Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
baradar_jackson

First Sister-pilot In Basij

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Basij is an organisation sort of like Hezbollah of Lebanon. As much as some people would have you believe their job isn't to bash people :P

In the war they were the front line of defence, without them we would have easily lost the war.

You mean the front line of offense right? Also, I was under the impression the war was lost. Since, none of the objectives, envisioned after repelling the Iraqi attackers, in 1982 were achieved? May be we can come to an agreement and call it a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Baradar mentioned, there is a limit and it is the governments job to decide that limit. The IRI extracts that limit from the teachings of Islam, the secular governments extract it from somewhere else. Both have limits, one is Islamic the other isn't.

So why do Muslims have problems with these limits that are enforced in public? It is very confusing to me.

I agree completely. The issue isn't with the limits themselves, but with how to enforce hijab in a more effective manner, because many Iranian women see fighting against hijab as "rising against oppression". We've been discussing how it could be possible to encourage Iranian girls to embrace it willingly, and how to make them see it as a good thing rather than a bad thing. At the time of the Iranian revolution, as baradar_jackson said, many women wore it in defiance of the Shah. And now the number of girls not wanting to wear it, in defiance of the current government, is rising. I think if you read the above posts you'll understand what I mean. smile.gif

It's about this: how do you think hijab can be propagated and encouraged in a more effective manner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot to consider. Maybe easing implementation of this regulation would help - but I still cringe every time I see a painted-on face framed by a mane of hair and topped with a minuscule silk scarf. How do you see propaganda dealing with the generation now most active, rather than the easily-targeted younger generation? Do you think this is enough to solve the problem?

I am not Iranian, by the way. laugh.gif

They did "ease the implementation" at the time of khatami, but it only made things worse. 1- There are always people who keep pushing the boundaries and 2- The Iranian society is not ready for that kind of freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the front line of offense right? Also, I was under the impression the war was lost. Since, none of the objectives, envisioned after repelling the Iraqi attackers, in 1982 were achieved? May be we can come to an agreement and call it a stalemate.

It was not a stalemate.

Looking at the statements from Bath Party officials at the start of the war, you will notice that they had lofty ambitions. Many of them spoke of Iraqi troops marching into Tehran in a matter of weeks. At the very least, we must conclude that Iraqi objective was to conquer vast swaths of Iranian territory (particularly in Khuzestan, with its oil resources and its large Arab minority).

They did not achieve this objective. Therefore, they lost.

Bathist Iraq had an aggressive goal. Islamic Iran had a defensive goal. The fact that Iran's territorial integrity was upheld makes the war an Iranian victory.

Now... there are other factors we can also take into consideration.

First is the economic consideration. In spite of the backwardness of the Pahlavi feudal economy that Iran inherited after the revolution, and the international isolation that Iran faced because of the imperialists' fear of the Islamic Revolution, Iran did not have a trade deficit or budget deficit in any years of the war. Defence spending was actually much less than in the pre-war years (when Mammad Reza continued to buy shiny toys for his playtime army). Although there were persistent shortages, the basic needs of the people were being provided for. Before the revolution, Iran was a net food importer. Our grain output for an entire year was only enough to feed the population for a little over a month. And yet, through the selfless efforts of the faithful Muslim people of Iran (manifested in jahad-e sazandegi ; the construction jihad), our agriculture became much improved and the general living standards in rural areas became much better.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, Saddam was making his country bankrupt by continuing (and increasing) arms imports from France and the USSR. In the process, he neglected the needs of his people.

Then there is the political consideration. The Iraqi people realized that Saddam was a phony Muslim. The Iraqi people wanted Islam, and the Bath regime ruthlessly repressed the will of the people. The most notable example of this is when Bathist henchmen murdered Mohammad Baqir Sadr and his sister, out of fear that the Dawah Party (which was representative of most Iraqis) would undermine the oppressive Bathist leadership. Politically, Saddam was left with no support in Iraq. The only tool that he had was coercion and fear.

So, aside from failing in their goal of conquering vast territories within Iran, the Bathists were left with a bankrupt country and a people that hated them. Without imperialist support, there is no question that Iranian forces (and their volunteer Iraqi allies in the Badr Corps) would have reached Karbala and beyond. But ironically, it was this imperialist support that gave Saddam the arrogance to attack Kuwait (a country that had given Saddam much of his funding in his aggressive war against Iran), and led to his ultimate downfall.

Today, Iran is strong. Meanwhile, Iraq is a colony, it is in ruins, and it's people are deprived. And it is all because of Saddam and his blunderous decision to attack Islamic Iran. Emam Khomeini said that we would give Saddam such a powerful punch that he would not be able to get up. And he was right.

Of course, sellouts and traitors will always try to be all doom and gloom when it comes to Iran. They will never concede anything to Iran. They will never talk about the many achievements of the Islamic Revolution. They are like a tape recorder. They repeat whatever the Western propaganda says. They lack faith in their country, and, in earnest, they lack faith in themselves. No one can have faith in himself while constantly demeaning the achievements of his Islamic homeland.

