THAT - AMERICAN GUY

Been meaning to comment about the idiot jusdge in Alabama. Now I have. But I did it over at "On The Third Hand".

That Judge and evidently the bulk of Alabamans fail to grasp the shear brilliance of the United States Constitution. But I know just how to help them get a grip on the concept.

Just have another huge block of granite carved into an image depicting the complete text of the Sharia. (Islamic law) How much do you wanna bet that they would take the oposite side of the argument if someone did?

And why stop there? We could add a Budha, a portrait of Joseph Smith and a statue of the nature god, Pan. Suddenly they would all be arguing how religion isn't so important when it comes to law.

I can just imagine how these Evangelical Christians would feel if the State of Utah were to suddenly begin requiring all witnesses in their courts to swear an oath while their right hand was on a Book of Mormon?

Posted by American Guy at August 24, 2003 01:52 AM

Mehdi has compiled a list of the most frequently appearing words in American news articles about Iran. Sorry to say, but for most of the population of north America this is the image of Iran.

Here is my top 10 list. These are the most common images that pop into my head when I think of Iran.

White marble sided, 3 to 4 level apartment buildings, covered in redish brown dust, (Well actually the dust gets everywhere.)

Sycamore trees, yeah they're covered with redish brown dust this time of year too. (Sometimes called Plain trees.)

Paykan's they're everywhere. Paykan is the national car of Iran, soon to be outnumbered by Peugeots though.

Chello Kebab.

Pistachios.

Five cylinder diesel engined Mercedes Benz Minibuses. (Minibusi?)

Shayad monument, now called Azadi monument. Azadi means freedom, how Ironic that the same guys who took much of it away named the Shah's largest monument after it.

Mountains, Iran has really really big snow capped mountains - rising to over 18 k feet. Tehran is built right up to the bottom of them too, much like Salt Lake City is.

Women in Chador's. Especially black ones, I alway felt sorry for them in the summer.

Ayatolah Khomeini. I always thought he looked like the devil incarnate, although I always assumed the devil would wear more red. How fiting that the man who would attempt to plunge Iran back into the dark ages would have such dark, hollow, deep set eyes. Chilling. I always thought that if more Iranians watched Disney movies, they would know he was the bad guy - just from the way he looked.

Although just like most people, I write mostly about Iranian politics, especially as they pertain to US interests. Funny, the nuclear (or "nuculer" if your name is GW Bush) threat seems of little importance to me. They'll have undergone regime change well before they have a working bomb. And I have no doubt they are working as fast as they can to get the bomb.

"Iranians Arrested for Planning Sabotage campaign in Iraq:

Iraqi police said that earlier this week they arrested a group of Iranians who were planning a sabotage campaign in Baghdad. A source within the Iraqi interior ministry told the BBC the Iranians had been handed over to the American military police for interrogation."

Pffffft!

From Buzzmachine: In a jam:

Cuba tells the U.S. that it wasn't jamming satellite broadcasts to Iran -- Iranians in the Iranian embassy in Havana were doing it. Well, that makes all the difference then. Doesn't it?

I wonder. Why all these regime changes half way around the world, when Cubans still suffer under Fidel Castro - just off our coast?

Oh yeah, no Muslim clerics urging them to blow themselves up killing inocent American civilians. Think about it. With just one airplane, strategicaly aimed at a tall building they could get rid of Fidel once and for all.

Anyone want to tackle translating Al Jazeera into Spanish for them?
Link to original article on Jeff's page.

Too many Iranians are stuck in 1953. They constantly bring up the Mossadeq coups. While the chain of events leading up to the coups were unfortunate, it was not the dire catastrophe many Iranians have made it out to be in their own fantasies.

Some, and I'm glad that is a very small minority of Iranians are far to willing to overlook anything good that the United States has done for Iran and focus only on a few negatives. In response to one such Iranian's blog entry I left the following comment.

"Sometimes when you see a friend making a terrible mistake, especially when it is a mistake that will hurt you, it's a good idea to intervene.

The Soviet experiment failed miserably. The failure was hastened by the colapse of the economy. Had they been able to grab hold of Iran's warm water ports and her oil the Soviet Union might still be together today. All of the oil and gas in the Caspian region, and Iran itself, would have been theirs and today Iran might very well be fighting for her independance from the Soviet Union. Iran's per capita income never would have reached the heights it did in the 1970's, and today it would likely be one third or less, what it is.

