Fox News or Fox fellows ??!


There is a saying in Iran, when a fox was asked for a witness not being responsible for a wrong action, he replied "My tail witnessed". Now this is a similar for Fox News when it claims Iran's parliamentary election was not democratic. If it was not , whose election is democratic?
The elections in US are totally in vain; as everyone knows Zionists and their fellow in Bush's regime and among Republicans and Democrats do not allow people's real candidates prevail. American presidential elections is not democratic for its indirect election of president, people like to elect their president by their own vote not by their representatives. This is enjoyable for a citizen to see his/her choice has been elected or vice versa, but when a person looks she/he has not any impression or very little does not feel responsibility to bias government. The American politicians' tendency toward elites seems somehow abuse of citizens' rights. The people in America choose members of Electoral College to elect president for people. This is not democratic and none of republic governments throughout world do such a way. This is surprising for us , Iranians, to see how American people allow their rights to be abused so overtly and just watch it ??!
Now Fox News, that is really a true name for an American governmental journal?!?, claims about trustiness of elections in Iran. All of us know eagle as American sign of power, eagle's fame is because of its keenness on subjects but I don’t know how Americans undergo such stupid politicians and administrators. The US government spokesman claims Iranians do not know how to elect. It seems that Bush's regime likes to learn true election!!! Please don’t take pity on us, Mr. Bush!
During thirty years after Iran's revolution in 1979, people took part in thirty elections, what does it mean? Everybody casted his ballot. If people in Iran lived in America would not participate in election in which they had no right to choose their own choice. This is not democratic. The US goes toward dictatorship and people just think that they are free, tis true that they have election but they are entangled by media of elites. The people just see elites because it is propagated by meida ,films,news and other sources of information. The American political and social system goes toward a caste system not a free one.
Finally we, the people of Iran , recommend American politicians not to be as Iranian proverb when it says " blind for myself but discreet for others".

The Satanic Verses and fool Knights of UK

Close to 18 years passes from the time Salman Rushdie wrote a book entitled "Satanic Verses". A very foolish novel on holy prophet of Islam that angered Muslims throughout the world and Imam Khomeini, the great leader of Iran sentenced Rushdie to death. At that time many European countries as well as US condemned this edict and proclaimed it against the freedom of speech. After the edict, Rushdie started his hidden life and according to news he continually changed his position not to be killed by terrorists.
Some days before Elizabeth the second, queen of England, on her birthday gave Rushdie the title of the knight of British Empire. It is said that Toni Blair who is close to be set aside from Prime Minister of England introduced him to queen for this title. The British monarchy gave this title one of its envoy, Shapour Reporter, after he succeeded to finish his mission for toppling Mosaddegh's government in August 19, 1953. Here are some points:
1- Why Toni Blair introduced Rushdie at this time? The reaction of Muslim throughout world was harsh, as in Pakistan Protesters burned the effigies of queen and Rushdie. Ijaz al Hagh, minister of religion in Pakistan, said that it would not be so strange if some Muslims tie suicide bombs to explode in London. Toni Blair recently after assertion of defeat of alliance forces in Iraq has been under attack by his opponents in UK government. He accepted to resign up to present July. Now he deplores Rushdie and offers him to queen. Maybe any harsh reaction by Muslims can help Tony Blair and George Bush to justify themselves to attack on Iraq.
2- Salman Rushdie "The apostate" repented for his silly action, although the edict on him was re-justified by Ayatollah Khameneii. Rushdie by his action showed that he insists on his action and passing the time has not changed his idea in spite of his repentance.
3- To represent Muslims as undemocratic and forcible nation to westerners at the time all world believe in Bush and Blair as liars can be a conspiracy and plot for future. It may be followed by some terrorist actions in Europe especially in England as some journalists believe.
The offer of the sign of Knight, by itself, is a kind of formalizing Rushdie's action to people of the world that tries to show the importance of his action against undemocratic Muslims. It shows that this is a Muslim man who criticizes Islam and prophet not a Christian or Jew. A multi dimensional attack on Islam.
The attack of Rushdie on Islam and prophet is not on logic but some superficial issue that he, as one who has been once a Muslim, did not comprehend, some issue such as why prophet married several times and with whom and why. He looked on the issue as illiterate and common people look and made a novel based on his mentally diseased thought about the relation between prophet and one of his enemies, Hind. Generally UK and US by their support on such actions can not justify them, as some authorities and institutions such as Common House of England did not accept to support Rushdie and announced his intention as a blasphemous action. Salman Rushdie should know that as puppet they will play with him until they need him and then throw him away.
There was on the news that Toni Blair expects to be named as peace envoy in Middle East, I don’t know how a man who works against Muslims can be peace messenger in a region most of people are Muslims, is he an insane ?

