Iran showing fastest scientific growth of any country

Iran is a democracy point blank, I truly respect Turkey and all it stands for but Turkey is no more democratic than Iran reason being that Turkey has a secular democratic system safe guarded by the military establishment and is no different from Iran having a Islamic democratic system safe guarded by the Ayatollah... In Iran their was claims of elections being stolen but yet their was never a concrete evidence provided which showed irrefutable prove that the elections were stolen all I hear is allegations and isn't their something called innocent until proven guilty so why should we rush and judge the Iranian elections all these baseless claims could easily be propaganda by the West to destabilize Iran as a form of subversion you can't tell me it hasn't happened before...

Here in the States their were allegations that Bush stole the second term elections but yet dispite the poll count irregulations that were found out I didn't hear anyone call Bush a dictator.... If Iran was truely a dictatorship then all the top oppositions leaders sitting comfortably in Tehran would have been rounded up and executed without delay... If Iran was truly a dictatorship when Ahmedinjad tried to free the American prisoner he wouldn't have been blocked by the Tehran prosecutor, just imagine a Baghdad prosecuted ever defying Saddam... If Iran was truly a dictatorship then the prison chief where the prisoner abuses occured wood not have been investigated, then sacked and now being tried in court for abused that happened under his watch and the Tehran prison where the abuses occurred wood not have closed... If Iran was a dictatorship Ahmedinjad would have a free reign to do as he pleases and position himself to be president for life... So as I can list on and on point blank Iran is not a dictatorship and I don't see any country that has perfect government.
 
Iran is nowhere near democracy

It makes no sense to talk about democracy without talking about freedom. For without freedom, no democracy! Freedom is not only the right to vote in parliamentary and regional elections. The fundamental freedoms are the foundation of individual lives. The right to freely express yourselves in speech and writing. The right to choose religion and equality between men and women.

To have a democracy requires that people understand that democracy, besides being a form of governance is also a way of life. It is a political ideology, whose core values are equality, freedom and tolerance. And this does not exist in Iran. Moreover, democracy is based on two basic assumptions. One is secularization of the political: that law perceived as man-made. And the second is that people are considered equal - regardless of gender and religion. It’s not existent in Iran.

Yes, there are presidential elections, and TV debates, the incumbent president may risk being overthrown in a democratic manner - But may I remind you that it’s not anyone who can run for Parliament. Candidates must be approved by the supreme religious council. So Iran is not even a democratic governance.

We can do a quick little democracy test on Iran: Is there equality? No! Women's testimony counts only half in the Iranian courts, and that’s not democracy. Nor is it democracy to hang homosexuals, because they are homosexuals. And what about stoning - a barbaric form of capital punishment. Is there free speech in Iran? No. You risk going to prison if you speak critically about religion and doctrines. Are there religious freedom and tolerance? No. For example, the Baha'i religion is banned, and members of other faiths must behave like the majority. Both Jewish and Christian women must wear the headscarf, though not a part of their religious practices. So much for impose, even forcing their own religious practices on others. So much for religious freedom.

If you are a democrat, then you will never put the interests of your own religion or political beliefs higher than of others' right to express that they don’t profess one's religion or political beliefs. "Religious freedom is also the right to say no to religion or belief, but it will not be accepted in Iran. In a democracy it’s the people, the people's will and people's representatives that dictate community design. In a democracy the majority takes the minority into account. It is important to understand that democracy is not only a form of government, but also a way of life: it means that democracy includes all aspects of life, for example. Democracy in the family, workplace, in society and in the state. And it does not exist in Iran.

Iran is as democratic as the former German Democratic Republic.
 
Just throwing this out there, but the relative growth from 1 to 2 is far greater than moving from one million to 1.1 million. The former is a 100% growth rate, the latter merely 10%.
 
I have to agree with Micha, Democracy isnt about the right to vote... You can choose a master, but you are still a slave if it was the case.

Democracy is a state of rights, individual rights, it's a place where every citizen is a ruling power.

Democracy is a delicate balance based on rights, principally human right... Because we dont want some Liberal BS democracy where there is two wolves and a sheep deciding what they will have for dinner.

Democracy isnt the dictatorship of the majority.