Ya hagh

I read too much for my own good smile.gif

I have noticed, and it is my experience, that young women (and men!) in general will rebel against what they feel pushed into doing without understanding. I know banning cigarettes or alcohol for those under eighteen or twenty-one tends to attract youngsters into trying them out, just for the sake of it. I know banning hijab in certain areas in Turkey has caused more young women to fight for their right to wear it, because they want to be defiant and rebellious. I know looking down upon hijab in the aftermath of 9/11 in the US may have caused many girls to take it off, but also prompted stronger girls to wear it just for show. I know this also because some of my peers changed to "stylish hijab" for a while, to rebel against the "old-fashioned" hijab of loose, long clothes. This made many of them stronger, however, because when they woke up from these stupors and realized what they were doing I could tell they were ready to face anything thereafter.

I've been thinking, and these types of experiences that I see around me every day encourage me to think that this is sometimes only a stage. I think the key might thus be to focus on ensuring the next generation has a good foundation to bounce back on in the first place, for otherwise these kids may "rebel" and never come back... We need to ensure this remains a stage, and doesn't last. I know I always came back to my original focus on religion thanks to the good education my parents gave me, and thanks to the father I had who could answer literally every question I had about religion - with logic. Maybe those are some of the perks of growing up in the West - you learn to be able to justify everything. Young girls might be hearing complaints about hijab every day from their mothers. Telling them to wear it because God ordained so and Khomeini wanted it isn't going to help. Telling them of the reality on the ground, on the other hand - of the nature of the sexes, of societal interaction, of the beauty of preserving honor and dignity, of the way women's bodies are used and objectified today - might instead strike a chord. If these girls are taught from a young age to see it as a part of the bigger picture, as a collective rebellion against the world rather than a silly rebellion against a government, perhaps that will affect them.

I am not sure what the situation is like in Iran today. I try to take everything I hear with a grain of salt, but I don't know what it's actually like there, because I haven't been able to find a good source of information that is unbiased. What is the religious education like? Is there any stressing on hijab and logical arguments for Islam? We need to grow a generation of warriors who fight with reason - with calm and educated intellect. To what extent is this dissatisfaction with hijab predominant - is it mostly prevalent in Tehran and where the upper-class people reside as I've heard argued before, or is it also spreading amongst the common people in other areas of Iran?

Our education system DOES try to explain the reason behind hijab. They say it is meant to protect women and to allow them to have an active role in society while protecting them and preventing them from becoming objects. But if people don't listen to this reasoning, then what else can be done?

The bi-hejabi (in public, just bad-hejabi) problem is mostly confined to middle class areas in the cities. But people with money tend to have a disproportionate amount of influence in society.

Edited by baradar_jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

All Iranian school girls wear the headscarf in Iran and observe hijab.

The older students begin to wear chador if their school requires it or if they want to wear it.

Some of the women who have graduated from high school or dropped out are the ones who show their hair in the streets.

If they do it to show rebellion, they have forgotten that the men and boys who see their hair are harmed by that.

If they knew the punishment in Barzakh and on the Judgment Day, perhaps they would not do so.

girls-at-school-iran.jpg

~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~

new-academic-year-Iran3.jpg

~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~

Iran-girl-of-year.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not a stalemate.

Looking at the statements from Bath Party officials at the start of the war, you will notice that they had lofty ambitions. Many of them spoke of Iraqi troops marching into Tehran in a matter of weeks. At the very least, we must conclude that Iraqi objective was to conquer vast swaths of Iranian territory (particularly in Khuzestan, with its oil resources and its large Arab minority).

They did not achieve this objective. Therefore, they lost.

Bathist Iraq had an aggressive goal. Islamic Iran had a defensive goal. The fact that Iran's territorial integrity was upheld makes the war an Iranian victory.

Now... there are other factors we can also take into consideration.

First is the economic consideration. In spite of the backwardness of the Pahlavi feudal economy that Iran inherited after the revolution, and the international isolation that Iran faced because of the imperialists' fear of the Islamic Revolution, Iran did not have a trade deficit or budget deficit in any years of the war. Defence spending was actually much less than in the pre-war years (when Mammad Reza continued to buy shiny toys for his playtime army). Although there were persistent shortages, the basic needs of the people were being provided for. Before the revolution, Iran was a net food importer. Our grain output for an entire year was only enough to feed the population for a little over a month. And yet, through the selfless efforts of the faithful Muslim people of Iran (manifested in jahad-e sazandegi ; the construction jihad), our agriculture became much improved and the general living standards in rural areas became much better.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, Saddam was making his country bankrupt by continuing (and increasing) arms imports from France and the USSR. In the process, he neglected the needs of his people.

Then there is the political consideration. The Iraqi people realized that Saddam was a phony Muslim. The Iraqi people wanted Islam, and the Bath regime ruthlessly repressed the will of the people. The most notable example of this is when Bathist henchmen murdered Mohammad Baqir Sadr and his sister, out of fear that the Dawah Party (which was representative of most Iraqis) would undermine the oppressive Bathist leadership. Politically, Saddam was left with no support in Iraq. The only tool that he had was coercion and fear.