Iran was a weak, undeveloped country in 1953. If it wasn't, no country, not even the United States, could have overthrown it's Prime minister.

The United States helped Iran to become strong, remain free from Soviet influence and develop a vibrant economy. some had a difficult time adjusting to the move from a largely agrarian economy to a more industrialised one. Then conspiring mullahs took advantage of their angst in order to further their own agenda, tried to plunge Iran back into the dark ages and Iran has spent the last 24 years regressing.

Do you ever stop to ask yourself what would have happened when Saddam invaded, if Iran hadn't been armed to the teeth by the United States? Today the capital of Iran might be Baghdad.

Within 2 years after the revolution, the Shah was dead. Do you ever stop to think of how prosperous Iran could be today if the Iranian people had simply been more patient?

Are the displaced villagers, working and merchant classes, any better off today than they were in 1978?

Someday I plan to develop these thoughts a little further. I thought I'd post this much - as a start.

I just came across this intriguing article from the LA Times. It partially helps to explain what most westerners can't comprehend, that is why Arab terrorists would attack the UN. What I see is a lot of confused notions rooted in the vast misinformation so prevalent in Jihad-Land*. Their views are strikingly disimilar to those of most westerners.

Published on Thursday, August 21, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
Turmoil in Iraq: To Many Arabs, the U.S. and U.N. Are One Entity
by Megan K. Stack

AMMAN, Jordan — The silence said the most: Aside from a chorus of official sympathy and condemnations, the devastation of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad drew barely a shiver on the Arab street and in the Middle Eastern media Wednesday.

In a shift made blazingly clear with the bombing, the United Nations' status has become so thoroughly degraded in the Arab world that many people here no longer draw a distinction between the international body and the United States. It has long been criticized as puny and has traditionally been mistrusted in these parts, but the U.N.'s inability to stop the war in Iraq has sowed new seeds of resentment.

"Didn't they see it coming?" Mohsen Farouk, a 36-year-old carpenter from Cairo, demanded. He decried the deaths of innocent people but insisted that nobody should be surprised. "It was just a matter of time," he said. "The U.N. is just a puppet of the U.S., and anyone who is angry with the U.S. is likely to consider the U.N. a target."

The hard-line Iranian newspaper Kayhan was even blunter. A front-page headline Wednesday read, "Destruction and Killing the Result of Bush's Policies in Iraq."

Throughout the Arab world and Iran, the bombing was chalked up — tacitly or explicitly, depending on who was talking — to a blundering U.S. occupation, an organic outgrowth of the untenable instability in Iraq. Moreover, many Arabs argued, the U.S. invasion endangered the United Nations by rendering it irrelevant.

"There has been resentment simply because the U.N. became a tool in the hands of superpowers," said Hasan abu Nimah, a longtime Jordanian diplomat and former representative to the U.N.

The power wielded by the U.S. at the United Nations has long stoked anger in much of the Middle East. The Arab world has seethed whenever Washington used its U.N. veto — as it has done with some frequency — to quash efforts to send international observers into the Palestinian territories or halt the construction of Israeli settlements.

"The U.S. is so powerful and the U.N. is so weak," said Mishary Nuaim, a political analyst at Saudi Arabia's King Saud University. "Nobody can do anything to stop the U.S."

But in a region that scorns weakness, the United Nations sank to new depths in public opinion when the United States invaded Iraq without the international body's approval.

"There's a widespread feeling that the Americans were lazy in protecting the United Nations. Perhaps they've done it on purpose. Now it has been proven to the Arabs that it is a weak instrument," said George Jabbour, a Syrian political scientist. "It was assassinated twice — first when the U.S. went to war without a decision from the Security Council, and again yesterday."

When the U.N. entered Iraq after the war, some neighboring countries decried the move as lending a whiff of U.N. legitimacy to an unjust occupation. To critics, the world body appeared to endorse the controversial U.S.-led administration of Iraq.

"The U.N. did nothing for the Iraqis during the war," said Mohammed Hindawi, a 32-year-old engineer in Cairo. "They arrived in Baghdad when the coast was clear. People expected the U.N.'s support, and they didn't get it. It's payback time."