But just a little remark for Micha. I invite you to rethink man-woman equality and its meaning...
As there is a difference between equality in front of the law (women are not second class citizens) and mathematical equality where we can exchange men with women...

And it's a bad example when you are dealing with other cultures where the basic unit of society isnt the individual but the family...
It's a very western concept. The unit of humanity is man+woman in nature, the question of "man or woman?" is very artificial...

And are we sure that a woman's testimony is worth half's a man testimony? Is it right? Because it's not in the Islamic rules of justice. It's actually a violation of their own laws. Propaganda? They dont respect/understand their own laws? Corruption?

I think that there is a lot of propaganda issues here... Iran doesnt practice stoning, and I know for a fact that the Jewish minorities in Iran refused to go to Israel even when they proposed them important sums of money...

There is a propaganda war on Iran, we have to be careful...
 
@LeMask

Equality:

Equality in democratic sense is that women and men should have equal opportunities and influence in all parts of society with regard to the law, voting rights, education; and so on.... Equality between men and women are not only social and cultural cosmetics, but an economic, political and democratic necessity. Also equality is not just about securing rights it´s also about the cultural expectations that govern our way of acting and thinking.

A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:
"And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her."

Bukhari:V3B48N826
The Prophet said, "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind."

I know that´s disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter. But many Muslims believe that the legal value of the testimony of women is half that of a man and in Iran they follow Imam Malik ibn Anas that believes that their testimony remains unacceptable

Stoning in Iran:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Iran-Stoning-Case-Not-Human-Rights-Issue-102328124.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2262540/

Islamic Penal Code of Iran:

Article 83:
Adultery in the following cases shall be punishable by stoning: (1) Adultery by a married man who is wedded to a permanent wife with whom he has had intercourse and may have intercourse when he so desires;
(2) Adultery of a married woman with an adult man provided the woman is permanently married and has had intercourse with her husband and is able to do so again.

Article 84:
Old married adulterers and adulteresses shall be flogged before being stoned.

Article 102:
The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts.



It´s not necessary to conduct propaganda war against Iran. They are doing an excellent job themselvs!
 
Hello Micha, it's a very common misunderstanding. Fortunately, I have enough knowledge on this particular subject to answer your question.

First things first, this "verse" doesnt apply to "justice", to "penal justice".

In this part of the Coran, they are speaking about witnesses as witnesses of a debt.
If you study the whole system carefully, you will see that women in Islam dont care about economics and financial issues as men do. I mean by definition. As they are granted total social security because of their status (as women).

It's hard to explain and to understand. But you are dealing with a different world here. Women in a true Islamic society work for pleasure. As the man have to pay for everything she needs... Her and her kids. She can spend all the money she makes on candy if she wants, or even burn it if she wants to... It wont matter. As a woman, she have no duty in the economic world.

Generation after generation, when the system is fully integrated, women dont care anymore about money issues. You can see that in how they speak about business... They always end with words close to "or I dont know" or "or whatever." The effort to make an accurate answer is decreased.

And just before this quote you gave us, god was asking his Muslim followers to write everything down on paper when it comes to debts. And if they fail to do so, they have to ask a man or two women so one of these women confirms the answer of the other.

It's like if I told you to ask one senior officer or two officers out of the academy.
And when it comes to business in a Muslim society, men are supposed to master every aspect of the story.

And I have the Arabic version in front of me, the translation is very very sloppy.

In the Arabic version it says:
"Ô believers, if you contract a debt. Write it down. Make a scribe write it down between you and in justice. A scribe have not to refuse to write as god taught him to..." And then you have a little text (details) then you have "Have two witnesses between your men. And if you cant, one man and two women as witnesses, so that if one makes a mistake the other might remind her."
(my translation, sorry if a Muslim guy reads that... Trying to be as accurate as possible)

In fact, they replace a two men group by one man and two women as witnesses.
The "one man = two women" reflex is a very western conclusion...

Muslims dont do maths in these things... But they care about some kind of specialization, as women dont live like men do...

And I'm still looking for this quote from the prophet Mohammed...

And let's be accurate on one thing. I cant stress this part enough.

