No Fear

NF,

What do you think happened in bazar?

"The bazaar, Iran’s centuries-old system of trade and commerce, remains a central economic institution in all of its major cities. The bazaar played a significant role in overthrowing Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in 1979, and remains closely allied with the clergy. In return for their loyalty, the merchants had been allowed to operate largely free from competition or taxes.

But that arrangement began to change with the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who came to office in 2005 determined to introduce structural changes in the economy and to squeeze needed tax revenues out of the bazaar."

//www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html

0.84% of Iran's candidates were approved, but still not trusted

FACTS: out of 476 candidates who applied to be candidates for the 2009 presidential elections, only 4 were selected to go on (0.84%) towards the general election, but still, as we saw, the elections were still rigged.

No fear

I was not confused over the concept, It might have been your way of explaining it that created that confusion. Nevertheless, In US a candidate is not nominated by a party leader who has wom most seats by party members!! (this sentence that you wrote does not even makes one bit of sense) please pay attention to how you go about spreading your propaganda. A candidate is nominated by the delegation from his party in a convention set up for that purpose. His nomination is Announced by a party leader.

Making sure that the president is iranian born is such a big, huge cop out. Are you gonna tell me outta at least 4000 candidates only 4 made the cut and who just happened to be Iranian born as well?

Every thing you said in your third paragraph is wrong. Not even a single sentence makes sense. This is the way of any political activism. Majority will and must form governments. If you disagree with this, you are defeating yourself. Minority must wait and try to win more votes in the next election.

Oh is it? says mr. Fascist I know-better-than-everyone. Learn to read haj gholam. I never said That the majority has no right to form a government, But that should be accompanied with the minority also gettings a very reasonable and effective voice as well. You can take your Must or Maast wait  (plus moosir if you like) and preach it all you want. There are no listeners nor any takers here for it.

I still have it going and i did not ask you coach me on my style of arguments. Save it and .... who the heck put you in charge of making the rules around here as to who is right, who has a valid point? You want to coach so bad, go coach the elementary school debate team in your neigborhood.. yeah. They are struggling big time. I built a very logical arguments based on a very Logical premise as opposed to your They MUST do this or MUST do that!!

Rightt... Just the fact that there are many papers... many political factions in the country is sufficient to make things happen. Sure. In theory yes. But say something to piss an official off and let's see where that is gonna get you landed? You call that Freaking flexibility??? dude. You are in shush. You are dreaming. Diplomacy??? please. let's get you trained on learning your ABC's... and then we'll take you through Advanced Political theories and ideologies. Again. One can not be an activist or a true politician and advocate his stance, when after doing so, his house's will get broken into. You know it to be true damn well and yet...

Why is it that Human rights law should be derived from ISlamic laws? Oh so it is ok if they are based on Religion but not if they are Politically related to an opposition group, given that those Human rights demands are directed precisely in protecting the rights of the most abused, namely THE OPPOSITION SUPPORTERS?!

I conduct myself anyway i want to and i really couldn't care less if you "spend time" engaging and exchanging with me. You have not done an adeuate job of explaining your position at all, and this majority va minority shenanigan you have got going here ain't cutting it. Like a fella said you are running in circles.

MM: The only approved political "thought" in IRI is Khomeinist

IRI's sham "elections" and pseudo-Parliament (i.e. Majles) are like the "elections" and "Legislature" in USSR and other Commie countries. Cuba & North Korea claim higher turnout in their "elections" than IRI. The difference is that the approved ideology in those countries is Marxism-Leninism, and in IRI it's Khomeinism. These "debates" by Islamists are like the debates in the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s regarding the correct path of Leninism to reach the Workers Paradise, i.e. a total farce and demonstration of the Islamists' intellctual dishonesty. Authoritarian regimes have their different factions and competing power centers; however, this is as similar to freedom and democracy as sh*t is to Shinola. Cheers  :-)

in iran, president is selected from a few hand-picked males

.

NF

  No Fear
 You've argued a full circle yourself,you've words have gone from

1.  'different interpretation of islam" which is less political and more moderate
2.  I am saying that there is enough flexibility to be proactive and work within the frame to change the frame

to this.

