A: At least vast majority of Iranian and Islamic nations intellectuals and people believe that people like Bin Ladin and other reactionary forces have hijacked Islam. Even ardent anti Muslim Majid Zohari talks very calmly when it comes to his mother’s religious belief and I am sure that even his master Ali Mirfatros does not look at his father as a Muslim terrorist.

B:: To give the benefit of doubt, this Zohari, Negahi and even dwarf Napoleon, Rashedan, may have a really good heart and they really think and believe that, what they are doing is good for their people, after all vast majority of Hitler’s follower were just average people. What bothers me is their ignorance. Thay have to answer these questions for themselves. 1: In general, is religion good at all? If they say no it is not, they are contradicting themselves, because the countries and cultures, which they are in love with, are religious. 2: If what is happening under name of Islam is disturbing, is there another version of Islam, which is not that horrifying? If the answer is yes, how can we save this good Islam? And if the answer is no, what they are recommending to replace it with? Mr. Negahi drinks his red wine in San Francisco and feels good but never looks around to see that more than %90 of Americans are religious. 3: If religion is a latent power in the society and can be used for good or evil, why not use it for good? After all Bush won his presidency based on three “ F” 1 “ Fear 2: Faith 3: Family—which is related to religion.---- %79 voted for Bush because of his stand on faith,---economy, security and Iraq war came after faith. These are simple questions, which these three stooges never bothered to think about

Majid Zohari and Canadian welfare system: Dear Mehdi: If you stop to throw a rock at any dog in your way, you will never arrive at your destination. Trying to argue and convince idiots like Zohari and Negahi is like “ reading Quran into the donkey’s ear”

They even doe not deserve to be addressed in polite way, because after all these years staying too stupid, tells a lot on their character and personality. This jobless Zohari has every right to see the West as an ideal place, after all what do you expect from a slave? Most probably he gets his monthly welfare checks form Canadian government, along free medical and other benefits and he really loves it. But this and other morons cannot even think a second, 1: Where all of these so-called civilized nations assets came form? Let these idiots to take a look at this article, http://www.iran-chabar.de/1383/08/27/moradi830827.htm

2: whether this system can provide even minimum payment for lots of people. Have anybody asked Negahi, how he makes living in USA while not working? How he travels all around the world, and goes to expensive operas etc and thanks God every day is drunk? This idiot Nima Rashedan in one of his interview—was posted in gooya- had said that “ Do not be surprise if you saw me along with American military planers.” Which I send him e-mail advising him not to forget to pack some of his favorite Swiss anal lotion, because Iranian might use motor oil.”

How dare this stupid moron can have such an idea? This idiot has read less then a book and have watched couple western movies and think himself as Napoleon. This idiot even does not understand that after Ahmad Chalabi's scandal, the American knows how stupid these people are. American even does not believe at all in Pahlavi’s residues. American are aware that, things was not that easy as they thought before. This super dumb person thinks that Iranian are just “ interested in ecstasy “--- see his last post in gooya, which I did not finished reading it--- and they will well come him by red carpet. They have no idea what so ever what is going on in Iran. Most probably he have talked with couple of his friend in Northern Tehran and they had said, “ all we want is fun and ecstasy.” What these people are reading there? Have not they even read the ABC of past history? Who have given this asshole to look down at people that have survived the most destructive foreign invasions and were responsible for shaking the region at least three times in a century? What do they think of Iranin? A banana state?

Majid Zohari, which personality do you have to be “ assassinated”?

Na farre tou ra cheh shaeir haliyat konam

Ne rishe toura , ke rish khandat sazam

Ne khayeyeh tou ra keh kheye maliyat konam.

Majid Zohari, Nima Rashedana, and Morteza Negahi: If you do not deserve a saddle on your back, who does?

