I think Hossein, simply does not get what Ganji states in the article that he quoted from. Or he simply wants to put something in his Blog! Ganji writes: ".. At this moment, the best thing Americans could do for us would be to prevent their own government from launching another war in the Middle East and to urge it to desist from threatening Iran with military strikes and regime change." Maybe Hossein does not understand the meaning of the word "prevent". Prevent means "stop", "avert", "avoid", "foil", "thwart". Basically the opposite of what Hossein is stating in his blogs.
- By: Mehdi Amini on February 18, 2008

As far as I know Mr Ganji never supported invasion of Iran. He even refused to meet President Bush. You have never been a true and unbiased observer. I have been reading your comments since you have come about. I must say that your analysis are often very superficial and unrealistic.
- By: Akbar on February 13, 2008

Hoder, why are you distorting what Ganji has written in Newsweek? He is not advocating “intervention”, which you obviously do not understand the meaning of. What is in fact shameless is what you have written. Read what he has written again because either your English is weak or you simply are unable to understand what he is saying.
- By: Mohammad Alireza on February 12, 2008

Dear Mr Derakhshan, with due respect I believe that you are misrepresenting Mr Ganji. Mr Ganji is explicitly stating that the best thing American people could do is disallowing their President of threatening Iran with a war of aggression; he calls this "support of international community". Explicitly, he says: "At this moment, the best thing Americans could do for us would be to prevent their own government from launching another war in the Middle East and to urge it to desist from threatening Iran with military strikes and regime change. Such rhetoric only strengthens the Iranian regime and makes our work more difficult." Please note the word "Americans", that is ordinary citizens of America, which is to be distinguished from "their government". In short, I fail to find any remark by Mr Ganji that might be misconstrued as calling for foreign intervention in Iran. I should add that, like any Iranian, I am opposed to any foreign intervention in Iran and Iranian politics. However, I believe that we owe our countrywomen and countrymen a large measure of solidarity which must transcend our political preferences. When people are treated unlawfully, we must have the courage to raise our voice. In one of your own videos on YouTube (made during your last visit to Iran in connection with the last presidential elections) you interview a student who tells you about his being arrested and bitten while in custody. I found it extremely painful to watch this young man (whom I saw a young brother) to speak about the violation of his human rights (which is based on the primacy of human dignity, which is independent of one's age, political affliation, race, religion, sex, etc.) in such a matter-of-factly fashion. While, as a humanist, I respect your support for the regime in Iran (as I wrote elsewhere on your blog, I strongly believe that each of us is entitled to her or his views), I expect from you that as an intellectual you raise your voice in support of human rights in Iran, instead of calling Mr Ganji's call as "blatant". I emphasise, I do not intend to take sides here, whether your side, Mr Ganji's side, or anybody else's; my aim is to raise the point that whatever our political views may be, we must not allow our political preferences stand between us and our fellow human beings, specifically our fellow countrywomen and countrymen. Love must not be blind, and friendship must not close its eyes. With kind regards, BF.
- By: BF on February 12, 2008