1.inspiration for tyranny" ? Is this a contradiction or a hard truth confession which must be accepted when writting these "rights" and "freedoms"? or should we completey disregard Islam when writting these laws?
2.Nevertheless, that respect and freedom which you speak of, how should it be defined? Culturally? religiously? humanly? based on what?

For you,pure and simple.

1. If Islam is wrong you need to disregard it.
2. If it is right there is no need to.

Do you need Islam to tell you what is right or wrong?
You know stoning people is wrong.                                            You know when Bahai's,Christians and Jews are being killed for their religions,that is wrong.                                                            You know the wrongs of Islam just as any Religion know's it's wrong's.That's why we have Governor's.

VPK, thanks for the goose chase

You are moving in a circle again. You first said rights and freedom must be in line with our religion and culture and i accepted your arguement.

Then you said these rights should include freedom and respects. Here is where i am lost. I thought the "rights" we are talking about are "freedoms" which needs to be defined.

Nevertheless, that respect and freedom which you speak of, how should it be defined? Culturally? religiously? humanly? based on what?

While you agreed that religion is important in making these right, you also mentioned that Islam is an "inspiration for tyranny" ? Is this a contradiction or a hard truth confession which must be accepted when writting these "rights" and "freedoms"?

or should we completey disregard Islam when writting these laws?

I hate it when you send me on a wild goose chase like this again. Please make up your mind.

Doctor X,

In Iran ( unlike US ), the president is elected through popular votes directly, not as the party leader who has won the most seats by elected members. As i mentioned before, the parliament election is a completely different issue and is done at another date. It is a regular coincidence in our politics ( Iran i mean ), that the president belongs to one faction while the parliament is filled with members belonging to another faction as the majority. The MPs of our parliament are elected locally in their respected areas through majority votes again. I hope this will clear your confusion.

(( Currently the parliament in Iran is strongly opposing the policies of Ahmadinejad. It took them years to ratify the presidents economical plan ( Subsidy elimination ), critisized the government strongly for not introducing the Hejab bill and sided with Hashemi Rafsanjani to handover Azad university entire state and belongings to a selected few like Rafsanjani and Mousavi, and there are so many other examples. ))

In regards to screening of the presidential candidate, I must say that it is absolutely necessary to make sure the president is Iranian born and has strong nationalistic credentials.

Every thing you said in your third paragraph is wrong. Not even a single sentence makes sense. This is the way of any political activism. Majority will and must form governments. If you disagree with this, you are defeating yourself. Minority must wait and try to win more votes in the next election.

You had it going when you questioned the screening body over the election. You also had a valid point when you hinted not all groups are participating in the election. These were the strong points that you could have built your arguement upon.

As i have mentioned before, there are many political factions and divisions in Iran which creates enough flexibility for activists to pursue their political ideals. You might not find exactly what you are looking for, but you could find groups that share many or some of your views. This is enough for a true politician. A political activist knows how to take advantage of the least and make it the most. Afterall, diplomacy is the art of making something out of nothing or very little.

( Please pay attention to below )

I am sympathetic to human right groups as long as they are not politically related to any opposition. I support the notion that penal laws and criminal laws should be changed to address the realities of the 21st century. A human right group activist advocates his case based on human right laws. Me and many others like me realize that these laws are derived from Islamic laws. Therefore, we differ from human right activism since we advocate a " different interpretation of islam" which is less political and more moderate. While a human right activist is trying to be effective through minority status, we have decided to be effective from the majority position. While the human right groups results are temporary but with quick results, our approach is different and is meant for longer lasting results.

I never implied that you should go to hell when your logic is insufficient. I am spending time and exchanging ideas with you, ain't i?  As long as you conduct yourself like a true civil Iranian ( or american ), i will engage you accordingly. What i particularly like about you is that you are capable to take the debate further and to the next level without repeating yourself. I hate a repetitive arguement.

No Fear

You know what it is? I have a problem with accepting Harfe zoor not The majority rules per se. Here in this country, even when i see the 100% influence of lobbyists from various affiliations, shades and walks of life, on senate and house members, at least i can rest assure that the issue, whatever it maybe, has been put to a FAIR debate, even though the outcome is more than outrageous to me. That to me is an acceptable form of the majority ruling. That is a democractic process. It is not perfect, not even close, but it meets lot of its prerequisites.

