format_quote Originally Posted by
titus
Naidamar, the US does give out visas to Iranians.
I know this. What's your point?
Maybe I didn't explain it quite clearly but maybe also you are pretty slow to understand what I wrote.
maybe this following illustration will be easier for your level to grasp:
Say, for many reasons (economic, political, etc), Iran suddenly tells the world that Canada is evil, and then proceeds quickly to attack, invade and occupy canada.
a couple of years later, Iran tells the world again that this time mexico is evil, and then proceed quickly to attack, invade, and occupy mexico.
and now, Iran is again at it: starts telling the world again that this time it is the US who is really evil (meanwhile, iran is still occupying the two neighboring countries) and is positioning and building up most of its military power in areas surrounding the US.
Now, do you really think that the US will issue visas freely to Iranians and receive every iranian tourists with hula dance and shower them with flowers?
You think about it.
As for your friends, while it may or may not be accurate (I seriously doubt they told him his visa was rejected because of his name), I have a very close friend of mine that has family come visit him from overseas quite often and his last name is Islam. I have never heard of any of them having any issues, and when me and him have flown together we have never had any issues.
You havent traveled the world, have you?
I did NOT say that the us embassy rejected his visa application because of his name. and even if they did, they would never tell you.
The fact is:
My friend was over-qualified to obtain the US visa: he was invited to attend the conference, he was sponsored by his company, he has all his assets in Indonesia (extremely unlikely to stay in the US), he speaks english very fluently.
His only drawback: his name (Muhammad, followed by some very islamic sounding name) and born in Kabul
This was right after 9/11.
I was telling you this to show that the US was also behaving very paranoid during certain period of time.
Maybe, but should it work both ways?
If Iran is going to demonize the US (and finance groups that oppose it violently and make heroes out of people that took it's citizens hostage, blame everything on it including their own domestic election issues, etc.) then it only makes sense to require a chaperone for all their tourists.
So, why did you call Iran paranoid when requiring to chaperone US tourists?
A case of double standard?
AS USUAL.