من كمى با اين تعريف تروريسم مخالفم، هرچند اقلآ جانبِ انصاف را رعايت کرده‌ای و آن‌را رفتار مختص مسلمانان ندانسته‌ای. اشکالِ کار به‌نظرم در اين‌جاست که نمی‌توان واقعآ مرزهای دقيق و تغييرناپذيری دور تروريسم، و در برابرِ آن، دورِ دموکراسی و حقوقِ بشر کشيد. گفته‌ای که «هر گونه جوسازی بر پايه ارعاب و تحقير و خود- را-داور-کل-پنداشتن صورتی از تروريسم است» و نيز «تمام صورتهای ترور با تمام صورتهای دموکراسی و حقوق انسان در تضاد قرار می گيرد». سؤالِ من اين‌جاست که واقعآ در دنيای ما، کجا رفتارِ دموکراتيک و موافقِ حقوقِ انسان پايان می‌يابد و رفتارِ تروريستی شروع می‌شود، و برعکس از کجا به بعد رفتارِ تروريستی ديگر تروريستی نيست و دموکراتيک و موافقِ حقوقِ بشر است؟‌ کدام ارتشی از يک حکومتِ «دموکراتيک» خود را در زمانِ جنگ (که الحمدلله کم هم نداريم) داور کل نمی‌داند؟ کدام حکومتی هنگامِ بيگاری گرفتن و پايمال کردنِ حقوقِ بخش‌های ضعيف‌تر جامعه‌ی خود، آن‌ها را ارعاب و تحقير نمی‌کند؟ به نظر من نمی‌توان اين دو‌نوع رفتار را در دو سياره‌ی دور از هم تصور کرد که هيچ سنخيتی بين‌شان نيست. دليل‌اش هم آين است که در دنيای ما، هر حکومتی، هرقدر هم که سنگِ دموکراسی و حقوقِ بشر به سينه بزند، بعضی رفتارهای خشونت‌آميز و تبعيض‌آميز دارد (در رفتارِ با اقليت‌ها، مهاجران، زنان، کودکان، و مردمانِ کشورهای ديگر) که با تعريف تو صورتی از تروريسم است. و برعکس خيلی از گروه‌هايی که «تروريست» ناميده می‌شوند (و در اصل بايد گفت که صاحبانِ قدرت، خودِ «تروريسم» را از روی رفتارِ اين گروه‌ها تعريف کرده‌اند و آن‌را چماقی کرده‌اند برای سرکوب‌شان) در شرايطی اهل گفت‌وگو و مدارا هم هستند (آی-آر-اِی و ساف دو نمونه‌اش هستند) و بنابراين رفتارشان صورت‌هايی از احترام به «حقوق بشر» هم دارد.

بار ارزشیِ دو کلمه‌ی دموکراسی و تروريسم به‌نظرم زيادی تحتِ تاثير روابطِ قدرت در جهان است و اين باعث می‌شود که گروه‌هايی که با زورِِ اقتصاد و ارتش و رسانه‌های جمعی منافعِ خود را تامين می‌کنند و حقوقِ مردمانِ بی‌شمار ديگر را پايمال می‌کنند بتوانند نامِ خود را به صفتِ دموکراتيک مزين کنند، و برعکس گروه‌هايی که از ابزارهای ضعيف‌تر اقتصادی و رسانه‌ای و تسليحاتی برای پيش‌بردِ منافعِ خود استفاده می‌کنند «تروريست» ناميده شوند. کار به ‌جايی رسيده که هروقت می‌گوييم «دموکراسی» رفتارهای يک دولت-ملت در ذهن‌مان می‌آيند و هروقت می‌گوييم «تروريسم» يادِ گروه‌های چريکی پراکنده می‌افتيم که نه تعدادشان و نه قدرت‌شان با قدرتِ قهاره‌ی دولت‌های مخالف‌شان قابل‌مقايسه نيست.

سلام همسايه/ خانه تان به راستي زيبا و حرفه اي آراسته شده ست / هم از منظر قالب و هم از نظر محتوا / موفق باشي

سلام

مهدي قبول. شكلهاي گوناگون از يك هدف كه همگي راههاي مختلفي مي ژيمايند ولي در سر منزل كه همان نابودي باشد يكي هستند.