US soldiers commit suicide more than other Americans( BBC news agency)

A new study in US indicated that soldiers suicide twice more than others. Scholars studied data related to 320,890 men served in US army during 1917-1994. Apparently white, educated and elders were more at risk or those who suffered physical or sentimental disabilities. They believe the consequences justify the necessity of psychological care for those soldiers served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The consequences of the research published in a magazine “epidemiology and Social Sanitation” included men who served US during WWII, Vietnam war , Korean War and Persian gulf War. It was said that the suicide rate among those who served in army doubled than those had not served at all. The veterans used arms to suicide doubled than others. It also showed that veterans with added weight committed less than others. Although the research did not included the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan but researchers said that the results may point to them, too.
Analysis
Maybe this is not the first time we hear such news or results. I, myself, some years ago heard and read in news papers that those American pilots of Jet fighters who bombarded Hiroshima and Nagasaki, somehow, drove mad. Attending war with no being wounded or injured affect every one that has seen the violent scenes of those who have been killed or with some of member cut off. American soldiers who returned home from Vietnam War not welcome so good. Many of these soldiers later attended some terrorist operations like Timothy Mc Veigh, Terry Nichols who attended Persian Gulf War in 1992. Mc Veigh and Nichols cooperated in bombing Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City where 168 were killed. They did because of Dravidians in Waco, Texas who were captured and killed by FBI attack on 1992. Mc Veigh was said to use Methamphetamine that according to physicians affects on brain in way person suffers hallucination and paranoia.
Fighting needs motive. Although American soldiers are being encouraged before going war but lack of conscious about the final target leads them to nihilism and nonsense. A veteran after years will think on the target he has gone war and if he could not find a good answer for his question would see his life in vain. Once a psychologist talked about old men when they reached seventy. He said “they look on their life a careful look to see if they had been successful or not, they look on their career, their children, their ambitions, if they have been successful through heir their life , it would be effective to continue their life and it may affect on the longitude of their life.” A soldier should feel that he has been effective and useful for his country. If he does, he would be proud of himself.
The sense of being useful is one of humanitarian beliefs. As a person thinks on his harm for society, so he can not respect himself and the one who does no respect himself, can not respect others.
As another important factor, what makes difference between US soldiers and Iranian soldiers, as Baseej or in army, is that Iranians mixed religion and patriotism and made a strong mixture by which they got more power. Patriotism by itself can not make sense of sainthood. An American soldier is on the edge of suspicion, On the one hand he is said to be right to attack on enemy as dangerous terrorist but on the other hand, he witnesses how many innocent people are killed. The conscious awakes him but the function says something else. So what is the best way to avoid commander’s order?
Today if it is said US soldiers tolerate burdens of the Iraq war more than others, it would not be so bluff. He should carry the burdens of defeat in American society, the psychological and physical damages he would bring with himself to his family. The researchers suggest that military official should be aware of the results of war on US soldiers to avoid what happened to previous veterans, but Iranians say “There is no solution for what you, yourselves, have done”.

