The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies About War and Terrorism

All documented. You don't want to believe it? Then don't.
Here it is.

Freezing for now, but dismantelling later on

A persian expression says: " You may agree to have a feaver if they tell you: OK we are not going to kill you then". I hope this weak translation makes sense (any better translation is appreciated) but this is what is happenning to palestinians.

These days, US is "putting pressure" on Israel to dismantel Jewish settlements, Oops, not dismantelling but just a freez in their expansion into Palestinian lands; see here.

Washington has told Israel that developing Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories goes against the peace plan known as the "RoadMap".

One might argue that this can be a good start for further development in achieving peace in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Road-Map doesn't even mention the future dismantelling of those settlements. Here is the general content of the "RoadMap":

ROADMAP MAIN POINTS
Phase 1 (to May 2003): End to Palestinian violence; Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal and freeze on settlement expansion; Palestinian elections
Phase 2: (June-Dec 2003): Creation of an independent Palestinian state; international conference and international monitoring of compliance with roadmap
Phase 3 (2004-2005): Second international conference; permanent status agreement and end of conflict; agreement on final borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements; Arab states to agree to peace deals with Israel.

This "Road-Map" doesn't even clearly outline the issue of right of return for refugees. All it says is to discuss the issue of the refugees in the future. If the issues of "Jewish settlements" and "right of return for refugees" are not perfectly and clearly discussed now, chances are they never will be discussed to the benefit of Palestinians. The negotiations regarding dismantelling settlements and right of return for refugees should not be about whether, but it should only be about "when to happen".

What about the British?

Has it ever crossed your mind why all we hear is about US casualties in Iraq and not the British? Does this mean that the British troops are less "occupiers" than the American troops? Does this mean, the Iraqis dis-like the British less than the Americans? Probably not.

The fact is that the British have shown many times throught their colonial history, that they are more familiar with the mentality of the people in third world countries and they apply that to the way they run their policies. This by no means is to suggest that the British respect other cultures and costums, but they are sure succesfully pretending to do so in order to better push their colonial agendas.

Many elderly people in the Iran believe "whenever something goes wrong somewhere, there can be a trace of the British found in there, although may be a bit fadded". May be a bit too pesimistic, but hey, they might have a point.

Americans who truly serve their country

Please just read Dave's comment in Comment Section of July 27 post. As an American, he is seriously concerned, as I am as an Iranian. He criticizes many things on the US government policies, as I do on even more things on Iran regime policies. To some American ultra-nationalsits, he might sound like a "non-patriatic loser", as I might be seen by pro-Tehran regime people as a traitor. Do we care? Or, should we care what they say? I think not.

People like Dave with the courage they express, are just enjecting some positive colour onto the image of "Americans" which is seriously tarnished in the eyes of many world people. They just tell the world people that no, not all Americans are supporting the actions of their government and not all Americans are indifferent to the well being of other people in the world. There are Americans with pride they deserve, because that pride is not fake and is not resulted from how CNN and Fox want them to be; selfish, self-centered and in short; idiotic and arrogant.

Yes, Dave and I both acknowledge our dis-satisfactions with our governments, but Dave and his type should be credited much more for acknowledging that, why? Because it is easy to be dis-satisfied with Tehran regime, so my point of view is not a big achievment, but considering the fact that US media is bombarding Americans with fake, untrue and biased version of the events (of course, usually in a hollow but professionally coloured frame), what Dave should be credited for is his ability in weathering the storm of constant manipulations here and there.

I believe, Dave and Americans like him, are not only greate people who deserve respect, but they are also serving their country well by gaining more friends for their country amongst those who not only have always dis-trusted the US administration, but also painted all Americans with same brush of arrogance and selfishness. I admit, I was one of them, but thanks to Dave and other caring American friends, I don't see things as "only" either black or white any more.

Dis-honest media

This is just a very small example of how the media in North America acts dis-honestly. Well, sometimes reporting just some parts of the truth is worst than lying:

In the case of Mrs. Zahra Kazemi's death in Tehran while being held by Police, it has been said that she was a Canadian Photojournalist who was arrested while taking some pictures of Evin prison in Tehran. The reports continue saying that this "Canadian journalist" was killed during interogations by Iranian officials.