So, aside from failing in their goal of conquering vast territories within Iran, the Bathists were left with a bankrupt country and a people that hated them. Without imperialist support, there is no question that Iranian forces (and their volunteer Iraqi allies in the Badr Corps) would have reached Karbala and beyond. But ironically, it was this imperialist support that gave Saddam the arrogance to attack Kuwait (a country that had given Saddam much of his funding in his aggressive war against Iran), and led to his ultimate downfall.

Today, Iran is strong. Meanwhile, Iraq is a colony, it is in ruins, and it's people are deprived. And it is all because of Saddam and his blunderous decision to attack Islamic Iran. Emam Khomeini said that we would give Saddam such a powerful punch that he would not be able to get up. And he was right.

Of course, sellouts and traitors will always try to be all doom and gloom when it comes to Iran. They will never concede anything to Iran. They will never talk about the many achievements of the Islamic Revolution. They are like a tape recorder. They repeat whatever the Western propaganda says. They lack faith in their country, and, in earnest, they lack faith in themselves. No one can have faith in himself while constantly demeaning the achievements of his Islamic homeland.

Ya hagh

That's an excellent description of the war until 1982. I was referring to what happened after 1982, which you have obviously, and I must admit very creatively, avoided addressing. Whatever works for you :)

As for your unsubstantiated accusations against me, I will, again, consider them compliments. It must cause you some serious frustration that there are 'sellouts' and 'traitors' like me out there who just don't get 'it,' all because I fail to heap praises. You should learn to withstand criticism and remain firm in your beliefs without having to resort to exaggerations and personal attacks. Resorting to such cheap, but often effective, tactics may mislead the lay thereby boosting your cyber-ego, but you can't really claim genuine victory nor seriously debate and learn. (See what I just did there?)

P.S. I did concede stalemate to Iran in this instance, with respect to the tall claims and the grand objectives set by the 'Emam' after '82. In simpler words: Iran botched a victory by not ending the war when it had the upper hand. Instead it ended up with hundreds of thousand dead on either side in a war, to quote Henry Kissenger, "with two losers."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an excellent description of the war until 1982. I was referring to what happened after 1982, which you have obviously, and I must admit very creatively, avoided addressing. Whatever works for you :)

As for your unsubstantiated accusations against me, I will, again, consider them compliments. It must cause you some serious frustration that there are 'sellouts' and 'traitors' like me out there who just don't get 'it,' all because I fail to heap praises. You should learn to withstand criticism and remain firm in your beliefs without having to resort to exaggerations and personal attacks. Resorting to such cheap, but often effective, tactics may mislead the lay thereby boosting your cyber-ego, but you can't really claim genuine victory nor seriously debate and learn. (See what I just did there?)

P.S. I did concede stalemate to Iran in this instance, with respect to the tall claims and the grand objectives set by the 'Emam' after '82. In simpler words: Iran botched a victory by not ending the war when it had the upper hand. Instead it ended up with hundreds of thousand dead on either side in a war, to quote Henry Kissenger, "with two losers."

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's when you sellouts act like you're above everything. You think of yourselves as Socrates in that courtroom; the lone man of reason being crucified by lesser minds (notice I use an ancient Greece reference, which is no doubt what yall are most familiar with). In reality, you are nothing more than taqlidis; tape recorders. Taqlid with a facade of 'free thinking.'

You mention 1982. Let me guess: Iran should have accepted the cease-fire suggested by Saddam? This is, after all, standard taqlidi mythology: Iran stubbornly continued the war when they had a chance to make peace. 'Khomeini' senselessly sent hundreds of thousands of young men to early graves because of his ridiculous notions of 'exporting revolution.'

This is indicative of a very simplistic understanding of the war.

Firstly, and most obviously, there is the land issue. When the peace-loving Iraqi president-for-life, Saddam Hussein, offered 'peace' in '1982' (1361), not all of Iranian territory had been liberated. There were still pockets of territory in enemy hands.

Secondly, Iraq was the clear aggressor, and yet the resolution for cease-fire as proposed by the Bathists did not provide that any reparations be paid to Iran for war damages.

Thirdly, a cease-fire is not peace. A cease-fire is a cease-fire. And if the side you are signing the cease-fire with is a known aggressor, then a cease-fire with him is utterly worthless. Look at Korea. The DPRK and South Korea have broken their post-war ceasefire a bunch of times. Because there is distrust between those two countries. The USSR -- Saddam's main source of arms -- was neutral for the first two years of the war. They halted arms exports to Iraq when the war started. But after Iran had successes (which shocked the imperialist powers of the world) in its counteroffensives, arms exports were resumed. Saddam felt that time was on his side, with the world behind him and the isolation of Iran. So the cease-fire was his way of buying time and rebuilding his war machine, to then strike at a later date. Saddam keeping the peace? That's about as about as likely as Marbles finding a woman dumb enough to marry him. Swish!

So there was no 'peace' option. This is Western fallacy. In light of the sensitive circumstances, the only option for Iran was to continue to fight.

Now... by expecting Iran to accept the '1982' cease-fire proposal, you are expecting Iran to willingly concede parts of its territory, concede that no war damages will be paid, and be given no security guarantees in the event of future Bathist aggression. There seems to be many irrational expectations of Iran in its revolutionary history, but this one offends me the most.