At a cafe in Cairo's leafy Zamalek district, where the drone of Al Jazeera television mingled with the clatter of conversation, a table full of men erupted in protest at the mere suggestion that the U.N. and the U.S. are two distinct bodies.

"The U.N. is just a screen for the U.S. — it lost all credibility during the war," said Ahmed Dafran, a 60-year-old retired cabdriver. "The Iraqis haven't had time to breathe since the war and haven't got their heads around what's happened. All they see is a stream of foreign bodies coming in and telling them what's good for them."

Although some Arab governments supported the war, most of the Arab street was bitterly opposed to it from the outset — and has interpreted the chaos of the occupation as confirmation of its worst fears.

In their political rhetoric, Arab countries have dealt uncomfortably with the occupation. A deeply divided Arab League decided this month not to grant a seat to the new Iraqi Governing Council. It wasn't an elected government, members explained, although it was a step in the right direction.

Beneath the criticism, analysts say, neighbors are gulping against the fear of what might happen if the United States eventually became so bloodied it pulled its troops from Iraq.

"We're now entering a dangerous phase, and there's an understanding that if the United States should leave Iraq, there would be chaos and it could engulf them," said Michael Young, a political analyst in Beirut. "So even though publicly there may be talk of ending the occupation, privately they understand the U.S. has to stay."

Still, many mainstream Arabs draw a certain quiet satisfaction from the stream of guerrilla attacks on U.S. soldiers, said Abu Nimah, the Jordanian diplomat.

"They didn't support the war, and they don't support the occupation," he said. "And they don't want to make the life of the occupiers easy."

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

* I am trying out this new term I just came up with. I struggle to find a term which applies to all countries where a signifigant minority believes they are engaged in a "Jihad" against the west. Most western news refer to them all as Arabs, but Persians aren't arabs, although they share many of the same attitudes and beliefs. IMO many of those shared beliefs have similar origins in militant Islam.

"The concept of truth has no meaning to these kinds of people. They can't even agree on the meaning of words like "cease-fire"... it's easy to carry out this kind of attack, it only takes a few people. (Plus a very young population with no clear concept of morality.)"

"I wonder who's behind these attacks - see this mural in Tehran: "Israel must be destroyed" -- Imam Khomeini. " See the actual mural here.

He also has some interesing words about Zoroastrianism. He finds the religion interesting, so do I. My theory is that Zoroastrianism reaches back thousands of years to bring forth truths hearkening back to the times of Noah. But since there are few records going back that far, many religious schollars see it more like Kaveh does.

"All of the major monotheistic religions have elements from Zoroastrianism. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity divide the world up into two halves, and in Islam it's divided into another two halves (men and women). If you want to convert from Islam to another religion, Islamic law says you must be killed."

Good stuff, Kaveh. Keep it up!

UPDATE: I thought of another division between the two groups. Whether or not you perceive yourself and others as victims or masters of their own destinies. I believe the latter is true. Unfortunately, for those living under Islamo Fascist dictatorships, few are able to reach their potential.

Lately I have gotten quite upset with certain people regarding what I call personal accountability. This Essay takes an interesting point of view on the subject of RESPONSIBILITY. I like to refer to it as personal accountability, but responsibility will do for now.


You may have noticed the bold lettering in my post about the UN headquarters bombing found below. The reason I decided to make that bold is because lately I have gotten quite upset with the attitudes of certain people in the "Blame America First Club". It's gotten to be a very big club since 9/11 happened. Before that most democrats weren't in it, but the war on terrorism has brought them out of the woodwork.

In the days immediately following 9/11 it didn't matter if you were conservative or liberal, we were all proud to be Americans and everyone could clearly see that terrorists were evil. But in the time since, things have changed. I've had a difficult time figuring out where all the anti Americanism comes from. Almost daily I read or hear somebody claiming that the United States somehow deserves to be attacked by terrorists. They say it is our fault because of this and that and if we just stopped defending ourselves then all would be well.

What I find so perplexing is how the Democratic party seems to have aligned themselves with the anti American attitudes of Islamist groups. It felt pretty ominous, as if the world were splitting into two parts right before my eyes. What I didn't realize is that the split had always been there.

The two sides are those who believe in being personally accountable for their actions and those who blame others for their actions. (But there are many flavors of each.) Below is a quote from this essay.