What would be a typical reaction from Canadians regarding this issue? The ones who did not know Mrs. Kazemi might react by saying:"Oh, bas..ed Iranian terrorists. Thay are now killing canadians".

The fact that Mrs. Kazemi was killed by the Iranian officials and perhaps by Tehran's Prosecuter General himself, is a criminal tragedy against a journalist. But what is usually and deliberately ignored is that Mrs. Kazemi was an Iranian before being a Canadian and the fact that she was in Iran, taking pictures around Evin prison, could be an indication of her love and her caring about her native Iran.

The other scenario which would have been much more fair would be if it was reported as: " Zahra Kazemi an "Iranian-Canadian" was arrested, interogated and killed by Iranian secrete service agants". Then the reaction of the people could be more realistic:" Oh, bas..red Iranian mullahs have killed another journalist'. And then, the reaction would not be directed to Iranians who live in Canada, as they would also be seen as victims of that brutal regime.

It is not fair to paint all Iranians with the same brush of "Iranians are terrorists", But hey, fair? Does the corrupt North American media cares about fairness at all?

US Casualties, Good or Bad?

I am following the news from Iraq on a daily basis. What is almost common in everyday events in Iraq, is that one or two American soldiers are being killed. It makes me smile to see that news and I say to them: "you deserve it". But it is not quite me who says that. I cannot wish for the death of anybody. I cannot be so cruel. When I look at things and my reaction to them, part of me starts hating me for getting exited of such news. But the other part, that welcomes these news, starts justifying its exitement: "But, but , they are occupiers, they have killed so many civilians, they are trying to rule the land that does not belong to them, they want to rule the world, they tried it in Vietnam before, they flattened the Vietnamies villages one by one, they had no mercy to Vietnamies civilians, they orchestrated many coup d' etats in the world as a result of which many nations suffered, they did it to my own country, they tried it here and there every opportunity they got, they are the bullies of the world, they are Imperialists, Only money is important to them and not the life of people, ...... .

Hey Hey, hold your horses, who has done all these? The other part asks: "That US soldier who perhaps doesn't even know which one is his right hand and which one is his left? Or, that US soldier who just dreamed of going to College by collecting some money by joining the army and putting his life in danger? That US soldier who (if you look at his entire life, perhaps you would find he) is from a poor or low-income family? That US soldier who is a recent immigrant to the US and is in the war zone only because he has been promised citizenship for him and his family? If he comes back alive that is. Is Wolfowitz's son one of those soldiers too? Are George Bush's daughthers soldiers too? What about Rumsfeld's, Cheney's and others'?"

The answer to all of these are given as: ".... but, do these facts justify participating in the occupation of other countries? Does improving their financial conditions justify destroying others'? They shouldn't disgrace themselves by joining an occupying army. They can love their country gracefully and for the same reason, they can prevent the destruction of their country's image by stopping their leaders from these acts of agressions against other nations in the world. Yes, they are not living up to their real responsibilities.

See, each part of me has some points. But it makes it dificult for me to adopt one side's thinkings. I wish I didn't have to face this challenge. Deep down, I'de like to be shaken and horrified by the news of the US casualties as I do for Iraqis and all members of humanity. Help me feel that way, or even better, let's do our part to change things of the way they are, Let's make it the way that there will be no casualties what so ever. Let's condemn our leaders; whoever and from whichever country they are, if deep down we believe they, too, are causing (or at least are part of) all these problems. Let's tell the big business, that these are all your faults and your masked policies that come out of our leaders' mouths. These are not ours. And it is time to stop your "crimes for money and power in our name and in the name of fighting for democracy and freedom".

How and why am I writing!

I know, I don't write very well, my thoughts might jump from one point to another, I might not regularly write, the quality of my wordings might be low, I might not be diplomatic in what I write, I might not even spell check, in short, I might not be impressive, BUT, I am me; a member of humanity with a voice, a determined voice that insists to be heard. The voice of an Iranian who loves his country, but his priority is the humanity without border. This might upset some, but it is quite alright with me. I will say what I want to say. However, I will also listen, I promise.

My special thanks to Pedram Moallemian at Eyeranian for all his writings including Blogs shall set you free at The Iranian.