Of course, this all means nothing to you. If someone is a follower of the Emam's line, you place his statements in the trash bin. If someone is a cookie-cutter Western liberal, his word is the gospel. That's how taqlidis think. They don't follow haq; they follow might. So yeah, I know you don't care. You don't need to say that in a way that you think is clever but is actually pompous. I KNOW that you don't care. You have your religion and I have mine. I'm gonna speak my mind anyhoo. If it's not of use to you, it should be of use to any person of reason who is reading.

Ya Ali

Edited by baradar_jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's when you sellouts act like you're above everything. You think of yourselves as Socrates in that courtroom; the lone man of reason being crucified by lesser minds (notice I use an ancient Greece reference, which is no doubt what yall are most familiar with). In reality, you are nothing more than taqlidis; tape recorders. Taqlid with a facade of 'free thinking.'

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bismillah.gif

salam.gif

Hejab is not oppression, but a blessing and a protection, even a wonderful way that if the sister looks at it the way I do living here in the West, it is a sign of jihad. Hijab means this lady is not available and not for sale. Hijab is so many things I cannot even explain it to you. The Holy Qur'an says hijab is wajib, the Holy Prophet SA said the woman's body should all be covered except her face and hands, and the Holy Ahle Bayt AS echo that hijab is compulsory in many hadith. In addition, I have heard a hadith that said, paraphrasing because I cannot find it right now, "When Imam Zaman AJ says 'I am Mahdi' only the women with hijab will hear." That is how important it is! The holy women who are honored to be the helpers of Imam Zaman AS will all be wearing hijab!

http://www.al-islam....complete/15.htm

well said Sis, Always May Allah bless you for your preservance... Ameen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, aside from failing in their goal of conquering vast territories within Iran, the Bathists were left with a bankrupt country and a people that hated them. Without imperialist support, there is no question that Iranian forces (and their volunteer Iraqi allies in the Badr Corps) would have reached Karbala and beyond. But ironically, it was this imperialist support that gave Saddam the arrogance to attack Kuwait (a country that had given Saddam much of his funding in his aggressive war against Iran), and led to his ultimate downfall.

Spot on.

I am sure many of you have seen this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeY05iS5iv0

For those of you who haven't - watch it!

The first part talks about what you are saying Br Jackson. That if it was simply Iraq vs. Iran, even top US officials agree that Iran (if it wanted to) would have launched counter-attacks and completely destroyed Saddam. Of course, we know that it wasn't Iraq vs. Iran, but in reality The World vs. Iran. If the Us and other western powers (France actually using its own military personnel to carry out missions against Iran), Iran would have comprehensively won the war. But unfortunately, things don't always work out, and the state of the world today is evidence of that.

May Allah hasten the appearance of Imam al-Hujjah (as)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Do I really need to say it? It is quite clear that your ideology is a taqlidi one. I don't need to elaborate on it. I will leave it up to any observer. If anyone is so inclined, they can read Aafreen's posts and see who and what she has sold out to. People will understand what I mean.

What is the 'everything' that I act to exist above?

Don't worry. I will point out every example in this short post of yours where you act like you're above something (and I will also mention who or what it is, exactly, that you feel that you are above).

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!

Here is an example of you using sarcasm. You always use sarcasm, no matter what the circumstance. Sarcasm is a form of ridicule. It is generally used in response to the most ridiculous pronouncements. You use it in every single post, no exception.

Westerners have a certain contempt for us Easterners. In this respect, I don't see Iranians as any different from other Muslims, or Muslims as any different from non-Muslim Easterners (Slavs, East Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, etc.). Westerners have contempt for them all. You have inherited this contempt. More on this later.

By the way, just in case it escaped your memory, Muslims gave Socrates to the West.

I wouldn't call the Umayyads and the Abbasids Muslims, but whatever.

And I never suggested that Socrates works not be preserved, merely that they should not be an obsession of ours. We have plenty of ISLAMIC philosophers, that there is no need for Socrates.

Personally, I'm neither a fan of the Greeks nor of the concept of taqlid.

You are not a fan of shar'i taqlid because you see yourself to be above allowing someone else to interpret texts for you (even though you show no signs of having the knowledge of a mujtahid). The taqlid I am speaking of is, obviously, something else. I am speaking of taqlid of the West. The East is, and has long been, the muqalid of the West. Your rejection of shar'i taqlid is not, therefore, a sign of your advanced thinking. Quite the opposite, it is a sign of your falling for the same trap as all those other wretches who are ashamed of their identity.

So please, spare me!

Again, sarcasm. This is your way of making my views seem ridiculous. This is your way of saying: "This post not worthy of a serious response from me, so I will use sarcasm."

If you were funny, I wouldn't mind as much. But you're not. You're even more dull than kadhim, and that's saying a lot.

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.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that when you studied the war, you studied it only through the eyes of Westerners (Anthony Cordesman and the like). Whereas, I have read about this war from Iranian, Iraqi, and Western perspectives. (BTW, Iranian works cite and recognize Western and Iraqi historians' analyses, whereas Iranian histories are completely neglected in Western and Iraqi works. Iran is such a repressive and closed society, no?).