Like when you say screening of candidates is necessary to some certain extent... what could you possibly mean by that? why? on what basis? why should it not enough that so and so represents people of some small town, province, etc? Over here, In the US, I remeber two of the candidates to the 2004 presidential election, were barred from attending the debate, I guess the green party and some other party. i was listening live that night. i remember so vividly. Although that may seem a bit unfair, at least they did not have to get the go ahead from anyone to even nominate themselevs to run. 

One thing about your assertion is that "in due time" and maybe they(the minority party) should get ready and work harder to win more votes in the next election cycle, it is not something people can hang their hat onto. it is not the way things work. That is not the way, that is why there is so much political chaos and divisions in iran. You don't just go ahead and enact laws based on holding the majority platform and advise others to wait for another 2-4 years! People want answers NOW and they wanna know what and why things went wrong.

I don't know  what are those points you wanted me to expand upon more and I am really really sorry that your find it not worthy of a logical discussion. I am sure that you realize that in this case you are adhering to a strategy whereby YOUR logic is THE logic and everybody else can just go to hell and are not worth it! You are infusing the issue with too much "subjectivity" and your own point of view.

I am not sure if i understand you here. How can a defeated candidate be the leader of a majority party?! Also, i do not see the flexibility you speak of here. Had there been at least a tinge of flexibility, Human rights groups would not be screaming their lungs off, especially  knowing that being proactive can land you somewhere where you can not be one for at least a couple of years.

 I mean think about it. would that not be contradictory to allow someone to be proactive . to create changes within the system, While following the rules set by the same system that is the actual intended target of those changes and advocating for playing it safe??? what the hell is the point of being proactive then to begin with? Just how intellectually challenged do you think people are nowadays?

That is like saying "you can have a nice and safe drive only if i am sitting next to holding baseball bat close to your head just in case".

No Fear

The rights are defined over time. Nations define whatever they want. However rights must include respect and freedom or they are not rights. Anyone may write a document but it is only great if it truly protects freedom and advances people. The USA constitution defines rights. So far IRI has defined tyranny instead of rights. 

The inspiration for some of the forward thinking rights in the USA was religion. However in Iran it is the opposite. The inspiration for tyranny is Islam. Therefore as long as Islam is in our politics Iran will not have  "rights". Just fear and tyranny. The only way forward is to leave Islam behind. Or it will drag us down with its backward path.

VPK

VPK,

Can a nation define those rights based on its own culture and religion?

Do you realize the implications of what you are saying.

Marhoum Jaan

Ahmadinejad was our first step. We need to win the next election and put Esfandyar Rahim Mashaie in office. We have broken some taboos and more must be broken.

We had 25 millions vote this time. If we lose our support for next election ( Economical hardships due to sanctions ), then we might see the old dinosaurs back in the office.

Doctor X,

I really don't know whats your problem with accepting the majority rule. This is how its done all over the world.

You countered my arguement by saying the process itself is undemocratic in Iran. You have a point there in terms of more candidates are needed to cover different ideologies ( Maybe in due time ). Another point which you brought up is the screening of candidates. I believe the screening of the candidates is necessary in someways but i would question the screening procedure to be carried out by clergies. ( good points )

Other than these two main points which you should have expanded more, i don't see any other points which can be argued logically.

FYI, the Parliament election for MPs are not at the same time as the presidential elections. It is quite possible that the defeated presidential candidate, still be the leader of a political party which represents the majority in the parliament.

I never claimed that the current situation in Iran is ideal and changes are not needed. I am saying that there is enough flexibility to be proactive and work within the frame to change the frame. As an anti revolutionary person, this works well for me. I support those who can get my ideals one step closer to reality.  Play it safe and support the Majority. Vote for taboo breakers since that is what we need in Iran.

Bass Ackward = Ass Backward  ( just to be less offensive ).

Aghayoon

Lotfan nazmo rayaat konid. Bahs doostanast. Motshakereem.

Only If you really intend to do that (to No Fear)

"I hope you sleep better knowing that the darkness is almost behind us
and we will damage ( Or remove ) the corrupt ruling class as much as we
can."

Hazrate No Fear, if your faction really intends to do that I wish you guys success, despite our differences. Not that if I care if Mooshi "jaan" sleeps better or not!