″300 Spartans": A war for all seasons

Using movie for some decades is considered as a way for American public diplomacy's experts to confront their enemies that in real war with them they had not any success such as Vietnamese and Russian, although with them US never had any real war. This is a best way for American to promote their political ideas through cultural products as it will take fewer prices than wars.
The history of US in twenty century is full of reasons for persuasion of people inside and outside of America that, at the top of them, we can see the most influential mottos as "Promotion of Democracy". The United States as country which, historically, wanted to be at the top needed to show itself authentic as well as reliable so by a very carefully public diplomacy not only for its people but for all people throughout world tended to seek its political and economical interests and security through impact on conscious and knowledge of people in foreign countries as well as American citizens and corporations.
At the present time in which to convince people is very hard for politicians and every event is considered by people through scientific eyes, so playing with scientific rules and events can be very efficient to make Americans' face legitimate to the world. As Habermas in "Legitimation Crisis", believes that "politics no longer can presuppose the bases of decision-making but it might define that for itself. Politicians have to be able to legitimize itself, according to chances for compromises, and seeks for consequences."[1]
The movies are used in best way by Americans to draw and shock the eyes (Hypnotism) and brainwash people by American ideology. Many movies during cold war were produced to show Americans' success in all aspects such as politics, sport etc. The series such as The Rockies ( I , II,III,IV), The First Blood ( Rambo), Star Wars ( I,II,III,IV ) and recently 300 Spartans in which it is tried to show the superiority of western culture against Eastern barbarism.
The use of cultural products as movies are considered as soft power to ruin the character of enemy psychologically as it is a logical way to legitimize their future actions. The movie "300" by Hollywood is now considered as one of political products in sensitive situation between US and Iran as is deemed to be conflict between East and West. The plot of story is based on partially truth as well as a hallucination of an ill-minded writer. The Spartan kings, Leonidas, although all in ancient Greece as well as Representatives are not consent to send troops to fight Persians' king, Xerxes, to show their bravery and respect to Sparta. Leonidas remembers spectators G.W. Bush isolated by Americans as well as Congress refusing to fund troops in Iraq.
The movie like all American one promotes savagery from the first parts. As one sees title he can be sure he will see bloodshed. Moving toward Sparta, Persian messengers seem to attack there by their arms hanging their backs. The Persians depicted not to respect women as messenger wants Leonidas' wife not to interfere in conversation. Showing Persians very horrifying and with no mercy by a firing city and a boy dying on Leonidas' hands, Greeks are depicted holy as Zeus, the Greeks' greatest god, sank the Persians' fleets. Leonidas encourages his troops to resist against tyranny as if Bush standing in front of American soldiers encourages them to save Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny.

One of interesting scene of the film is the similarity between what Bush and Neo-cons believe on Iran's struggle to have access Nuclear arms and showing a monster and some explosions as if director wants to depict and personify this threat to Americans because as we know personification is one American ideology and they like to image everything even spiritual and to embody them so it is very useful way to scare American masses as a powerful instrument as Noam Chomsky believes in Deterring Democracy. According to American idea Satan lives among people and it can be personify like human. Showing magicians and nomadic people stress on Asian and eastern superstitious beliefs. In general it has focused on superiority of western ideology and democracy over easterners.In general, these cultural products can help political leaders to show legitimacy and correctness of their claims to American easy- believers. America for its policy that include intervention in countries with rogue state need to shape public opinion not only in US but whole world by mass media.
[1] -هابرماس .يورگن. بحران مشروعيت تئوري دولت سرمايه داري مدرن . ترجمه جهانگير معيني . تهران . گام نو. ص 262