Islam doesnt want equality between men and women. It have no meaning for them. Even equality between a man and another man have no meaning for them.
Maths dont mix with humans.
And women have a part of society, a role, a duty... And men have another, and they are supposed to work together.
And women are under the defense of the Muslim men. It's privilege women were given by god.

And the Arab culture is very hostile toward women... Islam appeared in this context. They are in conflict because of that very point.

And in our time, where Muslims are confused between their religion and their ancestral cultures... Some Muslim might deny women their rights in the name of Islam... It happens all the time in fact. And every person who studied the subject will tell you that they are doing so by ignorance.

And Iran is light years ahead in the Islamic world... As they have a clergy who have the final word. And this clergy is very often educated.

The big issue is corruption... But that's another problem. You cant blame the laws when they are not enforced properly.
 
Micha you can't sit in a western country and claim that Iran is not a democracy simply because it doesn't fit the western definition of secular democracy. As LeMask has stated time and again Islam is not just a religion its a way of life, the Koran basically lays out everything in how a Muslim society should be governed and their is no reason as to why you can't have a religious democracy. The way you are coming of is like saying our way is the right way any country that doesn't follow our example we can't consider them democracy. The problem with the West is our arogance and our know it all mentality, we feel like we are the only ones that know how to govern.

Yes their were post election unrest in Iran but that was mostly instigated and blown out of proportion by the Western media. More people support the Ayatollah and president Ahmedinjad than Mousavi. If Iran was a dictatorship believe me Mousavi and Kourabi would have both by now been arrested, hastily tried by a military court and summarily executed all in the same day similar to what happens in Burma, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq and even in neighboring Saudi Arabia. The fact that they are sitting comfortably in Tehran with no fear of prosecution is testament that Iran is not the intolerant dictatorship it is slandered to be.

In case you didn't Know Iranian government pays for people who want to have sex change done and the openly seek goverment assistance without fear of prosecution imagine a transexual person going to Egypt, Saudi Arabia or any of our other Middle Eastern allies and asking government assistance for sex change you know they will be publicly beheaded. So lets stop with all this propaganda and slandering Iran fact of the matter is we are being hypocrites when we support such draconian leaderships such as the House of Saud and yet slander Iran. Iran is a more open and tolerant society than any of our other allies in the Middle East. We support Hosni Mubarak and his 30 year reign as the dictator of Egypt and when he silences dissidents we look the other way but when it comes to Iran we are quick to do character assassination.
 
Micha,
I'm still looking for this Quote from Mohammed. So many various sources, and most arent trustworthy.

But about the Penal Code in Iran, you have to know that laws in a country evolve with time. New laws are adopted. This is why laws are classed using dates and case numbers.

So, sometimes, a law is added on a topic/crime and it will replace the older law.

This is the case even in Western justice systems. And I wont even touch all the jurisprudence situations... A real nightmare...

It's somehow the same in Islamic justice. But there is another cultural twist you have to add.

In our culture, we get straight to the point. But in Islam, the Coran, who is the source of law... Is a real nightmare to interpret.

Words have many meanings. And the text is written by a superior intelligence. A god or a genius... There is a lot of defiance. As the author is sometimes defying mankind and asking the reader to be humble and to to think carefully about his future actions.

And yes, adultery is a severe crime in Islamic law. Maybe worse than murder.

And the punishment adopted for this crime is very harsh.

But... There is conditions to prove that this act happened. You dont need normal proofs to prove that it happened. You need to fulfil a list of conditions.

I dont need the details, but to accuse someone of adultery, you need many witnesses. Trustworthy witnesses (not people who have an interest in the accusation).
Conditions who are next to impossible... Unless the two lovers have sex in the middle of the street under the eyes of the whole village...

So, this law is here. But it's impossible to enforce. It's the way used by the creator/creators of Islam to make a symbolic law.

In fact, the accusers get punished (for lying) if they accuse someone without having the whole needed conditions to accuse them of adultery.

It was made to avoid this harsh and barbaric punishment.
But also to protect the honor of honest people who might get accused of adultery under any suspicion in a society where reputation, pride and honor have a lot of value.

I could make 100 interesting movies better than Lost in Translation on this topic alone...
 