No Fear

The rights are made into law over time. The basis of culture and experience. And yes religion and spirituality. The idea is that over centuries we agree on rights. These are so important that no simple majority is able to remove them. For example you would need multiple votes with super majorities to remove them. In addition you need to space the votes say 2 to 4 years so as to avoid rushing into something.

This slows the process of removing rights so that we have time to think it over. For example it should take say 20 years to remove a fundamental rights. 

This way a temporary hysteria is not able to trash people's rights. It should fit our culture very well. After allwe Iranians love to take our time. Sit down have a tea and think it over.

No fear

I did not know there was a ranking system whereby comments get a score:)

My Turn:

Bound by legal means? Let me guess. The "boundaries" are set by the Majority ruling party right? LOL wow. that is something. the example you are bringing out here is not even close to any form of coalition of anything. Given the framework within which it has been set up.

No aziz jan. that is not democracy's shorcoming. It is the argument you come up with that is replete with all kinds of fallacies. Read what you just wrote: Once you start dictating... Well someone has already started to dictate things. So you be the Judge.

No it is not the same thing and its not how it is done anywhere else. Come on. You did not even get the gist of the question. How can they oppose a bill and block it when there is NOT DEMOCRTIC process at work and bills get one final review by higher authorities? What is the point of not being able to represent, and waiting for another cycle of elections? How will things get done? How can a bill gets blocked when there are not enough opposing votes???

As i explained before, the opposition can be very effective in the parliament and we have seen their power in this Administration and of the previous one ( Khatami ) when the parliament was a conservative majority. Besides, numerous organs and newspapers and blogs are dedicated full time to make the opposition voices heard. ( Currently there are more newspapers opposing the government than pro government newspapers in Iran ).

 Very effective? How? so effective as to lose their right to run the next time around ha? oh wow. lol. that seems like punishment more than being granted a way to express their power. Of course. I have no doubt. There are all kinda of ways to express opposition but at what cost? What is the big deal when you have even a billion newspapers in one country, but there is this constant sense that at any given time there can be a knock on your door, wanting to know why you wrote what you wrote, in that blog or paper.

What is an Bass ackward?:) I am not referring to anything in particular, but since i see you diverting from the subject, i wil just let this one go.

Sure. so long as it is tuned with the majority. nice cover. Albateh! i can present my case alright, but guess what, there is someone out there who makes absolutey sure that my voice is not heard or that even if its heard, that'll probably land me somewhere i really would not want to land. How am i supposed to gather enough support or vote! would be the 10,000,000 question i guess.

You are most welcome. I am sorry, But i don't fall for philosophical notions of how things should be or ought to be. That is not me. There is a huge gap and it is getting deeper and it won't be covered up just because it should be, since the side with more power tends to play in the most unfair ways.

Thanks for your time. see you soon:)

Jarayene in bass ackwardo torokhoda begin chie?:)

Khaleh Mosheh,

Before your bright sunny morning, there must be a dawn. You can not flick a switch and change darkness in to brightness if you wish to do it naturally with long lasting effects.

I hope you sleep better knowing that the darkness is almost behind us and we will damage ( Or remove ) the corrupt ruling class as much as we can.

VPK,

How are those "rights" becomes absolute laws?

Is it based on cultural understandings?, religious laws?, human laws defined by developed nations?, Social laws?  OR United Nations laws?... I would be interested if its a UN defined rights, since its most likely adopted by the " Majority" of the nations.

No Fear

I wanted to repeat the sites motto in response to your article but being a dyslexic this is the best I could manage:

'Nothing Is Scared' so have no fear, no fear -our long and terribly dark night will end in a a bright morning.

By the way the other night I could not spleep and was wondering  how many Agents would be able to dance on the head of a pin. No doubt we will receive divine information from the ruling clergy.

Do not worry No Fear, for nothing is sacred. 

Doctor X, Good points.

This is one of your better responses which offers a new angle.

I have to answer it sentence by sentence so you can see where i agree or disagree and why.

"Majority can rule when there is meaning and comfort in the lives of those who are in the minority as well in a society"

You are absolutely right. As long as the minority is bound by legal means of opposing. ( Currently in Iran, the opposition has formed a coalition with other groups in the parliament and are very critical of the Administration policies).