What does Future say for US in terms of population?
By: Seyyed Hasan Salehzadeh


By looking on Bureau of American Census site, one may ask himself what does future say for US in terms of population. Is US a country that is going to be a fractious nation as some like J. Reider believe?[1] What do really people do in country which is going to have four hundred million people in not more than thirty years in future? A country with one-third of population includes minorities who have higher fertility rate than whites in spite of their low income. Are White Nationalists rights when they fear of future? Or is W.A.S.P. right to do and to have racist tendencies toward racial groups? How do minority groups endure social inequalities and its consequences? Is America going toward splitting up or fraction?
By looking on socioeconomic and political condition of minorities easily one can predict if such a condition had occurred in other countries certainly they would have split up. But why it has not happened in US yet? Maybe the answer is because they are immigrants so they do not suppose any right to claim against European white Anglo Saxons. If it is hypothetically true, up to what time it will continue? If in future the population of whites and non-whites would get equal, does the white supremacy in different dimensions of government would have legitimacy? Would Hispanics and African-Americans justify government majority of officials are whites? The answer is certainly "not". The power is something that undoubtedly each minority group would seek for among majority.
Many political and social scholars and thinkers predict some crises in American societies. Samuel Huntington, Professor of Harvard University who has written some books on politics such as "Clash of Civilizations" and "Who Are We?" in the latter has explained about the challenges of identity in American societies at present and future. He believes the rise of sub- national identities are equal to deconstruction of United States. He gives some clues of 1960s when some movements began declining of the values of American identities that their main core of them was liberal democracy that tended to unite Americans of different ethnicities and races. They defined America as a conglomerate of races, ethnicities and sub national cultures while some concepts as melting pot and tomato soup were rejected of Americans and instead the concepts such as mosaic and salad bowl were offered. As Huntington indicates the rise of different identities puts national identity at risk and deconstructs national unity.[2]
What will happen if the population of minorities increases so rapidly? According to accounts by American Bureau of Census the growth of population among minorities shows most percentage. The Hispanics with %3 and African- Americans with %2.2 have higher fertility rate than whites (1997). So the population of both Hispanics and African-Americans will grow in one and twice more than others. According to statistics on immigrants come legally and illegally from southern borders, especially from Mexico, the US government and Republicans seek for restriction, so the FR (fertility rate) will increase more than past because majority of immigrants are in fertility ages. By looking at maps of minorities it can be understood that most of Hispanics live in western and southern halves of the country as well as in some parts of northeastern and southeastern (Florida).The African-Americans generally live in eastern coasts of US in some states from Massachusetts to Texas as in west they live regularly in California, Arizona and Nevada. Asians and Pacific Islanders generally live in western half (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and Oregon) as some portions live in northeastern and southeastern. Indian and Alaska natives mostly in west and southwestern states as New Mexico, Arizona, and California as in northern half in scattered way in different states from Dakota to Washington. As mentioned three main groups as Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians live in most populated in northern and southwestern parts of America. As majority of immigrants choose regions to live that residents are similar in race and language to live with no problem, so western parts of US are supposed to have most populated of Hispanics in forthcoming years. Some issues as job, language and security probably will put whites Hispanics against each other. Now in some parts in west, Hispanics request for their children to be taught Spanish as they are learning English. It should be considered as one of sparkles of separation. Maybe they are right to wish their children learn their mother tongue in schools as one formal language but here we discuss on national identity and unity not rights even though they are related directly together.
Whites are concern about what was discussed on population. During recent decades some groups claim not to be racist but favor the separation of races, even seek for removing and dismissing them from country increased. They are called White Nationalist. Their leaders sometimes by racial approach or ethnically confront minority groups. Some groups as W.A.S.P just support white protestant Anglo-Saxons and even oppose Jews, although they (Jews) are most influential in economy and politics. Some groups by religious approach confront other religions' followers such Muslims, Arabs and Jews. An African-American scholar, Carol Swain, who has written a book "New White Nationalism; a Challenge to Integration" gives some information about these groups and warns about their actions and targets as well. She is of minority group discusses against Affirmative Action as a factor that worsens the relation between whites and minorities and makes motives to real separation.[3] By some field researches she has explained the motivation and intention of anti- minorities' activists like interview with some activists such as Lisa Turner and Jared Taylor or some sites founded by these groups to issue and develop their thoughts like American Renaissance [4] that now is active and Jared Taylor manages this site in which every day you see news from north America and northern Europe on colored skins. The news is abridged and viewers are asked to put their comments .The viewers usually are from anti-minorities groups who write their comments against colored people.
As number of colored people increases the number of terrorist and racist groups increase in parallel. Some of them ask for separation of US as one them announced that tends to separate some states from northwestern like Washington, Oregon and Idaho to build a territory without any colored people in it. Some of nationalist groups have done military actions for some times. Although they were suppressed by states or federal policemen but the existence of such sentiments and tendencies in a country that seeks for harmony to unite all racial and ethnic groups is decisive and vital.
In general either such mutual sentiments or feelings are resisted against or not, the growth of disparities and oppositions in US is decisive. The leaders and officials in states and federal should find stronger norms to keep and continue national unity, as the present norms (American values such as flag, liberalism…) are not so reliable and as Huntington indicates they are important when US involves in such a crisis as 9/11[5], unless on other occasions the crisis will show itself again.