Democracy, besides being a form of governance and political ideology is also a way of life.

Yes, there are millions of democratically-minded Muslims! And, yes, you can easily have the finest democratic ideals, if one is a Muslim. But political governance that is based on a religion is incompatible with democracy. Political Islam is incompatible with democracy. The Democratic problem is not "Muslims" the problem is, however Islam. The fact is that the moment a country - for example through a democratic election - gain a Muslim majority, it is goodbye to democracy. It has been experienced in Tunisia and Algeria - and it has repeatedly been experienced in Turkey. Not a single one of the world’s some 50 majority-Muslim countries have democracy - the vast majority of these countries is, however religious totalitarian states.

Is this just a strange coincidence? Or maybe there could theoretically be something in the nature of Islam that is contrary to democracy? An example: In Nigeria, Islam is on the rise, and as fast as a few decades, Nigeria will have a Muslim majority. Here it is said that more and more people are so aware that Mohammed's teachings are correct, that they convert. But if it was merely a religious awakening and a belief, why should the people convert to Islam, changing society's laws and rules? Why should criminal law be changed? Why should the Constitution be changed? If it was only about belief, why should Nigeria's British-inspired democracy be kicked away to be replaced by Sharia? The fact is that this is not about faith. It's about that Islam contains instructions on all aspects of life - including the organization of society. It's about that democracy can not exist, because it’s contrary to Mohammed's teachings. Not a single Islamic country is democratic. Why would the Iran experiment be any different?

The problem is that Islam can’t wait for Paradise till after death. Islam wants Paradise introduced here and now. And when you have that as the measure of a society's decor, you end up with tyranny. When the Muslim world is so backward and undemocratic, it is because it has succeeded Islam to keep people in ignorance. You learn that everything is dictated by Allah; that everything is fated, and initiative, thus inconsequential. If you are a devout Muslim, then you have to 'buy the whole package': a belief that is political and a policy that is religious. That is the whole main point of Islam. So the Muslim world will remain poor and backward, unless Islam separates religion and state and understands the Islamic texts in their historical context and thus paves the way towards a new and modern interpretation of Islam.

So is Christianity and Christian culture a major guarantor or a catalyst for democracy than other religions?

No, based on the perspective that democracy is created by religion criticism and rejection of religion. That democracy can occur anywhere where power is decentralized and there is freedom to think and hence to develop democracy. When Christianity then seriously broke through at the European level, the democracy idea died- and since the renaissance and the times of enlightenment began, democracy sniffed the morning air again. Thus one can say that democracy won, not because of Christianity but in spite of it. Democracy is based namely on our modern, post-Christian world comprehension (incurred after the Enlightenment). That the understanding of our existence as singular and not split between an earthly and an extraterrestrial world. This brought together the focus on our world and man introduced an earthly form of government, namely democracy and not God's governance.
 
Last edited:
Justice said:
Science-Metrix also predicts that this year, China will publish as many peer-reviewed papers in natural sciences and engineering as the US. If current trends continue, by 2015 China will match the US across all disciplines – although the US may publish more in the life and social sciences until 2030.

China's prominence in world science is known to have been growing, but Science-Metrix has discovered that its output of peer-reviewed papers has been growing more than five times faster than that of the US.
Click to expand...

But how many of those papers are actually original and not plagiarized?
 
Micha, how can you be so sure about that? You tell us this like you are sure.

I dont tell you so to contradict you or anything, but just that a democracy dont have to be secular at all cost.

You can use a religion as a constitution. And Islam isnt like christianity or anything, it's a system of laws. It's not a religious delirium, it's a system of law.

And Islam is thought as a democracy. First, you have the principle of "shoura" where Muslims are asked to look for opinions in the community and to hear them.

And they have a parliament. They just call it mosque and it's regional. They gather in a mosque 5 times a day for a prayer, but also to discuss political matters.
To take decision and by working together.

Here, you have debate and a parliament.

And they have elected representatives. They call them "Emirs". Leaders chosen to lead in a well defined project. And if you dont want to follow them, it's your damn right.

And here you have individual freedom. And for minorities, there is no "nation" concept, they can start their own societies and they wont be attacked by Muslims (who cant open hostilities) unless they responding to an attack.