"Political Correctness, Deconstructionism, Trans-National Progressivism, Liability mania, Crime and Punishment, Terrorism, Welfare, Gun Control, Media Bias, Affirmative Action, Abortion, Education Reform, Social Engineering, all of it will divide people according to their idea of Responsibility. "

" Those on one side see individuals as rafts on that river of culture, swept along inexorably downstream, perhaps capable of a weak paddling, displacing our paths a few feet from side to side. I on the other hand, and others like me, see human potential as a powerboat, a nuclear-powered hydrofoil, one capable of cruising side to side at will, as easily able to race against the current as with it. I don’t believe people are rafts adrift in the destiny of their culture. I think all people have propellers, whether they use them or not, and rudders too. And rather than commiserating with people about the rapids that they endure and the battering that is their lot in life, we should be teaching them how to start those engines, take the wheel of their own futures, and steer themselves wherever they damn well please."

It's a very good read.

I used to count myself in the ranks of the Democratic party. I began to turn my back on them at the same time I began taking more responsibility for my own life. That was when I was about 28 or so. I still went ahead and voted for Clinton, twice. Now I am a registered Republican, but a bit of an odd duck. My politics are similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I believe in personal liberty so I support the rights of gays to do as they wish with their lives, for instance, but I also believe that countries that support and harbor terrorists must be held accountable. Fewer laws and more liberty are always best in my view. I also believe taxes should be kept to a minimum so people can do with their money as they please. Things always turn out better in the long run that way. Even when I was a democrat I thought abortion should be illegal. IMO the woman has the right to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, but once she is it is her responsibility to care for the child the best that she can; but not if it's the result of rape, because then she had no choice in the matter. Does that make sense? I also have some very strong beliefs about the family.

It sounds simple enough. Here's how it's done.

But not just anybody can do it.

Many inocent people's lives were cut short or made more difficult due to injuries sustained. Inocent patients from the neighboring spinal injury hospital have been re-injured by this evil and despicable act.


This will only serve to steal the resolve of the god fearing, freedom loving peoples of the world to defeat terrorism.

Sadly, it is another example of Muslim killing Muslim. I pray these dispicable men will be held accountable for THEIR ACTIONS.

"New clashes rock Semirom as Regime refuses to return bodies of killed protesters"
SMCCDI (Information Service)

"In most cases the regime's officials have requested the "payment of used bullets" from the families in order to give back the bodies of their relatives. The regime by placing such financial burden on the shoulders of the families of victims hopes to retard the burial processes in the current existing tense situation and avoid more protest actions at the occasion of the victims funeral ceremonies."

It's located down at the bottom of the page underneath the archives. So far today I have 2 from WhoMan, 2 from Google and 2 from Yahoo! The ones from the search engines are probably just clicking and then saying to themselves: "This wasn't what I was looking for!" Then leaving. :-(

He say's we should have gone into Iraq over a year ago but were "delayed by UN foot dragging". I agree, those UN folks seem to have lead boots on, (hence the foot dragging). They also seem to be bent on proving that their resolutions are useless.

According to Mr. Delay, the Whitehouse needs to turn up pressure on Iran's Mullacracy and Syria's (not sure what to call Syria's government) regime. I agree. Unfortunately there is little else we can do to pressure them, aside from millitary action of some sort. (although I'm open to ideas.) The whole idea of engaging the mullahs in anti terrorism talks is silly. Any agreement would be broken. Isn't that how the delays happened in Iraq?

Evidently Mr. Delay has not heard that Iran's foreign minster, Kamal Kharrazi - encourages strong US actions to dismantle Iran's terrorist regime. In regards to United States recent actions in the war on terrorism, he reportedly said"

(It was) ''a positive step that conforms to its international responsibilities,'' according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

Kharrazi said Washington should have "acted sooner against the dissidents as they had long been on terrorism list", the agency said. The agency news article goes on to say: Kharrazi said that the head of the dissident group in Iraq was under U.S. control...The onus is on the United States to confront the provocations by the (terrorist) group,'' the minister said.


This should make Tom Delay very happy, since he hates delays when it comes to dismantling terrorist regimes. As Kharrazi say's, BRING IT ON WASHINGTON, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?


;)
I guess Mr. DeLay doesn't read my blog.

Iranian foreign minister praises US war on terrorism. Say's that we should have acted sooner. I'm wondering. Does that Apply to Iran, or only threats to Iran's Mullahcracy?