[1] -Rieder, Jonathan, 2003, The Fractious Nation?
[2] - Huntington, Samuel, WHO ARE WE?, p. 141
[3] - Swain, Carol, 2003, New White Nationalism; a Challenge to Integration, p. 58
[4] - www.amren.com
[5] - WHO ARE WE?, p. 8

The Cost of Freedom of Speech

On Thursday, April 12, a gang of Somali thugs on a downtown Oslo street attacked Kadra, a Somali woman who now lives in Norway, and beat her senseless, breaking several of her ribs. They were enraged at her for her recent statement that the Qur’an’s views of women needed reevaluation. They also might have been angry because of her role in revealing the widespread support among imams in Norway for female genital mutilation; Kadra exposed their support for this horrific procedure using a hidden camera in a 2000 documentary for Norwegian television.
As they beat her, Kadra’s attackers shouted Allahu Akbar—Allah is great—and recited verses from the Qur’an. “I was terrified,” she said. “While I lay on the pavement they kicked me and screamed that I had trampled on the Koran.”
In this report writer gives a background report on what Muslems have done during recent fifty years on those who have been victimized of freedom of speech not only in western but even in Islamic societies. The persons such as Ahmad Kasravi(1947),Haji Ali Razmara, Faraj Foda(1992), Naguib Mahfouz(1994) after being accused blasphemy or treacherous were murdered by radical Muslims. The author warns about this event in west and calls it a great challenge for western societies.

The democracy and democratic values has been a great issue westerners debated on during recent decades. Many have criticized Islam for being so stiff and non-reflexive in its rules or criticized Muslims to act in some cases so radical and violated human rights, but when they are asked about democracy and liberalism can not reply correctly. They, themselves, believe that the mere liberalism does not match with democracy and say in some occasions we must limit human freedom. There is a famous saying among Persians and maybe Muslims that means the one who does not appreciate himself he would not do it for others. The domain of religion is one of those in which not any irrelevant idea should be allowed to enter and act what it likes. I don’t want to compensate the radical actions of those who have not known Islam and from that only they have learnt the punishment.
After September 11, according to what Zionists predicted in their scenario attacks on Muslims in west increased. The growth of Islam has been one of concerns among western leaders during recent two decades. Although Zionists in US continuously tried to show their oppressedness by different ways through media but they witnessed the increasing popularity of Islam. By WTC scenario they could reveal some Islamic radical groups and introduced them to people of whole world as they represent all Muslims. They figured out Islam in such a way they wanted to be, as a savages' religion and a close threat to western civilized world.
In western look on world everything is able to be criticized even Jesus. According their material look on world everything can be visible and accessible, so it differs from eastern look upon which some creatures like Devil can only live spiritually not bodily or Prophets and saints are far from being discussed or assimilated. According to western opinion it is not strange or blasphemous that a person like George W. Bush introduces himself as Jesus who has come to save humanity.So criticism on issues and cases that are deemed materialistically is as easy as westerners think.
The author has combined all of these events together with one look and by special intention with no attention to the reasons of events. Different looks on the issue is the result of different concept and beliefs that led to conflict.
The freedom in every society and upon every belief is appreciated as a value of humanity but as in some cases even western philosophers believe that freedom lead to anarchy, religion is one that domain. Of course it should be noted that religion itself and its ability to attract as well as those who try to introduce religion to people as preachers are all important factors that Christianity has not benefited any of them. The history of Christianity shows many distortions of what Moses and Christ told and preached really, so it is obvious that many of contemporary followers do not appreciate it and allocate it to a certain time and place.
In general, it is on Muslims to seek for ways to show Islam and its entity more clear than before and to prevent those who want to show a savage face of Islam.