And if it's not enough, you have the concept of "Harram" (double R), it's your home, your sanctuary, you property, your castle, where you can live as you want without anybody telling you how to live inside your home. And if you have neighbors, you can share property and open a new society inside a Muslim society.

Well... In fact, by looking on the Islamic law on the paper. It works very well as a democracy.

I said on paper ^^ Arabs are poor Muslims, and when they mix their laws with the concept of Nations where there is one law for everybody in the territory... Things get messy...

This is problem mankind is having, a wise guy can come and put a working system on the paper, but a few centuries ago, the people who will follow this system will change things... And then, the equilibrium will change.

And I dont believe that democracy is total freedom... The right to do everything you want. We need freedom, but we also need limits. We can have everything we need, but not everything we want. And we have to work hard to reach it.

Are you aware that from the Muslim side, they look at the western world with the same arguments? They say that the system is failing, that every country we have is a corrupt country where people care more about money and what is material than moral values?

We have a lot of things to learn from the Islamic world. We start to notice these things when it comes to our financial system. We believed for years that everything is good to make money, until the system started crashing, and then we noticed that the Financial system based on Islamic values are still holding their ground even with this world crisis...

It's a very complex subject... And if you try to read some Muslim scholars, and I mean free minds who tell the truth and not official versions to please corrupt authorities (governments and such)... You will see that the educated Muslims are working hard in changing things. They share our values. They believe in human rights and they believe in individual freedoms.

And let's not forget that the Western world dont want to see these countries liberate themselves... We dont want to see the Saudis develop into a fine society, we love these corrupt retards buying expensive cars...

We dont want them to turn into a free people working efficiently to protect their interests...
 
Last edited:
I don’t think we will ever agree on Islam as a form of government. It seems to me perfectly as a management of a tribal culture but as a form of government by an advanced society is not working.

I don’t believe that there is much we can learn from Islam. I believe that democracy as we see it in the Western world has given us the prosperity we have, after all. For better or worse. Democracy is not the same as total freedom - you are right. There must obviously be some limitations on what you can do and that’s why we have the law but this law must be written by man and not as one given by a divine being.

I often talk with Muslims on my age on many things and also about Islam as a form of government and not only with moderate Muslims but also with fundamentalist Muslims, so I know well the different interpretations and views about Islam and as you probably know, Muslims do not always agree on how they perceive their religion.

I closely work with a group of Muslims who describe themselves as democratic Muslims who believe that one has to separate state and region if you want to prosper in the Muslim countries. One of the things they point out is the lack of education of the population that gives the power elite (politicians and clergy) a free hand to control the people as they please. The more educated and enlightened people are, the harder it becomes for them with the power to deceive the people.

I think we should close the debate now. We’ve been around the most. Otherwise we can always start a new thread. And I must tell you that it is nice that we can disagree and debate without we call each other bad names. Let’s continue with this.:smil:

Cheers from Micha.

Salut particulier à ma douce amie LeMask ;-)
 
The Ayatollahs' Democracy: A Look at Iran's Inner Workings

Iranian-American writer Hooman Majd attempted to demystify some of the West's preconceived notions about Iran in his 2008 book The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. His new book, The Ayatollahs' Democracy, delves into the workings of the country's politics. Its insights may startle Americans who think of Iran purely as a fundamentalist Islamic state fronted by the demagogic firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Majd spoke to TIME about his work, what an Islamic democracy looks like and why we should all look beyond the labels.
How would you define what an Islamic democracy is?
The definition of an Islamic democracy is very different if you ask [different Iranian clergy members]. In my opinion, it's a democracy which takes precedence over religious law. But Iran is still a religious society. That doesn't mean people want people to be stoned for adultery. It doesn't mean people want people's hand to be chopped off for stealing. It just means they have Islam as a guide. Though that, unfortunately, in some cases, means certain things that are not comfortable for Americans. For example, gay rights do not exist under Islam.