(I never claimed this was a "no spin zone".)

From SMCCDI: daneshjoo.org


Fresh deadly clashes rock Esfahan province again
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 17, 2003



Fresh clashes rocked, for the 4th consecutive day and despite heavy military presence, the City of Semiram located in Esfahan province resulting in new deaths and injured among the residents and the Islamic regime's forces.

Additional units of heliported special units were not able to extingush the unrest which seemed to be controled on Friday evening and crowd came into the streets shouting slogans against the regime and its leaders....

...Several other cities and localities of the Esfahan province, such as, Khomeini Shahr, formerly known as Shahin Shahr, and Dastguerd locality have been scenes of sporadic clashes as well.


Read more here. And here.


© Copyright 2003 SMCCDI: daneshjoo.org

Still no one has commented on my post, "The War on Terror - A War for Human Rights" - found below. I don't know if that is because it is old news to everyone already - or what.

To me it is highly important to understand what motivates others to attack my country.

Perhaps part of the reason is that Americans tend to not like to criticize anyone else's religion. I don't like to either, but in the case of militant Islam I feel I have to make an exception. My parents taught me to respect everyone's religion. While I lived in Iran I had the utmost respect for Islam and the Muslim's I came into contact with. But I had little knowledge of it. I like to have an open mind about everything, until I learn about it for myself. Well, I still like to have an open mind, but at least then - I have opinions. Although I have met many Muslims who are good people, I have also had run-ins with some that would like to kill me. There are bad non-Muslim's too, who might want to kill me if I stood in their way, but they know it is wrong and don't believe that they are doing it in the name of Allah. In America, people who think like that are one in a million and we call them schizophrenics. Among Muslims, they comprise a good-sized chunk of the populace. (But still a minority)

I think many Americans think that the attacks on our soil are over. They are not. It will get worse. Most Americans still have no idea what drives this hatred towards them. September 11th was a wake up call, but I am afraid that most Americans have fallen back to sleep.

"In general, his judgement is that in the recent high profile politics of the war on Iraq, increasing US pressure on Syria and Iran, and the crisis with North Korea, no political leaders have distinguished themselves in ways deserving of the prize."

Blah blah blah...

"With this in mind, the Committee will look for dissidents, most likely in China, Iran or Russia (or even Vietnam)"

Blah blah blah...

"But the PRIO Director's favourite is for the prize to be awarded to a Muslim reformist, such as Mr Hashem Aghajari, the Iranian lecturer who was condemned to death last year on charges of blasphemy, and although the death sentence was revoked, still remains in prison. Awarding the prize to him could be interpreted as encouraging democracy and reform in Iran, and may even urge Iran to engage more fully in the world in a way that would prevent if from being further targeted by the US."

I hope the rumor is true. I would love so much to see an Iranian disident win the prize.

Other rumored nominees include:

[The following "possible" nominees are not confirmed. Although there is plenty of speculation in some cases, the nominators have apparently not chosen to publicly confirm their nominations]

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, Vice President of Iran and Head of the country's Atomic Energy Organisation

Hashem Aghajari, Iranian dissident in prison

Bono, Irish pop star from U2

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush, nominated by Jan Simonsen, a right-wing Norwegian MP (who missed the 1 February deadline)

Hans Blix, United Nations chief weapons inspector & Mohamed El Baradei, Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency

The European Union - why???

Vaclav Havel, former Czech President

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egyptian dissident

International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, or Carla del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor

The International Red Cross

Afghan President Hamid Karzai - Another of my favorites

Kathy Kelly, Wilderness Group ]

Among many others.

In my humble opinion, there aint no way in heck, that an American is going to win it this year! Maybe next year.

I hereby nominate Mr Hashem Aghajari. Read more about him, here.

Most Americans just help each other out and patiently wait for the power to come back on.

Sleeping on the roof is always a good idea. I spent a lot of time on my roof while I lived in Teheran.

Unfortunately most Americans have peaked roofs, (not me though). And in New York City many of them are at the top of 70 story buildings. It's a long walk just to get there, and if everyone were to go up there at the same time they wouldn't fit.

That's what makes the Top 10 list so humorous, the Iraqis don't know any more about Americans than we know about Iraqis.