Quebec Right on Muslims

Recently news on a Muslims woman who applied for a Job as a prison guard in Quebec caused some controversial debates on liberal values in western world. The Quebec government asked woman either remove her Hijab or she could not take the job and be trained for that, but she refused to remove her veil.
Some Canadians and Americans argue that liberal values do not allow one to treat freely. Muslim advocacy groups have been crying racism. "It is an ultimatum, remove the hijab or you're out of here, "said the head of the Muslim Council of Britain."That's not a security issue; this is much more a bigoted issue." A department spokesman said "As a security measure, the hijab can not be accepted as an element of the uniform to execute the functions of a correctional officer."
The Muslim Council called for compromise but the government refused. All across the western world, Muslims are struggling to fit in, to balance the norms of liberal democracies with the requirements of their faith.
What is important is that how western countries can call themselves liberal and democratic but do not allow Muslim citizens to treat as they want. They claim that all people are free for doing their religious rituals but see hijab as a politic sign. Muslims are trying to fit themselves in most aspects of western life for example education, politics, economy and culture but are not allowed to have the only right that a Muslim should have, the right to cover itself that is a religious rather than being political.
It seems that western countries fear of future as demographical reports show the increase of minority population such as Muslims in these societies so they predict if they remain passive and neutral to these changes, integration would face danger. In contrast to what they think I believe if they would come along with this fact that how it is important for a Muslim to do her religious practice they could also benefit this bigotry. According to Islamic beliefs, protection of land in which one lives is considered as worship so Muslims can help national integration in every western country, but what governments expect Muslims is just to assimilate not to accommodate.
In fact I think it is a common issue because in Iran some minority groups, as Christians and Jews and Zarahtoshtians, lives who like to live as they want but there are limitations for them from Islamic rules that force them to obey, what should they do? Maybe some one thinks that they are less in number than Muslims in western countries and they should assimilate Muslims in Iran but what is the difference. We believe that minority groups should act like Muslims and in western countries people believe Muslims should assimilate others. If they force Muslims to be like others we also force minorities to treat like Muslim.
What is the solution for this condition? Can we call it democracy, in societies, Iran and west? It seems that both sides only bear the name of democracy as all can see all over the world. Democracy is only an excuse for governments for not being blamed for autocracy. This is added by the claim of liberalism that westerners pretend to have in their societies and I think they are more under pressure for such an issue.

The price of Democracy and Democratization
These days we repeatedly are represented different signs of American democracy not only in Iraq but inside the US .According to (Amren.com) today US is engaged to Iraqi refugees who flee from violence in Iraq, those who were promised to be given a good and calm life after toppling Saddam. They lack, not only, security but their homes have been lost. This is while Bush and his team promised to build infrastructures and much more facilities than Baath regime's era. Iraqi refugees today wandering between Arab countries and many of them in Syria and even some tend to go US if government allows them and this issue cause concerns among some Americans remembering Vietnam refugees during 1970s.
Another document for American liberty and democracy is their right to bear arm on which many years pro as well as anti-gun control have debated in vain, as when an accident occurs such the one happened in Virginia Tech on Monday last week some actions are held to keep public calm and under control, like any other places in world, and then as all forget officials also leave this important issue alone as nothing has happened. As it happened yesterday when two students, Eric Harris and Yan Klebold in the nearly same age with Cho Seung-Hui, the South Korean- 23 years old- boy who shot 33 students and teachers, shot and killed some students and teachers in Columbine High school in 1999. It seems that no body can afford Anti-gun controls and they are more powerful to be defeated. A very hot issue after some month turns to a null memory and experience as manufacturers and politicians can not leave their interests by claiming and reasoning some sophisticated ideas by NRA's president, Charlton Heston.
Now Americans lost their lives for benefit of a minority group of politicians and manufacturers who seek for supporter and interests. The right to bear arm is a clause in second amendment of the Constitution but not many Americans support that as right and see it a way to increase violence.The best way that appears rational to avoid this violence is public and all over opposition to this amendment because it belongs to period that federal government could not guarantee public security against Indians and other rebellions and American society as a democratic and liberal one might no longer need to keep itself from natural dangers.