See we muslim cry hoarse about the egalitarian message in Islam but in practice we miserably fail to emulate it. This may be due to political reason rather than religious one, like you mentioned earlier that it would be profitable to keep them dhimmi or what not. See that`s what happened when the religion is politicized, the core meaning or essence is always lost.

In my book you`re my equal & may be bigger. Dont be discouraged by the narrow minded ppl here that`s there aim in life to redicule those who dont conform to their ideology.

And to Godot, if he has used ``idiot`` to make a point you could have used Bapu`s technique (couldn`t resist saw the `Lage Rahoo Muna Bhai` last weekend) to shame him but you chose the silly third grade theatrics & came out a bigger fool. Look even with the pseudonym your ego got hurt that tells lot about you. I think Moharr has point in # 197.

Well all that Mr. Patrick here did was agree with the muslims. So why are all you uncles living in and feeding on christian lands ganging up on him?

Is it the Masih in his name?

So he said muslims have a superiority complex, well dont they?

Dont you know how the majority of Pakistani muslims treat anyone with the sur name Masih?

PM:
Now listen to this by the man who has the same initials as your nic. here.; except that he either is a real arsehole or just deliberately portrays such an image because maybe the sandhurst-education he got makes it incumbant on the mutts to be like one.

[the italics are mine, for you to parse]

Now that is like throwing a ``MONKEY into the WENCH`` [sic--intended sic]

---

Musharraf slams `irresponsible` Pope

Posted Thursday , September 21, 2006 at 08:45New Delhi: Pakistan`s President Pervez Musharraf has said Pope Benedict XVI comments on Islam were unfortunate and irresponsible.
``I think the comments that he (Pope) made were absolutely irresponsible, nobody I believe has the right to hurt anybody sentiments. Nobody, even if you believe otherwise, even if you believe something to be true, but you don`t have to speak the truth if it is hurting about one-and-half billion people around the world,” he said.
During a visit to Germany last week, the Pope cited a 14th century emperor who called Islam ``evil and inhuman.`` The remark triggered strong protests from some Muslim groups and Islamic governments across the globe. The Pope later expressed regret for the reactions to his statemen

aslam: re.
``Some embrace Islam, she said, because in an increasingly raunchy Britain they dislike being seen as sexual objects—the veil frees them from the male gaze. Many male converts, who include men of Afro-Caribbean stock, prize the Muslim family model in which men are idealised as dignified providers and protectors, she says.``

These is what I refer to as the counter-culture type of converts. They dislike their culture or aspects of it (can`t fault them for that), associate their, or the mainstream, religion with that culture (often illogically) and therefore opt for a new religion in their search for a new life.

The interesting thing is, following their own logic of association, most would presumably opt OUT of Islam living in a place like, say, Pakistan. Only they cannot , for their dear life, choose another religion.

So they become `secularists` instead, retaining a nominal Muslimness.

chacha echo... maybe you will sympathize more with your `converted` Muslim secularists now? :)

#209 I think muslims are just kidding themselves when they think the whole world is full of admiration for Islam. The fact is - only a tiny handful among western scholars (karen armstrong, joe esposito being the more prominent ones), and indeed among scholars around the world, really have studied much about islam. And while they certainly understand and appreciate Islam, they have not demonstrated it necessary to convert to becoming a muslim themselves. And that most reviled individual among muslims, namely George Bush, is one of the tiny handful of politicians in any country who actually has bothered to say that Islam is a religion of peace (as he said yesterday) or that most muslims are decent people (as he did after 9/11 and again yesterday).

The rest of the world can only judge muslims and islam by what has been going on ever since the mullahs were put on a pedestal and given funds and guns by Zia.

That is the truth that echoboom and the arab macacas he worships are clueless about.

pm
we were debating reasons why brits convert to islam, the economist has done an article today,
``Rebecca Masterson, once Catholic, became a Muslim six years ago and has interviewed women converts for a research project at London University. Some embrace Islam, she said, because in an increasingly raunchy Britain they dislike being seen as sexual objects—the veil frees them from the male gaze. Many male converts, who include men of Afro-Caribbean stock, prize the Muslim family model in which men are idealised as dignified providers and protectors, she says. Other studies suggest that Islam has helped people escape from drugs and alcohol. Men are more likely than women, it seems, to react against British policy in the Middle East by embracing a violent form of Islam.``

A real man - smiling and spending time with his child and doing grocery the day after a bunch of generals did what generals do when they think they can get away with it.

``
With his daughter, Thaksin Shinawatra looked forward to a ``deserved rest`` since the coup. ``I am going to buy some groceries,`` he said.

another thing in defense of the church is some of the excellent brews that the monks have produced .. definately divine inspiration is present. singapore sling would not be possible without Benedictine, and all those thick beers of belgium. i am sure ahmedi jamun would be
popular if he touted shiraz a little more.

about fundamentalist, i was surprised to find that a dry-wall contractor i know was trying to convert his brother to the true church (i.e. a born-again fundamentalist). they are born catholics from puerto rico. this guy has 5 kids all home-schooled because he finds public schools out of the question and parochial (catholic) schools not strict enough. also, many of the new latin immigrants from brazil etc are not joining catholic dioces but going to protestant churches.