And you may not have the time or motivation to do a comprehensive study of the war, but guess what? I do. Unlike you, this war actually means something to us. This war is something that we hold in our hearts and never forget about for a single day. So forgive me for not appreciating when you -- before admitting your lack of knowledge on the issue -- try to revise history. So don't just throw out an unsubstantiated statement when: (1) you can't back it up, and (2) it is an issue of such sensitivity as the eight year Imposed War.

And I know you don't have the time to study such petty issues as the Imposed War, but in case you ever have time, here is a book I would recommend: The Iran-Iraq War: the Politics of Aggression, edited by Farhang Rajaei. It's in English, so you can read it. It's a collection of essays by various authors. Some of these authors are Iranian, but don't worry: none of them are friends of what you like to call the 'Iranian regime' (for whatever reason). And yet, all of them argue the same point: the Imposed War (that's my words, not theirs: they use the term "Iran-Iraq War") was an act of aggression perpetrated by Saddam's Bathist regime in Iraq.

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.'

The Bathists started the war. The Bathists demanded unjust conditions for cease-fire. The Bathists used chemical weapons (on soldiers and civilians alike, Iraqi and Iranian alike!). The Bathists launched air raids and missile attacks on population centers.

So how was Emam Khomeini to blame?

Don't just say things. Explain your reasoning.

(Let me guess: your reply, if you do indeed reply, will contain 'human,' 'wave,' or any possible combination of those two words.)

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.

I'm committed a travesty, huh? I'm twisting history?

You have some kind of nerve, woman. You openly admit to have insufficient knowledge on the war. You ignored (and admitted that you ignored) all of my points regarding the unjust nature of the proposed cease-fire and the myth of Iranian intransigence, and you stubbornly continue with this stance of yours.

I'm sorry but this is OUR history. You know nothing about it, and you have malicious intent in your 'objective' studies of it. Case in point: Anthony Cordesman, the foremost Western historian on the Imposed War, states not only that Iran started the war, but that Iraq was the victor. All they have for us is contempt, and all they deserve from us is contempt!

Of course, because of his suit and tie, because of his position at such and such 'institute' or blah blah blah 'think tank,' you most certainly trust his word over mine. That's the sad part of this whole affair, is that people like you are the ones that give people like Cordesman their legitimacy. As I said: you don't follow haq, you follow might. They are stronger, so you listen to them. Their narrative of history is the 'truth,' whereas ours is emotionally driven nonsense.

La ilaha ilallah

P.P.S. Socrates wasn't crucified, Jesus was - even your ancient Greek reference is a travesty of history!

I meant that figuratively.

Ya Hagh

Spot on.

I am sure many of you have seen this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeY05iS5iv0

For those of you who haven't - watch it!

The first part talks about what you are saying Br Jackson. That if it was simply Iraq vs. Iran, even top US officials agree that Iran (if it wanted to) would have launched counter-attacks and completely destroyed Saddam. Of course, we know that it wasn't Iraq vs. Iran, but in reality The World vs. Iran. If the Us and other western powers (France actually using its own military personnel to carry out missions against Iran), Iran would have comprehensively won the war. But unfortunately, things don't always work out, and the state of the world today is evidence of that.

May Allah hasten the appearance of Imam al-Hujjah (as)

Thanks for the video brother. I will try to check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Westerners have a certain contempt for us Easterners. In this respect, I don't see Iranians as any different from other Muslims, or Muslims as any different from non-Muslim Easterners (Slavs, East Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, etc.). Westerners have contempt for them all. You have inherited this contempt. More on this later.

Thank you doctor, for your excellent diagnosis.

I wouldn't call the Umayyads and the Abbasids Muslims, but whatever.

And I never suggested that Socrates works not be preserved, merely that they should not be an obsession of ours. We have plenty of ISLAMIC philosophers, that there is no need for Socrates.

Yet, those plenty of ISLAMIC philosophers have still read Socrates. Funny...

You are not a fan of shar'i taqlid because you see yourself to be above allowing someone else to interpret texts for you (even though you show no signs of having the knowledge of a mujtahid). The taqlid I am speaking of is, obviously, something else. I am speaking of taqlid of the West. The East is, and has long been, the muqalid of the West. Your rejection of shar'i taqlid is not, therefore, a sign of your advanced thinking. Quite the opposite, it is a sign of your falling for the same trap as all those other wretches who are ashamed of their identity.

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.

Again, sarcasm. This is your way of making my views seem ridiculous. This is your way of saying: "This post not worthy of a serious response from me, so I will use sarcasm."

Ditto.

If you were funny, I wouldn't mind as much. But you're not. You're even more dull than kadhim, and that's saying a lot.

Never break a lady's heart :(

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that when you studied the war, you studied it only through the eyes of Westerners (Anthony Cordesman and the like). Whereas, I have read about this war from Iranian, Iraqi, and Western perspectives. (BTW, Iranian works cite and recognize Western and Iraqi historians' analyses, whereas Iranian histories are completely neglected in Western and Iraqi works. Iran is such a repressive and closed society, no?).