Dear fellow blogers,

I am embarrassed to admit that I have been inadvertently using the wrong e-mail address when I leave comments on people's blogs. I'd forgotten that I used the word "that" at the beginning of my e-mail address when I signed up for it. I was beginning to wonder when I would get my first email??? (not even a lowly spam)

I discovered this two days ago and have been using the correct one since then.

I am sorry if anyone has tried to send me a message using that address.

The correct address is: thatamericanguy@msn.com
Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

From SMCCDI: daneshjoo.org

FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE

The War on Terror - A War for Human Rights
By Robert Spencer
Aug 11, 2003



The Indonesian terrorist group, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), demonstrated last week that the war on terror is not just an effort to prevent recurrences of September 11; it is a struggle for human rights.

As JI celebrates (yes, celebrates) its murder of fifteen people and the wounding of 150 more in a suicide attack on the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta last Tuesday, as well as the death sentence given Thursday to JI member Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, the smiling bomber, who murdered 202 people in Bali last October, it is instructive to remember that JI is doing all this killing for the Sharia.

The Sharia is the classic code of Islamic law that mandates stoning for adulterers and amputation for thieves, disallows a rape victim's testimony in her own case, and hamstrings freedom of conscience by prescribing death for apostates from Islam and those who have blasphemed the Prophet, an offense that Christians in Pakistan and other beleaguered minorities in the Islamic world have found to be distressingly elastic. Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda's southeast Asian affiliate, dreams of the day when the Sharia holds sway over the entire world, or at least its own corner of it.

Jemaah Islamiyah is fighting to create a Sharia-ruled Islamic megastate in Southeast Asia, comprising Indonesia, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Singapore, Brunei, and the southern Philippines island of Mindanao. In a certain sense it's fitting that they see blowing up innocent people as a viable means to attain this end, for the utopia that group members envision is just as brutal and unreasoning. There have been numerous indications of that recently in places where the Islamic law that JI reveres is already (in varying degrees) in force:




- The supreme court of Afghanistan on Thursday upheld death sentences for two journalists, Sayeed Mahdawi and Ali Reza Payam. Their crime? Criticizing what they called the "holy fascism" that still holds sway in Afghanistan, and asking: If Islam is the last and the most complete of the revealed religions, why are the Muslim countries lagging behind the modern world?

- A court in Pakistan on Tuesday sentenced another man, Bashir Ahmed, to death for making “derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet and his companions.

- Women's groups in Malaysia protested, thus far in vain, against a decision by that country's Sharia court that men could divorce their wives by leaving a message on their mobile phones.


- The Jordanian parliament rejected on Islamic grounds a measure that would have given women the legal right to file for divorce, as well as another that would have led to stiff penalties for "honor killings": the barbaric murder of young women by family members who believe that they have committed adultery, thereby shaming the family honor. Many young women have even been murdered after being raped, since traditional Islamic law allows a rape charge to be established only by the testimony of four male witnesses who saw the act itself.

- In Iraq, Muslim authorities in the Shiite holy city of Najaf overruled, also on Islamic grounds, the appointment by American authorities of a woman judge, Nidal Nasser Hussein. Afrah Najem, who like Nidal Nasser Hussein is a female lawyer in Iraq, knows that she has hit the mother of all glass ceilings: "Ours is an Islamic society that would not tolerate a woman judge."


Draconian blasphemy laws, appallingly loose divorce laws (for men only), a totalitarian resistance to self-criticism, institutionalized brutality and oppression of women, these are the features of the Sharia law that forms the centerpiece of JI's dream state. Their path to this utopia is stained with the blood of the nightclubbers, businessmen and bystanders that JI is rejoicing over having slaughtered in Indonesia.

Donald Rumsfeld has declared that the United States will not accept an Islamic state in Iraq. One may hope that this indicates that the human rights component of the war on terror has at least some advocates in high places. For the events recounted above illustrate why everyone who values freedom and basic human rights should oppose the Sharia, whether it is implemented in whole or part, not just in Iraq or Indonesia, but everywhere that it hinders the liberty of human beings, including Saudi Arabia.