But Yaaro!

Celebrate not quarrel!

The United Satan is being Zaleeled, day in and day out..the Century of the DOGs has
extended a bit beyond 100 years..and the Dog Day Afternoons have become Dog Day Dusks. The english-barking dogs from the cantonement and colony kennels from India, Pakistan, West Indies, Jamaica, East African colonies, Guyaana..you name it.. the pen-pushers who are good for nothings except earning a living by pushing papers & becoming code-coolies [the most unlearned people in the world]

While those ferom the Madressas are chasing the Satans away.Satan , according to Faust, appears in the form of a dog.

Mistake not and let not yourself be get misled by those who are the followers of Mirza Ghulam-i-Sagaan-i-Farangi { The Mirza of the slaves of the Farangi Dogs}. They always have Ahmah as part of their name--in the sunnat of MIrza GHulam-i-sgaan-i-Farangi &
not in honour of the Last & Everlast Prophet (pbuh) on earth.

---

A courageous man speaks out ... Chavez in rare form at the United Nations

VHeadline.com commentarist Stephen Lendman writes: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez chooses his authors, political and social thinkers well, and there`s no one better than Noam Chomsky.  In his dramatic and courageous speech yesterday to the 61st UN General Assembly, Chavez held up a copy of Chomsky`s 2003 book Hegemony or Survival (which I`ve read and quoted from before). 

In the book, Chomsky cites the work of Ernst Mayr whom he describes as ``one of the great figures of contemporary biology.`` 

Mayr noted that beetles and bacteria have been far more successful surviving than the human species is likely to be.  He also observed that ``the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years`` which is about how long ours has been around, and he went on to wonder if we might use our ``alloted time`` to destroy ourselves and much more with us.

• Chomsky then noted we certainly have the means to do it, and should it happen, which he says is very possible, we likely will become the only species ever to have made itself extinct.

Hugo Chavez also could have explained what Chomsky had to say about this possibility in his most recent book, Failed States, in which he addresses the three issues he feels are most important - ``the threat of nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world`s only superpower is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of (causing) these catastrophes.`` 

• Chomsky goes even further raising a fourth issue that the ``American system`` is in danger of losing its ``historic values (of) equality, liberty and meaningful democracy (because of the course it`s on).``

Reflecting the thinking and spirit of Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez delivered an impassioned speech yesterday to the assembled delegates who came to hear him.  It`s one likely to be favorably remembered many years from now.  At its end, the delegates showed their appreciation and support by giving him a standing ovation (the longest one of all the leaders addressing the Assembly) in contrast to the cool and polite reception given George Bush the previous day who chose not to attend to hear the Venezuelan leader. 

Too bad he didn`t as he might have learned from it if he stayed alert and paid attention.  Citing the language in Chomsky`s book in his hand, Chavez said: ``The hegemonistic pretentions of the American empire are placing at risk the very existence of the human species (and) We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head.``

He went on to explain that earlier the president of the US attended an Organization of American States (OAS) meeting and proposed a NAFTA-type trade agreement in both regions that is the ``fundamental cause of the great evils and the great tragedies currently suffered by our people. Neoliberal capitalism, the Washington Consensus ... has generated ... a high degree of misery, inequality and infinite tragedy for all the peoples on (this) continent.``

Hugo Chavez called George Bush ``the devil`` several times and said he came here yesterday and ``from this rostrum (talked) as if he owned the world.``

• He denounced the US president`s talk, said he`s responsible for all conflict in the Middle East and that those opposed to these policies are resisting his imperial model of domination. 

Chavez predicted the US empire will fall, said ``What we need now more than ever ... is a new international order`` and that he wants to see a reinvented UN be part of what can help achieve it.  He said the UN under its current rules ``does not work`` and must be changed to bring more democracy to the organization.  He called for the ``foundation of a new United Nations`` and proposed four fundamental changes including the ``need to ... suppress ... the veto in the decisions taken by the Security Council (because) that elitist trace is incompatible with democracy, incompatible with the principles of equality and democracy.``  He also called for expanding the UN Security Council to include developing nations as permanent members and wants to strengthen the role of the Secretary General.  He stressed that today the UN body is ``worthless`` and needs to be ``refounded.``

Hugo Chavez is dedicated to the principles and spirit of the Bolivarian Revolution he gave the people of Venezuela and wants to spread it to the developing world as a counter-force to the US model of global dominance of the developed North over the less-developed South with the US as hegemon-in-chief.

He called on leaders from the developing world to unite and resist to build a new world model based on social equity and justice. 

Judging by the reception Chavez got yesterday, it looks like he made some progress toward that goal, especially in Latin America that`s become an incubator of resistance against the uni-polar world the US is beginning to lose its grip on and in support of the multi-polar one Hugo Chavez wants to help create.

Stephen Lendman
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

•