I'm guessing you've never seen the inside of a well-respected Middle Eastern Studies/Islamic Studies/Near East Studies/Iranian Studies department?

And you may not have the time or motivation to do a comprehensive study of the war, but guess what? I do. Unlike you, this war actually means something to us. This war is something that we hold in our hearts and never forget about for a single day. So forgive me for not appreciating when you -- before admitting your lack of knowledge on the issue -- try to revise history. So don't just throw out an unsubstantiated statement when: (1) you can't back it up, and (2) it is an issue of such sensitivity as the eight year Imposed War.

And I know you don't have the time to study such petty issues as the Imposed War, but in case you ever have time, here is a book I would recommend: The Iran-Iraq War: the Politics of Aggression, edited by Farhang Rajaei. It's in English, so you can read it. It's a collection of essays by various authors. Some of these authors are Iranian, but don't worry: none of them are friends of what you like to call the 'Iranian regime' (for whatever reason). And yet, all of them argue the same point: the Imposed War (that's my words, not theirs: they use the term "Iran-Iraq War") was an act of aggression perpetrated by Saddam's Bathist regime in Iraq.

The Bathists started the war. The Bathists demanded unjust conditions for cease-fire. The Bathists used chemical weapons (on soldiers and civilians alike, Iraqi and Iranian alike!). The Bathists launched air raids and missile attacks on population centers.

So how was Emam Khomeini to blame?

Don't just say things. Explain your reasoning.

(Let me guess: your reply, if you do indeed reply, will contain 'human,' 'wave,' or any possible combination of those two words.)

I'm committed a travesty, huh? I'm twisting history?

You have some kind of nerve, woman. You openly admit to have insufficient knowledge on the war. You ignored (and admitted that you ignored) all of my points regarding the unjust nature of the proposed cease-fire and the myth of Iranian intransigence, and you stubbornly continue with this stance of yours.

I'm sorry but this is OUR history. You know nothing about it, and you have malicious intent in your 'objective' studies of it. Case in point: Anthony Cordesman, the foremost Western historian on the Imposed War, states not only that Iran started the war, but that Iraq was the victor. All they have for us is contempt, and all they deserve from us is contempt!

Of course, because of his suit and tie, because of his position at such and such 'institute' or blah blah blah 'think tank,' you most certainly trust his word over mine. That's the sad part of this whole affair, is that people like you are the ones that give people like Cordesman their legitimacy. As I said: you don't follow haq, you follow might. They are stronger, so you listen to them. Their narrative of history is the 'truth,' whereas ours is emotionally driven nonsense.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah,

Hijab is only forced on people in public. This is of course necessary in an Islamic country, it is a social issue and the government has the right to and should govern certain social issues. No one is forcing women to wear hijab in private places, only in public because it is the government's job to protect the society from corruption and Islam clearly states in the Quran and ahadith that seeing certain parts of the nahmahram will lead to corruption.

Of course no one here is saying the IRI is perfect, but to suggest that enforcing hijab is wrong in an Islamic country is preposterous. If that is the case then every secular country that enforces people NOT to walk around nude is oppressive because of that issue, but this isn't the case. As Baradar mentioned, there is a limit and it is the governments job to decide that limit. The IRI extracts that limit from the teachings of Islam, the secular governments extract it from somewhere else. Both have limits, one is Islamic the other isn't.

So why do Muslims have problems with these limits that are enforced in public? It is very confusing to me.

Well, it's a delicate balance. It's really necessary to step back and look at the bigger picture rather than looking at one thing in isolation. Overall, what you want is for women to value/respect the Islamic dress. When this is in place, they will choose it. If the external legal obligation to observe hijab actually harms this internal valuing of it and drive to observe it, then this is utimately counterproductive. In Canada and the US, level of frequency of seeing the hijab in public seems to be increasing all the time. There is no obligation here, and in fact, there is a mild stigma against it. In Lebanon, there is similarly no legal obligation, but its observance has risen in recent decades. Meanwhile, in Iran, as baradar has told us, a backlash has developed more and more to the obligation.

We see a strange pattern that where it is a choice, women are increasingly choosing it. In fact, they are choosing it more even in places where there is some resistance. Where it is obligatory, there is some chafing under the obligation.

This seems to suggest an alternative for Iran. Relax the level of publically obligatory dress to some "reasonable" minimum level virtually everyone is happy with, and step up efforts to educate about why they should want to choose it.

Maybe if Iran had simply taken this path in the first place, (reversing prohibitions from the Shah era on hijab but leaving women free to choose while promoting the hiab), there wouldn't be this backlash. After all, as baradar mentioned so clearly, there was a definite internal drive by women at that time to observe the hijab, making the need for formal legislation obliging it questionable at best. (Unless the intention of the law was simply to assert control and get revenge on the Western oriented folks)

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, out of topic, but related to the posts above, could someone please explain this to me:

- In Iran, are non-Muslim women required to wear hijab? What are the obligatory dress codes for non-Muslim women?

- I saw in pictures that most Iranian women use black hijab. Is color a part of requirement of hijab in Iran? What are the other requirements?

