Aafreen

You should get to know these names better. They're just like you. They think the East and the West are neat titles that can be arbitrarily slapped on the things we like and value vs the things we don't like and value - exactly the kind of people exposed by Said when he wrote Orientalism. Bernard Lewis is an oriental studies buff who was often the target of Said's harshest critique. Ignatieff currently leads the largest opposition party in Canada after having taught at Harvard where he acted as a cheerleader for America to become the policeman of the world. His work is used heavily in American war colleges and at highest levels of American strategic studies to basically argue "if not American than who?" Again, these tiles don't work for me. They never have and never will. When you use them, you come off as no different to me than the noblemen mentioned above - men for whom I have very little respect. Now that is interesting. I pointed out to you a flaw in your argument but you chose to blither on about something completely besides what I pointed out. That IS the problem. On the other hand, if you cannot distinguish between academic interests and personal interests, I'm not sure how to get to across to you. My academic interest no longer lies around the war, hence I'm not interested in reading up on it again. I refuse to do it especially because you would do exactly the kind of clever dodging that you just did by completely avoiding the point I made (about Hamid Algar!). It makes clear that you are interested more in glorifying your position and your beliefs over trying to discover the truth. Quite frankly, I find your unfounded accusation after accusation unworthy of my response. Most importantly that somehow I care less about Iranian lives. Where exactly do you get that? Dreams? Just because I focus on a particular aspect of the war, i.e. how Iran could have avoided a messy war (which I believe no one won), doesn't mean I'm absolving Saddam and his supporters of their guilt. Any such assumption on your part just reflects poorly on you mate. Any serious academic who blames Iran for the war is an idiot. Period. But at the same time it would be foolish, for instance, to absolve the allies of their crimes i.e. carpet bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, or the use of nuclear bombs by the US - even though Germany and Japan were the aggressors. Again, I don't recall getting venomous about the IRI. I have a problem with the system of velayat-i faqih because I believe it has little basis in Shi'ism, and will be a failure in the long run. I will continue to criticize it, just as I criticize anything else I don't agree with.. capitalism, communism, development, WTO, IMF, WB, Israeli occupation, dictatorships in Pakistan, judicial activism in Pakistan, orientalis, occidentalism, etc etc. I simply believe that if an individual's faith in God is insufficient to make them a good Muslim, no government, no theory of Islamic government whether its VF or khilafa etc can do it. If you are really interested in looking at a genuine flip side of the picture, read (and I have a feeling I have suggested this before) the Report of Inquiry into Punjab Disturbances of 1953 by Justice Munir and Justice MR Kayani. As for the war, when elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. I hope that's enough of an indication to tell you what the war means for me. Now if you're interested in a constructive debate and understanding you'll want to do some introspection and may be read what I suggested. If you're interested in brownie points to feed your ego a bit more or enhance your manliness rating or whatever it is you've been trying to do - do yourself a favor and don't reply, because I wont bother and all your hard work will have been in vain. Ciao.

Thank you doctor, for your excellent diagnosis. Yet, those plenty of ISLAMIC philosophers have still read Socrates. Funny... You evoke the civilizational discourses of Huntington, Fukuyama, Lewis, Ignatieff et. al. but blame me if that tempts me to poke fun at you. All of your nonsense arguments rest on this assumption that there is a West and an East and that they are confrontational. Sorry dude, as appealing as that sounds it has begun making sense only because it has been repeated so many times on FOX and CNN. I trust you know that, but most on this forum don't. Ditto. Never break a lady's heart :( I'm guessing you've never seen the inside of a well-respected Middle Eastern Studies/Islamic Studies/Near East Studies/Iranian Studies department? Get a grip jackson, before you slip on your own drool of victory. On that note, may I suggest some nerve you too have kiddo. Did you really think I'd shove myself in this debate without having knowledge of it? Sorry to break your bubble, but no I don't plant myself into discussions/debates merely for the heck of it. Let's go over what I said again: I said that it's been a long time since I've studied the war. In other words, my memory is rusty of the specific events and therefore I cannot engage in point-by-point debates with you. Moreover, you are not a strong enough motivation for me to reread books on the war. That btw, includes Rajaee' whom I've met several times. If I'm correct, there's also a piece in it by Hamid Algar. So I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "none of them are friends of what you like to call the 'Iranian regime,'" if Algar isn't a friend of the regime I don't know who is. With that said, I respect him but disagree with him completely. Lastly, when did I ever say or imply Iraq was not the aggressor or that it does not carry more of the responsibility for the death and destruction of the war? Please! Now as for your point on cease-fire is concerned, let me address it. Have you ever taken an introductory IR class? What do you think a cease-fire is? A process of negotiation or a yay-or-nay vote for a marriage proposal? You are downright dishonest in your attempts to completely exonerate the Iranian side. In IR, sadly, debates are hardly ever about what should be. They are about what is and what can be. That's the name of the game and it always will be. Let me refresh your memory and refer you to Hudaibiya and the agreement between Imam Hassan as and Muawiya. If you are not willing to agree that the government of Iran could've negotiated an end to hostilities with an upper hand numerous times during the war then, this debate is really useless. What do you think was going to happen when the Iranian leadership bragged about exporting the revolution across the Islamic world? That all these despots, who'd sell their own mothers for their throne, would simply sit tight with garlands in their hand, waiting to welcome the Iranian forces? Btw, what makes you say the war isn't as close to me as to you? What exactly do you smoke before cooking up that kind of pasta? On the other hand, thanks for pointing out Cordesman. Apparently he's also an expert on Pakistan. Funny that I don't recall coming across him before. I'll definitely take a look to see why he makes your nerves tickle. Frankly, from the description you give of Cordesman, I'm confident you'd both make good buddies since neither of you seem to be able to look beyond your own noses. When you substantiate your claims about the East and the West and the irreconcilable relationship between them (with actual evidence, not recycled hogwash from the likes of Huntington which has already been discredited umpteenth times) I will motivate myself to reread the war and we can engage in a serious, issue by issue, point by point debate.

Oh my Gosh! I never thought of it like that. How can I ever repent for all my misdeeds? I'll be ever so grateful to you for guiding me to the right path! By the way, just in case it escaped your memory, Muslims gave Socrates to the West. Personally, I'm neither a fan of the Greeks nor of the concept of taqlid. So please, spare me! Now as far as our discussion on the war is concerned, it's been a very long time since I studied it. I don't have the time, nor the motivation to revisit it in order to debate you point by point. In case you haven't already picked it up, what I've been trying to impart is that some of the blame for the huge death toll and the associated destruction has to be laid at the 'Emam.' If you're completely exonerating the role he (and the Iranian regime he led) played in prolonging the war, that is simply a travesty of justice and of history. Then again, it does seem that that is precisely what you're trying to accomplish, so I'll just back away. You can twist history to your heart's content, in the end it isn't history that'll get the short end of the stick, you will. P.S. If not for my sake then at least for the sake of your comrades, please do elaborate on whom I have sold out to? What is the 'everything' that I act to exist above? P.P.S. Socrates wasn't crucified, Jesus was - even your ancient Greek reference is a travesty of history!