You hemmed and hawed about the book's title after the brutal crackdown that followed Iran's 2009 elections. Why did you decide to keep it?
When I first thought about the book, I certainly did believe Iran was on the path to democracy, and being in Iran for the campaign season, it seemed even closer to democracy than even I had imagined. It became obvious that this was something fleeting and illusory, but I felt like [the elections] were actually very good for Iran and the future of its democracy because they really did end up showing where the regime has gone wrong and where Islamic democracy has gone wrong — particularly because so many clerics came out against what happened, both in the election itself and in the aftermath.

So, in a way, the titles of both books hinge on the idea of there being debate among the country's religious leaders?
What I was trying to get across with the first title is that Iran is not this monolithic political system, it's not homogenous in its thinking. It's not North Korea, it's not Cuba, it's not an absolute dictatorship. The ayatullahs do have a tremendous amount of power, but they do disagree with each other. This book is much more about the political culture of Iran. For people who are interested, I certainly think that in times of conflict, when we're told that we have an enemy, it is important for us to understand who that enemy is — and if it is, indeed, an enemy. If we don't understand what the political culture is, then we will ultimately make the wrong decisions, and that can affect American citizens.

Do you get a feeling for how much Americans understand that Iran is, politically and culturally, at odds with much of the Sunni Arab world?
I don't think Americans, by and large, understand that at all. The differences dawned on Americans, probably even the American Administration, after the invasion of Iraq, so that's a relatively recent understanding. Shias and Sunnis hate each other, and it's a hatred that goes back centuries. Certainly the way the media presents Iran, it just seems like it's a fundamentalist Muslim state.

You liken Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Can you elaborate on their similarities?
The connection is that they like to be these blowhards who tap into a certain kind of dissatisfaction among their supporters. It's very cynical in my mind. It's a politician's move. [People like Beck and Palin] are fundamentalists when it comes to religion — as is Ahmadinejad. None of them are in the clergy — and neither is Ahmadinejad. And Ahmadinejad, you have to take what he says with a grain of salt, and I think one has to take what Sarah Palin says with a grain of salt, or Rush Limbaugh or any of those people. The kind of incendiary rhetoric that all of these people employ is calculated, and we have to bear that in mind.

At a recent event, you said that Ahmadinejad was trying to engage the U.S. "in his own wacky way" by challenging Obama to a debate in August. What does that mean?
I think President Ahmadinejad would very much like to see a normalization of relations, if not an alliance, with America. Very few Iranians want to see this heightened conflict between America and Iran, which has been going on for 30 years. It's affected the economy. It's affected people's lives. It's not comfortable. And Ahmadinejad recognizes that, but he would like to be the person who can be the hero and say, "I was able to talk to the United States without giving in." The hard-liner accusation has always been that reformers would give up too much in order to have relations. So his [position] is, "I want to engage, but as equals, not as a subservient power."

You often speak for the feelings of Iranians. Being well-connected in Iran and growing up abroad, do you encounter resentment for explaining how they feel?
I've gotten some resentment, but the vast majority of feedback I've gotten has been very positive. I do get criticism from [those in] the Iranian diaspora who are active in trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Those people hate me. But I'm a writer. I'm not an activist. I just try to observe, to see what's really going on in Iran. I try to see and talk to as many people as I can. Despite that, I never claim to be able to say, with absolute certainty, "This is what the Iranian people want."

What's the one thought you hope Americans take away from the book?
Iran is not as simple as we imagine it to be. The Iran-American equation is not as simple as we imagine it to be. In this age of instant-gratification media, sound bites, headlines, of being just inundated with information on a subject that is important, like Iran, it's important for Americans to understand that it's not exactly what we imagine it to be. Let's consider a different view, outside of the sound bites, outside of the hyperbole. Who are these Iranians? What is it that they want? What is it that they're trying to accomplish? If you can take something away from my book, it's that it's complicated.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2027282,00.html
 
Justice, a great post and the points are very apposite. What is needed is action over rhetoric and individuals willing to tackle current issues without rehashing the past. Are those people around? I don't know, but as my wife says to me - "keep doing what you're doing and you'll get the same result as you did last time".
Our big problem in the West, is that Iran is closed to us, so we rely on news agencies; to whom the country is mostly closed and politicians - who have their own agenda; for information. Hopefully we can start to move beyond preconceptions and more into the realm that challenges the status quo and the standard "embargo" response to difficult situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top