"If we stick to an ideology or a system/method of governance just because the majority wants it that way, well, then what the heck is the difference between that and Absolute dictatorship that borders on possible facism?"

Thats is one of the shortcomings of Democracy. As churchill once said, its not the best system, but its the only one we have. Once you start "dictating" whats right or wrong for people to choose from, you have assumed the role of a " dictator".

"How the hell are those in non-majority camps are supposed to be heard? Just give them a few pesky represntatives in the congress/assembly  and be done with it? "

Yes, absolutely! Until the next round of election, the opposition must live with its representatives in the parliament and offer their opinion in the parliament.  They can block bills with their votes if they wish to. How else is it done anywhere else in the world? Its the same thing.

"If the system is not conducive and to receive words of opposition in the most effective and productive manner, How ccould respecting the will of the majority cause any progress? "

As i explained before, the opposition can be very effective in the parliament and we have seen their power in this Administration and of the previous one ( Khatami ) when the parliament was a conservative majority. Besides, numerous organs and newspapers and blogs are dedicated full time to make the opposition voices heard. ( Currently there are more newspapers opposing the government than pro government newspapers in Iran ).

"Wouldn't you say that such positioning and the reliance on what the majority always decides, be the precise foundation on which dictatorship can eventually be established?"

Not at all. You got this one bass ackward. If you are refering to the emergence of political islam with Khomeinism, and the 95% vote of support it received, then so be it. We have to go through this as a nation and learn how our votes can affect our future. This is the only way in my opinion.

"Perhaps you think of these rationales as irrelevant"

I really do. What "I" or "you" think is irrelevent unless our voices are in tuned with the majority. You may present your case and defend it by being an activist and see if the people follow you. An islamist may also chooses to do so as well. Whoever gets most of the votes, wins. Pure and simple.

"Your biggest Flaw STILL is that you fail to separate People from the government "

Thank you for understanding and finding one of the cornerstone foundation of my political thought. I do not see people and the government as two opposing forces as defined in leftist political ideologies. I believe as an activist, we should reduce the gap between the people and the government. The nature of the government is irrelevent as long as it has been elected by majority of votes.("Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite")

PS: My intent is to engage with you further on these issues, however, i think it would be best if we just pick one issue to debate.

Majority

It really doesn't matter if our
people choose socialism, islamism, Bathism, whateverism as long as they
choose the system based on the majority of the votes.

Actually it does matter a lot. Have you heard of the "Tyrrany of the Majority". That is why nations have bills of rights. These are rights that may never be violated *regardless* of the votes. 

For example what if the majority votes that a minority should be made slaves? That is not to be allowed even with 99% of all the votes. 

Majorities are often fickle and manipulated. See how Americans were manipulated post 911. That is why we need to temper the majority herd mentality with a bill of rights. My worry is that some people just do not understand the nature of freedom. The majority of Germans supported the Nazis and eliminations of Jews. That did not make it right.

No fear

Majority can rule when there is meaning and comfort in the lives of those who are in the minority as well in a society. If we stick to an ideology or a system/method of governance just because the majority wants it that way, well, then what the heck is the difference between that and Absolute dictatorship that borders on possible facism? How the hell are those in non-majority camps are supposed to be heard? Just give them a few pesky represntatives in the congress/assembly  and be done with it?

If the system is not conducive and to receive words of opposition in the most effective and productive manner, How ccould respecting the will of the majority cause any progress?

Wouldn't you say that such positioning and the reliance on what the majority always decides, be the precise foundation on which dictatorship can eventually be established? That would be a pure recepie for a disaster.

Perhaps you think of these rationales as irrelevant because your mind is irreversibly immersed and frighteningly entrenched in this dogmatic mindset. Your biggest Flaw STILL is that you fail to separate People from the government and continue to maintain that people are advocating sanction or war on the PEOPLE of Iran. You could not be any more WRONG on this one. That is not the intention. However, Given years of mismanagement and monopolizing, unfortunately in the end , it will be the poor people who will get the short end of the stick, Far from the original intention of such campaign.

No Fear,

It really doesn't matter if our people choose socialism, islamism, Bathism, whateverism as long as they choose the system based on the majority of the votes.

IRI's Leader was chosen was chosen by 86 Shia male "experts"; it is not a democratic system based on majority rule. Rather, its very foundation is Rule of the Jurisconsult. 

