Truth behind the propaganda

What's behind Iran’s stance towards Israel?


Share/Save/Bookmark

Truth behind the propaganda
by Farhad Kashani
11-Jul-2008
 

Much has been said about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Sometimes, it seems that the truth has been lost between all the propaganda doses from all sides.  

After the 1979 revolution, Iran became the single biggest opponent of Israel in the region, bigger opponents than the Palestinians themselves. It has been said that Iranians look at the empty half of the glass only, however, in this article, I put down some of the more common reasoning the IRI mentions, to justify its animosity towards Israel.

In the beginning, I have to say, although I believe Israel has accomplished much for its citizens, but I have not been a fan of Israel for a long time. Although Israel has the right to exist like any other nation, but much of its current territory is built on occupied Palestinian land. Israel has also occupied Syrian and Lebanese lands. Israeli actions in the Palestinian territory are unjustified, brutal and inhumane. The world needs to come together to stop Israeli actions in Palestinian territories. All that being said, King Abdullah of S. Arabia introduced a great peace offer to Israel in 2002, where as in return for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab lands, all Arab countries will recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it and live in peace with it. I think if Israel doesn’t accept this offer, it has only itself to blame.  

In this article though, I like to examine Iran’s stance towards Israel. Our country and people have sacrificed a lot, and I mean a lot, for IRI’s blind anti Israeli sentiments. Many countries, groups, parties and organizations..oppose Israeli actions, but none of them put a burden on their people as much as we have paid. We have become isolated, hated, we regressed, we paid human and material price,  we have been threatened to be attacked, and we have been looked down upon by most of the world (with the exception of some fascist Islamist and lefty loonies), because of this stance. There is a different between opposing something, and “blindly”, opposing something. Some of the most outspoken Israeli critics are Israel’s friends, such as Turkey. So why is IRI acting like as it is? Below is some of the most common rhetoric used by the regime:

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it has occupied Arab lands: Not true. Iran has not taken a unified stance towards occupied Arab lands. As we speak, there are other Arab territories occupied by non-Arab countries that you hear nothing about from the incredibly powerful IRI propaganda machine. Examples are 2 Moroccan cities occupied by Spain, and and city of Eskanadaroon in Syria (Iran’s closest ally!) occupied by Turkey. These issues have been a major source of tension between Morocco – Spain and Turkey – Syria, but you never hear the IRI talk about them.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it has occupied an Islamic country’s territory: Also not true. Iran has not taken a unified stance towards that also. There are other non-Arab Islamic lands occupied by non-Muslims as we speak, but you never hear the IRI mention a single word about them. Examples are Chechnya by Russia, Kashmir by India, Somalia by Ethiopia, Sin Kiang province by China. Muslims living in those areas, claim that their lands have been occupied by non-Muslims, but the IRI never spits out a single sentence regarding those cases.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it is concerned about the human rights violations by Israel: I think we all know the answer to that. How can a government which has the absolute minimum, if any, regard for its own citizens’ life, dignity and rights, care about Palestinian rights? Iran’s record in human rights is pretty much agreed upon by most of the world to be one of the worst, if not the worst. All one needs to do is look at any Human Rights organization report to see where Iran stands on different Human Rights respect categories.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because Israel hates us: Most Iranians know that’s not the case. Before the IRI start its blind anti Israeli campaign, Israel never harmed Iranian interests nor it worked against our country. As a matter of fact, even after the 1979 revolution, Israel attacked the Osirak nuclear power in Iraq, which helped Iran. That doesn’t’ mean as Iranians and as neutral observers, we should overlook Israeli crimes, but, again, how far are we going on being Israel’s critics?