Like a peevish schoolmarm, the judge who sentenced Amrozi scolded him for perverting Islam and jihad. But it is unlikely that any of the Muslim onlookers who cheered and shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Allah is great) when Amrozi entered the courtroom were brought to a moment of theological reckoning by the judge's lecture. After all, moderate Muslims still have not answered the nagging question of why, if Islam forbids terrorism and the Quran teaches nonviolence, have so many devout Muslims around the world misinterpreted it so thoroughly and repeatedly. Where are the moderate Muslims who can teach, not only Western non-Muslims, but their fellow Muslims that Islam is peaceful?
If the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim advocacy groups really want to demonstrate that Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy and forgiveness that should not be associated with acts of violence against the innocent, let them definitively renounce the Sharia for which Jemaah Islamiyah kills, and which brings anything but peace and mercy to those who must suffer under it. Let them work to create in the United States a truly moderate Islam that accepts the principles of Western secular society and coexistence with non-Muslims. If they do not do this, it is clear: history will judge them as being on the wrong side of this great struggle for the rights of mankind.


Robert Spencer is author of "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith" (Encounter Books) and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (coming this September from Regnery Publishing). An Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation, he writes frequently on Islam in a wide variety of publications.

Check it out!


Mars is closer this month than it will ever be again durring our lifetime's. It looks very bright late at night.

Islamists spread so many lies about the United States and our motives. It is so sad that so may people buy into them. What has it brought them? What will it ever bring them?

Their movement will never reach the critical mass necesary to accomplish their goal of world domination. There just aren't enough people who will fight on their side. How many people do you think will fight to destroy freedom, so that they can have the oportunity to live under the control of tyrants???

God gave all mankind free agency so that we may choose for ourselves, learn and grow strong. Those who wish to control men through compulsion are doing the work of the devil. Darkness will not triumph over light. So many have been deceived. It is sad that so many must suffer because of it.

Today in Iran, journalists went on strike to protest human rights abuses against journalists. Had the Iranian-Canadian journalist, Ms. Zahra Kazemi not died at the hands of the brutal Saeed Mortazavi, most westerners would still be ignorant of the Sadistic Mortazavi.

Thousands of inocent Iranians have been beaten, with many deaths at the hands of Mortazavi and his thugs. It is time this senseless carnage stopped!

You may read about today's protests here.

I was just reading through today's news over at SMCCDI and came across this article, at first I thought, oh good, it was much adieu about nothing. Somehow Uncle Donny's explanation seemed to easy.


But that wasn't the real interesting article, or more precisely - it was only after reading the second article, from Newsday when the first article became interesting.


The newsday article is chocked full of intriguing information. I thought it must be biased. They do seem to want the reader to think there is a scandal brewing.

I was happy to find out today The Terminator will be running for governor of California this October. I like him, and I think he will be a fun governor.

You see, our old Governor, like sucks, really really bad. So we like did this recall thingy, and so we are like, dumping him, and like getting The Terminator to like replace him...you know?

I was reading the discussion board at SMCCDI tonight and I was struck by how many participants said they had never been to Iran. These are real Iranians with real Iranian names, yet they have never set foot on Iranian soil.

Sometimes I wonder why it is that I am so drawn to Iran. After all, I only lived there for a short time. I am not even an Iranian, after all. Sometimes I even question my own legitamacy. (As if one needs legitamacy to have an opinion.)

How sad that I, an American, have spent more time in Iran than many thousands of Iranians. I know what the air smells like in the different seasons, I know what it's like to have to wait in traffic for the sheep to clear the road, on a crisp fall day. I've seen sturgeon pulled from the Caspian Sea, women weaving Persian rugs, and smelled the oil as it comes up out of the ground.

I've crunched my feet through the fallen sycamore leaves along Pahlavi Avenue (Vali Asr), savored a Coke served over green ice, (which made me think I had to drink it very fast - before the ice could melt). I know first hand what it is like to travel on a two lane highway with cars and trucks and buses stretched across 7 vehicles wide and scream in horror as the bus driver ducks in at the last possible moment, sparing our lives. Then wondering what are chances are a survival as we repeat the maneuver 15 more times between Teheran and Rasht.

I guess I was even part of history. I've walked the same halls in the American Embassy where the hostages were taken and held for 444 days. I even got to shake the hands of one of them because he had been my school principle - Dr. Keough. I must be one of very few Americans for whom seeing old pictures of the American Embassy brings back fond memories.

Did you know that you can't sit on the front fender of a Djyane? (sp?) They fall off if you do, or at least make horrible loud sounds as they threaten to fall off and leave you sitting back side down, in the dirt.