NO ONE can argue their rationale is more logical than others.  

Actually, one can argue that. More importantly, one can argue that certain rationales have produced free, prosperous, and advanced societies. Islamism has not. 

Huh? Do you own this corner? funny that you use the word " Hypocrisy" when you are directly guilty of it by being so opinionated about a country and the right course of action for that country when you don't even live there.  Its hypocritic when a west residing absentee ( Escapee ) advocates war or sanction upon a people and argues this is the right solution for them, don't you think? 

You're quite confused. Millions and millions of people living outside South Africa backed sanctions against that regime. Was that "hypocrisy", genius? Your "hypocrisy" (along with the other West-residing IRI Groupies--a mot juste for such rotten elements, if ever there was one) is that the IRI made "Death to America" (and death to other countries at various time, e.g. England, France, Israel, etc) its calling card; still promotes this Death chant at its lousy official gatherings; and yet here you are living like a metastatic tumor in the West--hypocritical (note the correct word) is a rather kind description. I've never "advocated war". It's the IRI who has been seeking confrontation with the U.S. for 3 decades, and if war ever came it would be the Islamists' responsibility. Cheers.

  which makes your

  which makes your presence in the West quite hypocritical and, in my opinion, inappropriate

It's suprising that America and Australia has been kicking them out,after all the years they have resided in the countries.Who would have known with all the attacks on Obama as a commie and a terrorist,he would toss out Iranian finaciers and Russian spies in the country.

Saudi vs Iran

Saudi strategy:

1. managed to get Saad Al Harriri the premiership

2. Managed to convince Arab Sunnis that Hezbollah was responsible for the 2006 war which destroyed Lebanon

3. Cast Hezbollah as the enemy of Sunnis in Lebanon after making Nasrallah fall for the trap in which he spread Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and battles raged between Hezbollah and Sunnis

4. Cast Hezbollah as a destabilizing force after Lebanese saw that no government was being formed for 18 months due to Hezbollah's insistence to "veto power" in cabinet.

5. Managed to pull the rug from under Hezbollah after their defeat in the Lebanese elections.

6. Made Hezbollah so weak politically that he is now beholden to Michel Aoun's Christian Party to get any significant votes

7. Managed to make Hezbollah beholden to the Syrian Bashar Al Assad, whose government and army is hated in Lebanon for their 20 yr invasion of Lebanon.

8. Made Hezbollah lose any political capital it had achieved following Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon.

Today, Hezbollah cannot act w/o Syrian approval. Lebanese Shias continue to be economically the most deprived segments of Lebanese society. Any internal Hezbollah politcal weight comes with alliance with Michel Aoun, who is totally against Hezbollah's "Islamic government in Lebanon."

Despite being the largest in numbers, Shias in Lebanon continue to feel powerless.
Hezbollah's uselessness to IRI was best shown when Lebanon "abstained' from voting in the UN Security Council Sanctions against Iran. One would have expected Lebanon to vote "against."

Today, the only thing that keep Iran with a say in the Middle East is its alliance with Syria. If Syria is handed the Golan Heights and full relations with US, you can say bye bye to Iran.

In IRAQ:

1. Despite their best efforts, Iran's friends in Iraq are still unable to form a government due to Saudi support for Iyad Allawi and Al Qaeda.

2. Al Qaeda's daily and at times spectacular terrorist acts has made Iraqis lose any semblence of hope that the government can bring peace and security.

Despite being only 15 % of the population, Iraqi Sunnis continue to exert more power than one would expect. Any Iranian Shia support is automatically broadcast in the wider world as anti-Sunni acts by Iran.

In Afghanistan & Pakistan:

1. Most Pakistani alims attend a course of study at Saudi Arabian religious schools

2, Pakistan with its 150 million population acts as Saudi's every ready ally. If Iran ever gets a nuclear weapon, Pakistan has PROMISED to provide SA with one too- ready made and trust me, the US won't be complaining.