- For male, are there any obligatory dress codes for Muslim men & non-Muslim men?

Edited by rotten_coconut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, out of topic, but related to the posts above, could someone please explain this to me:

1. In Iran, are non-Muslim women required to wear hijab? What are the obligatory dress codes for non-Muslim women?

2. I saw in pictures that most Iranian women use black hijab. Is color a part of requirement of hijab in Iran? What are the other requirements?

3. For male, are there any obligatory dress codes for Muslim men & non-Muslim men?

1. Non-Muslim as well as Muslim women are required to wear hijab in public. In your own home you are free to wear whatever you wish. Also there are some cultural facilities for non-Muslims where hijab is not obligatory. For example, in the centre of Tehran there is a huge area alocated to members of Iran's Assyrian and Armenian communities (where Muslim Iranians are not permitted to enter; although if you are a tourist I believe you can go - my brother has been). Inside, it's like a huge centre with different recreational facilities (pools, sports, food, etc.). There is no hijab enforcement inside so men and women mix freely.

2. Black hijab is just traditional, not enforced by any means. If you look at most Shias in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc., the hijab colour and style of choice is very similar (long, black, loose). Nonetheless, you still see people with all different colours and patterns, designs, etc. Black is just the traditional modest approach most religious women prefer.

3. Men's restrictions are formally long sleeves and pants, but in general terms men do wear short sleeve shirts. Shorts however are a no-no.

Edited by Ibn Abdullah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, in the centre of Tehran there is a huge area alocated to members of Iran's Assyrian and Armenian communities (where Muslim Iranians are not permitted to enter; although if you are a tourist I believe you can go - my brother has been). Inside, it's like a huge centre with different recreational facilities (pools, sports, food, etc.). There is no hijab enforcement inside so men and women mix freely.

Where's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's that?

Here sister:

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/iran/tehran/restaurants/international/armenian-club

291.jpg

As I said I've never been but my bro has. I'm pretty sure this is the place. Although to be honest I only have seen it from the outside and it was huge, whereas the place inside looks smaller so it might be a similar but different place.

Edited by Ibn Abdullah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the front line of offense right? Also, I was under the impression the war was lost. Since, none of the objectives, envisioned after repelling the Iraqi attackers, in 1982 were achieved? May be we can come to an agreement and call it a stalemate.

Thats definitely one way to look @ the events.

Another way is to see the then events in the context of global politics. Saddam simply did not invade Iran for the sake of invading. I believe what his backers had in mind was the overthrow of the Islamic regime.... seeing how lack of oil revenues would adversely effect the regime. Anyhew, the regime survived and the fears of old enemies translated into reality. Today the biggest obstacle posed to Saddam's then financiers (Saudi+US) come from the Islamic Republic and through the Islamic regime whose survival and growth could very will signify their victory in the imposed war.

But one thing stands certain and that is- Saddam lost big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats definitely one way to look @ the events.

Another way is to see the then events in the context of global politics. Saddam simply did not invade Iran for the sake of invading. I believe what his backers had in mind was the overthrow of the Islamic regime.... seeing how lack of oil revenues would adversely effect the regime. Anyhew, the regime survived and the fears of old enemies translated into reality. Today the biggest obstacle posed to Saddam's then financiers (Saudi+US) come from the Islamic Republic and through the Islamic regime whose survival and growth could very will signify their victory in the imposed war.

But one thing stands certain and that is- Saddam lost big time.

Alhamdulilahi Rabb al-'Alameen :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

How true. I haven't even seen this place, I'm not sure it's that reliable, and is it just for Armenian?

Eltemase Doa.

Is this place off limits for Muslim visitors to Iran, or just Iranian citizens? Looks like an interesting place to visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And perhaps that is the best approach, because as an Islamic government, it cannot allow women to be in public without hijab, this is out of the question.

If you're going to make such a big statement, you'd better be able to prove it. Tell me, what if any is the hadd or ta`zir for a woman not wearing hijab in the Shari`a? Cite sources if you have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah,

I don't think it is the job of the government to promote the value or induce the respect for hijab while allowing a period of time of "bi-hijab". One of the jobs of the government is to prevent corruption in society and another part of their job is to educate the society, however these are not mutually exclusive, they can be done at the same time. And perhaps that is the best approach, because as an Islamic government, it cannot allow women to be in public without hijab, this is out of the question.

clearly, it is NOT.

What do you mean by "reasonable" level of dress code, I would imagine, in an Islamic country trying to govern by Islamic laws, the reasonable limit is the limit set by Islam. Whether the people like it or not, and I don't think the majority of Iranians DISLIKE the hijab law, in fact I think many like it, doesn't matter, what matters is the Islamic law.

Yes the majority like the hijab law, but the number of those who don't is increasing, fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah,

I don't think it is the job of the government to promote the value or induce the respect for hijab while allowing a period of time of "bi-hijab". One of the jobs of the government is to prevent corruption in society and another part of their job is to educate the society, however these are not mutually exclusive, they can be done at the same time. And perhaps that is the best approach, because as an Islamic government, it cannot allow women to be in public without hijab, this is out of the question.