I can't imagine what it would feel like for the Iranian who steps foot in Iran for the first time. I think it must feel very surreal. Like being in a picture. After my realtively short time in Iran, it felt surreal to me to be back in the USA. Somehow I knew the experience had changed me forever.

UPDATE: This page is better if you can't read Arabic script, on this one I can actually read the street names.


Just came acrossed these webcams while searching for something entirely different! Note: White painted lines on roadways are strictly for decoration only! :-)

In some of the pics, the air does look a little bit thick. Cough cough. As a friend who grew up in Redlands California once said: "I just don't trust air that I can't see!" No problem with that in Tehran.

Note: [Note 3: The images are sometimes unavailable.] Like today. ;-)

US options on Iran


By Roger Hardy
BBC Middle East analyst


Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neo-con of the right-wing think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, thinks that the goal of regime change in Iran is at least clearly implicit in what the Bush administration is trying to do.

"This is both in the rhetoric about the "axis of evil" and in the formal national security strategy paper that the president issued last September," says Mr Muravhick.

That was the paper which set out what has come to be known as the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive, or more accurately, preventive, action against perceived threats to the US.

A few of the neo-cons favour military action to remove what they see as the threat posed by Iran, for example, through strikes against its nuclear facilities.


Michael Hirsh is a senior editor at Newsweek and author of a new book on US foreign policy...

But if the neo-cons have been temporarily weakened, they are certainly not out of the game. They are determined and influential people, and there are some in Washington who feel they are biding their time, waiting for George W Bush to win a second term in next year's presidential elections.

If he is re-elected, then, in the view of Raad al-Kadiri, Middle East expert at the Washington-based energy consultants, PFC, the neo-cons will be ready to push forward their agenda on Iran.

"Rightly or wrongly, they see in Iran a country that is on the edge, a country that requires a simple push and will actually undergo transformation from within, and that is what they're aiming to achieve.

But what constitutes a "simple push"?

I have been very curious about what would happen if Washington decided to go into Iran with a limited military incursion. This could either be to capture Al Qaeda fugitives, Iran harbors - but refuses to turn over - or to disable the nuclear program. My opinion is that this would add fuel to the fire of the democratisation movement.

After all, the mullahs have now brought Iran to a state of war with the most powerful nation on earth. I keep hearing people say that this would be the dumbest thing we could do...but I wonder? The argument seems to be that Iranians are such fierce nationalists that they would unite behind their government agaisnt the foreign power. Yes, I am sure that some would, but I think the vast majority would be extremely angry that the Islamic regime had brought Iran to such a crises. I just can't imagine the people running into the streets to demand more of the same.

I just read this article on the BBC website.

I found some comments I agree with completely!

Here they are: "[A well-known figure in the Iranian-American community is the businessman, academic and political activist, Rob Sobhani.

"I think there's a role for all dissidents, including the son of the Shah - because Iran today is thirsty for leadership, Iran is thirsty for someone with vision," he says.]<br>
[Waiting in the wings

"I think what's lacking in Iranian politics today is someone with a vision. I think if that individual - a man or a woman - appears on the scene and grabs the attention of the Iranian people, with a vision of what he or she would like the country to move towards, they will certainly be the beneficiary of that goodwill, that thirst for a leader."]


I have basically been saying the same things for quite a while. I even have a theory that Reza Pahlavi will take over the leadership role. This is not a very popular opinion, I've discovered.


["Then there's the monarchists and Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah, and he seems to have hit his stride (i.e. improved his performance), and to be learning better how to communicate.

"But a large part of that stride is to avoid any direct role in confronting the mullahs and to avoid presenting himself as someone who should run Iran in the future."]

I agree, he is improving. He say's he will defer to the people to choose the role he will play, which goes along with the democratic theme. Personally, I believe him.


[John Calabrese of the Middle East Institute, a Washington research centre, takes a different view.

"I think the street demonstrations and protests that have been occurring over the last month or two provide yet additional evidence that there is a deep resentment, a deep alienation - a gulf really - between the regime and the population," he says.

"Having said that, it's also clear from the protests and demonstrations that the regime is resilient, resourceful, and prepared to use repression in order to make sure that the protests are kept more or less under control."

Mr Calabrese believes the weakness of the student demonstrators is their lack of leadership and organisation. He believes the prospects for "regime change" from within are low.]

And that is precisely why I think Reza Pahlavi will take over the much needed leadership role.