===============================================
Brief Summary of Iran's achievments In Middle East and West Asia:

1. Saudi Arabia: Iran is enemy of Sunnis and are infidels
2. Pakistan: Daily killing of Shias in their mosques and no actions is taken by government

3. Morocco: cut relations with iran
4. Egypt: don;t want relations with iran
5. Jordan: King Abdulla talks about the "Crescent or al hillal Al shiei" and warns from it
6. Bahrain: 25 % Sunnis rule over 75 % Shias and treat them like shit
7. Kuwait: any Shia is seen as suspect and Wahabbi has taken firm hold
8. UAE
Abu Thabi: bomb Iran- they stole our island
Dubai: cutting trade with Iran due to US sanctions
9.Yeman: Against Iran because of its support for Houthis who were crushed by SA forces
10. Lebanon: Shias continue to suffer, while Christians and Sunnis enjoy the beaches and cabarets to the tunes of pop artists
10. Al Arabiya: millions of viewers
Al Alam : getting taken off NileSat
11. Afghanistan: Karzai is either supporting US or talking about bring Taliban into the government- so much for the Taliban massacre of Shias in Mazare Sharif

12. India: cutting trade due to US pressure, cutting refined petroleum shipments, voted against Iran in Round 3 of UN SEC COUN sanctions

13. Azarbiyejan: Ilham hates Iran- rules over a Shia population that feels closer to Turkey than to Iran

===============================================
Iran;s friends:

1. Armenia: poor land locked Christian nation
2. Syria: Iran's only Real card in the ME- wants negotiations with Israel over Golan H.
3. Zimbabwe: poorest country in the world
4. Venezuela: too far to count. & insignificant trade
5. Algeria: with enough Saudi enticement might break off with Iran, but Saudi see no threat from Iran/Algeria relations
6.North Korea: sells missiles, stingy with nuke secrets
7. Turkmanistan, -------other istans: worthless countries with no significant power

8.Turkey: new found friend
9. Brazil: new found friend

Reminder: Neither Lebanon, nor Syria nor Turkey nor Brazil nor Venezuela would have any of IRI's clampdown on "having fun". They are gonna party like their is no tomorrow.

Eventually, Iran has to rely on the MOST secular nations for its foreign policy objectives. Why?
Because all the Muslim countries have bailed out on Iran and favor US instead.

What does that tell you:

Islam and Muslims are most bankrupt morally and ethically, you cannot count on them.

What does IRI learn from this:

Islam is the FUTURE to mankind's problem.

Are Vala, all your Muslim friends would sell their Mohammad, Quran and Kaaba to get a sip of liquor on the new jumbo Emirates Airbuses and Boeings!

Cheers Prophet Mohammad for his teachings which taught Muslims to suck up to America if it means getting married to 13 wives and a 9 yr old Aisha.

No thank you. I don't want this Islame Nabe Mohamad wa Aliye Arabi which says you can be 80 and have four 15 yr old wives.

I want the Islame Nabe Farsi which Khomeini preached which says be traditional and moral and don't think about your dick and sex too much MOhammad wa Ali.

Yes, this is the Islam, I want. The traditional, gheyrate type which considers an Iranian woman's dignity far more important than Quran, Kaaba, Mohammad and Ali all piled ontop of one another.

And this is the Islam that the Rafsanjani & Khomeini types believe in. The Geirati and mihan parast type. Not the one that sacrifices Iranians for Felestiniye koon nashosteye aragh forosh.

Amir,

It really doesn't matter if our people choose socialism, islamism, Bathism, whateverism as long as they choose the system based on the majority of the votes. I have justifications for my rationale, you have yours, khomeini had his and reza toutoleh has his own rationale as well. NO ONE can argue their rationale is more logical than others. So, why not just forget about the rationale of your arguement. i have heard it many times before and each time is as irrelevent as the first time.

I had this discussion with you before and you keep bring it up without offering any new perspectives.

"..which makes your presence in the West quite hypocritical and, in my opinion, inappropriate"

Huh? Do you own this corner? funny that you use the word " Hypocrisy" when you are directly guilty of it by being so opinionated about a country and the right course of action for that country when you don't even live there.  Its hypocritic when a west residing absentee ( Escapee ) advocates war or sanction upon a people and argues this is the right solution for them, don't you think?

Bavafa,

I can't disagree with your well argued points. I believe in exactly what you rightly said and that is a government which is elected by people and ran by people.( What this government stands for, is secondary and irrelevent ).