 * IRI is anti Israeli because Israel was illegally established after WWII: Not true. Many countries were established only after WWII which were not historically established as countries, examples are, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Persian Gulf countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, more than half of African countries, …and the list goes on. So should those countries be as Khomeini said, “eliminated by all Muslims picking up a bucket of water and spilling it on Israel” also? In addition, IRI makes the arguments that Palestinian Muslims were the only inhabitants of that area, which is like everything else they say, untrue. Jews used to live there also, along with Christians and Muslims, for thousands of years. Offourse the Muslims were the majority and that demographic should not change by force. But, if you make that argument, then we, as Iranians, need to leave Iran and give the country back to the Ilamites. After all, we’ve been living in Iran for 2500 years only (at least our Aryan population has,.. Turks, Arabs, Mongols, Indians, and others came later,), and the Ilamites have been living there long before the Aryans came.

Those are most of the claims made by the IRI to justify its blind anti Israeli rethoric. So what is or are the real reasons behind this animosity that the IRI started against Israel? Well, for one, IRI complains about Europe not allowing investigation into the Holocaust, but itself does not allow any discussion over the Israeli conflict that does reflect Khomeini’s fundamentalist vision. As result, we will not get the truth from IRI.  

So what’s the real reason? Iranians have realized that the IRI actions are results of two things:

1. Iran takes this stance towards Israel because it has occupied “religious: Islamic sites, not just any Palestinian, or Syrian, or Lebanese land, and since the IRI has sacrificed our country to portray itself as the only true Islamic government in the world, at minimum just to energize its base and spread its propaganda, it has taken a fury stance against the occupation of Quds. Again, most people oppose Israeli occupation of Quds, but no one acts recklessly, unjustifiably, inhumanely and irresponsibly the way the IRI does.

2. Since Israel is U.S closest ally in the region, for the IRI to, again, at minimum to energize its base in Iran, it has looked upon this issue as a proxy war with the United States. After all, you can’t bash and trash a country 24/7, and not take any action to show the world you are, in reality also, oppose to it. For some less educated and traditional Iranians, Provocation and thugness is a way of life . The IRI made that way of life, a government policy, and it used the blind anti Americanism as its main tool to justify its existence and policies. Some of the reasons go back to the fact that since the IRI consists of disfranchised, neglected, uneducated and traditional-minded segment of our society that were looked down upon by the most sophisticated, westernized, and most importantly, Americanized, Iranians during the Shah regime, they have been attacking that same Americanization that reflected in their oppressors. After all, Khomeini said, the revolution was a “cultural revolution” more than anything, and he was absolutely right. Also, many dictatorships use anti Americanism to gather support among their faithful in order to gain power. Examples are Mugabe, Castro, Kim Jon Ill, and others. Its needless to say, America has become the world’s punching bag.

In conclusion, we need to realize the true intentions of this regime in everything it says and does. Without it, we can never understand it, thus, we can never be able to better confront it. And if we don’t confront it, whatever is left from our country, will be gone. 


Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Farhad KashaniCommentsDate
Iranians have it far worse than Palestinians
7
Sep 30, 2009
Mesbah Yazdi
24
Sep 04, 2009
Neo Cons or Neo Comms: Who got it right on Iran?
4
Aug 27, 2009
more from Farhad Kashani
 
Mammad

AnonymousHaha

by Mammad on

I do not know who is who, but I apologize for any error that I might have committed.

I have declared many times that I am a practicing Muslim, and on the left side of the political spectrum. So, guilty as charged, although as I have said many times in this site, I am proud of my political philosophy.

Certainly, Islamic left, inspired by writings of Dr. Ali Shariati and the Mojahedin before the Recolution, played an important, but not decisive, role in Iran's Revolution. So, again, guilty as charged. 

But, we should not confuse the Revolution with its aftermath. The destruction that you are talking about has been done by the Islamic right wing, not Islamic leftist forces. The Nationalist-Religious Coalition, the Islamic Iran Participation Front, the Islamic Mojahedin Organization, and the Movement for Militant Muslisms are the leftist Islamic groups and forces after the Revolution, and none has played any negative role in Iran. They all advocate democracy and rule of law, from the first moment of their existence.

I have said many times in this site that I am for a secular republic.