What do you mean by "reasonable" level of dress code, I would imagine, in an Islamic country trying to govern by Islamic laws, the reasonable limit is the limit set by Islam. Whether the people like it or not, and I don't think the majority of Iranians DISLIKE the hijab law, in fact I think many like it, doesn't matter, what matters is the Islamic law.

And what do you mean by reasonable level? Unless taken from the laws of Islam, isn't "reasonable" relative?

There are a lot of things that Islamic Law requires or forbids but whose observance or avoidance is not effectively ensured through formal law enforcement.

What is meant by a reasonable level is this. While there is a substantial portion of the population that either doesn't see the need for hijab or has an objection to wearing it personally, you can get pretty much everyone to agree that there is a need for some minimum level of dress for public decency, and get some consensus for some minimum that the law can enforce. At that point it becomes enforceable because those who want to go below a certain commonsense minimum are a tiny, negligable and manageable minority.

At this point, with hijab being a purely voluntary, personal, religious decision, religious education by clerics and parents and the softer influences of peer pressure can work to maintain the practice and grow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah,

Just because there is no worldly punishment (maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I haven't looked it up) doesn't mean it is something that shouldn't be enforced in society, does it?

I mean there is no punishment for breaking a red light...are you suggesting that the IRI not enforce that law (not saying they do already, lol)?

Does the Qur'an tell women to cover in front of men? This is a law that is meant for society and the government has the right to and must govern society. There are countless ahadith that mention and insinuate that looking at a namahram will lead to corruption. So what should an Islamic government do in this case?

Are you suggesting that Islamic Centers across the world not enforce an Islamic dress code? I would hope not...Should an Islamic center only educate on hijab and leave it up to the members of that center to decide if they want to wear it or not? If not, then why should the IRI act in this manor? And If it should, it takes the risk of creating a corrupt society against the wisdom of Islam.

There are many laws in Islam that do not carry a prescribed worldy punishment, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be enforced in an Islamic society.

I hope you aren't offended.

Why not? And what do you think is the best approach?

I don't see your point?

Bismillah,

What if that agreed upon minimum is against what Islam has prescribed for mankind?

(salam)

Deja vu

We already had this conversation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? And what do you think is the best approach?

I don't see your point?

What I mean is that when the number of people who do not abide by a certain law is increasing, there is obviously something wrong with the implementation of that law!

I don't know what the best approach is. On one hand the current implementation of the hijab law is not working, and on the other hand, if the government was to remove the law, Iran would turn into a nude beach overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if that agreed upon minimum is against what Islam has prescribed for mankind?

The woman will have her consequences ultimately whether in this life or the next. The men will need to lower their gaze.

Obviously it is undesirable to have people walking around in bikinis, but the world is not going to fall apart solely because some percentage of women have hair is uncovered, but with otherwise respectable, modest dress.

There are a lot of things that Islam forbids that a government cannot practically enforce. It's haram to lie, and lying causes harm; but are you going to have cops going around making sure no one lies? Some things are within individual morality and people need to regulate themselves based on values that are transmitted to them by school, family, and other social institutions.

And is your method of even determining the agreed upon minimum dress code practical? Even if you were to put it to a ballot, what would the choices be? lol sorry, this may be getting too detailed, but I am trying to understand your viewpoint and see if the methodologies are practical since every solution must be practical.

Sheesh, man, you don't need a referendum for something as small as this. Get a committee of elected representatives and have them talk it over and pick a standard. You can tweak it from there as need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure, Islam has prescribed certain things for a reason. One of the things it has prescribed is hijab. And the reasons for it are clear in Qur'an and ahadith.

I live in a nation where hijab is the minority practice. I am sure. We have our problems here, to be sure, but they do not originate in the ability to see women's hair. Is there a benefit when women choose to observe hijab? Sure. But does the sky fall if they don't? Reality demonstrates the answer to be no.

The really important business is how young men and women behave with each other, how they look at each other, how they talk to each other. This is 99% of the concept. Rules on clothing in themselves do little in this regard. Arguably it can do harm if pushed in isolation by placing the emphasis on the external rather than internal.

If the concept of hijab is not something internalized in the individual, it is a useless farce. Making someone wear baggy clothes doesn't magically make them modest if modesty is not within their character. Modesty is not something you cloak yourself with; it is a state of mind. Hijab or something resembling or approaching it is a symptom that naturally flows out as a consequence of internal modesty. It is not something that is created from outside. Your argument shows a basic lack of understanding of the concept.

Right, certain things cannot be practically enforced. But can hijab in a public setting be practically enforced? Yes and it is.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if what you claim were true.

IRI already has elected representatives making laws which include laws about dress-code. I don't see why you think the law would change with a specific committee?

They did this 30 years ago, yes.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the IRI is lacking in implementation unless by lacking you mean they lack of ENFORCEMENT, which they do lack in, but instead the government needs to do more to educate the people on hijab, that is part of my proposed idea that is lacking.

Is everybody else also having trouble understanding my point? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This thread has gotten off track. I don't want to forget to reply to this, so I am marking it right now.

I'll response to this over the weekend.

Ya HAGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...