I can't advocate an ideology which dismisses the importance of religion in our society. The majority of Iranians are religious and the word " Majority" carries a special meaning for me as it should for you. However, i can support a " different interpretation" of Islam which is less political and wishes to remain religious without any involvement with politics. I will support those Ayatollahs if they wish to remain in the seminaries. I will support Khameneie if he remains the " religious " leader of our country.

This debate is a hot and ongoing debate within the religious power centres in Iran (Namely Qom seminaries).  Those who advocate the seperation of religion and politic must be supported. ( recently Ayatollah Shariatmadari's book was published in Iran after a 30 years old ban ). Those Ayatollahs who say that if people don't want Velayate fagih , Fagih can no longer rule, must be supported ( Mesbah Yazdi ).

I am doing my part by supporting those who are asking the right questions and demanding more power to the people. 

Saudi Vs Iran

Back in early of 80s when Iran was forming Hezbollah in Lebano, Saudis were not even thinking to be players in ME. Hezbollah,by no mean, was meant to counter sunnis or for that matter saudis. Today Saudis with their windfall and enjoying-as you correctly mentioned-great support from the west have yet to see their tree bearing fruits. 

Wahhabi sect and its military arm Al-qaeda are the Saudi version of MKO terrorist group in Iran, with a little difference. While, in Iran, the overwhelming majorty ofIranian people dislikeMKO, in Saudi Al-qaeda enjoys great poupliarity. Al-qaeda is combined of two major group who differentiate in how to deal with US, which in turns has splited the group into a deep divisio. The group one opearting in Iraq believes Iran and shia are their main enemies they enjoy great amenity from Saudi and a close eye from US. The second one is the group who belives US and the West are their main enemies, and of course are on a big scuffle with Nato in Afghanestan. 

While Hezbollah and other Iranian affiliaties share basic principals and never fight one another-like Saudis police have to chase down al-qeada fighters who happened be cusines of their head of force. 

Hezbollah estabilshed itself as a political force as well as a strong army to reckon with. After the news on the 19th worldcup winner, Spain, the second top news, tonight, has been the report on Allameh Fazlulah's funneral who, by the way, sided with khamenie in last year election bad luck of Raf he counted on it. Lebanes from all walk of life came out on ST and offered condolences.

On fianacial side of this bitter compettion between Iran and Saudi, one can only feel sorry for powerless Saudi when it comes where to spend their money. Since it's creation in early 20th century, Saudi has relied heavily on US to provide security needed for the country. Upon 2003 prior to Iraq war, US troops were stationed in Saudi and they always have enjoed a great support form US. However, this support comes with a cost attached to it, and I mnot talking of the cost of milittary equipments Saudis buy every year from US. Saudis hold the second biggest number of American bounds right after China, lots of paper to wall their home -American style.Since 2008 brokeout of fianancial crissies, Saudis were told to kick in with their windfall from oil money, which, by the way, It has been 3 times higher than the Iranian one, and they bailed out many US companies.

Even a saudi would have made such a business invesment, given He hadnt had a gun pointed towards Iran, which of course could easily spins a 180 degree. 

ram jams

No Fear

It just happens that most of these west residing groupies are also the most rational and logical ones which makes the debate ever more interesting.

Islamism (and Khomeinism specifically) has its own "rationale" and "logic", just as Baathism, Leninism, National Socialism and the like had their own "rationale" and "logic". But, they are the "rationale" and "logic" of undemocratic and authoritarian systems that are a threat to decent peoples and decent societies, as demonstrated by several decades of experience.

I know you rather think of me as a rapists of boys and girls, murderer, stupid as shit fuckhead who dies for an arab prophet, undemocratic prick who believes in Quran and so on... I have my ear full of what you are saying and if only it wasn't too repetitive, i might have had a keen interest in what your thoughts would be as well.

I don't know you personally, so I can't quite make that judgement. However, you propagandize on behalf of a regime which has done a great deal of harm to Iran and Iranians. This regime is also quite anti-West and anti-American in its rhetoric, posturing, and actions (to the point of killing and kidnapping their citizens), which makes your presence in the West quite hypocritical and, in my opinion, inappropriate. I've said it before and will say it again: I don't particularly care what you think of me or whether my words "interest" you or not. I'm just a guy expressing his opinion with no censorship whatsoever. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of "no censorship" under the people's democracy known as IRI.