Mammad


AnonymousHaha

Mamad- I am the Registered Haha

by AnonymousHaha on

I did not write the post you replied to. However, I still think you are an Islamist leftist whoes ideology is responsible for the distruction of our country.  Now these same retards are in the path of further distruction because of their nuclear aspirations and you are defending them. Its pathetic what people like you and Q defend.

I hope the next time we are able to have a chance at a new form of government, we fight to death to have complete separation of church from state.  I also hope that Islamist Leftists like you have learned their lesson that religion and politics do not mix.

 

 

 


default

Sarcasm does not cure or make right...

by Anonymous haha (not verified) on

I bet you are an islamist who would not rest until the whole iran is delivered on a silver platter to islam, broiled and burned ready to be swallowed until only one person is standing, similar to what khomeini said long time ago; nothing less is good enough for you, ha?

But I answer your questions anyway.

1. I was NOT joking here. Indeed when the front-door janitor saw my old relative before sun-rise showing up when he was sweeping the front-door area asked her what she was doing there and once he found out, he said something very similar to what you claimed to have known. It is NOT my fault that your prediction is the same as the janitor's.

2. I do not know what "great popular revolution" you are talking about. All we saw was a "disastrous massive fraud" perpetrated upon iranians. I could tell you its outcome, but hey I assume you pseudo intellectual islamists knew what you were doing when you marched after thugs like khomeini, rajavi, and yazdi; the same way that you still think you have all the answers. Or maybe you are still totally unaware of what disaster you brought upon the people of iran.

3. Well, maybe I have or have not done more than you have, but "at least" I did not cheer the success of a pyramid scheme of fraud, the dark revolution, that started with murder on its first day. Had I cheered, I would not be able to sleep at night let alone claim that I still have all the answers and the revolution/IRI was/is still the right thing to happen and better than what we had before that and all that it needs is some patchwork that has not happened in 30 years yet.

You are apparently totally unempathetic and unsympathetic towards people of iran; after all they are just pawns of islam and nobody cares about pawns, right?

If I cared about my ideology or islam more than iran and iranians, I would have taken the exact same position that you take; but I don't -- thanks god who gave me an active mind to think for myself rather than blindly following some criminal bozos from 1400 years ago who want me to believe that they are some sort of supernatural and closer to god than I am!


Farhad Kashani

Q, furthermore,,,, Your

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, furthermore,,,, Your reply1: a) You are exaggerating since some people are fine with the decision b) Elections can't be second-guessed by people claiming they were "fooled", no democracy can operate that way and must trust the people voting to make their own decisions. c) it's unprovable that someone was truly "fooled" ahead of time.A-      He is not exaggerating. You are astonishingly denying a reality. B- yes, in a democracy, not in the IRI system of governance which is a disgrace for the word “democracy”.  Ideological: Don’t think for a second that because the IRI has zero tolerance for any public opinion poll to be conducted, that people don’t know the truth. Yes, there are evidence: here to name a few: -          Talking to Iranians in Iran from different walks of life starting as soon as you get to the airport to the taxi driver to the soldier in the street to the people you talk to on the street to the friends to the families…..and everyone else. If you go to Iran, lets say every other year, and every time you go there, you talk to different people from different walks of life, and all of them want the regime to be removed, that’s a pretty good assessment on Iranian public opinion.-          Iranian publication in Iran itself including statements from time to time from IRI officials who say people are unhappy.-          Iranian abroad publications such as websites, magazines, TV stations, radios, and others who reflect Iranian public opinion in Iran by people from Iran who write to them or call the video programming, or the radio programming, or blog, and other means of communication.-          Iranian books written by people who lived in Iran and seen the atrocities. -          Iranians who get out the country, either known one such as Dr. Bagherzadeh, Ganji, Ahamad Batebi, or the average Iranian. I sincerely haven’t met an Iranian who just came from Iran and is pro IRI.  Anad again, these are just a few. Q, who on earth are you trying to fool? Just say who? I like to know? There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that you are pro IRI, but, exactly since the vast majority of Iranians are staunch anti IRI, you do not dare to say it. what you’re trying to do is use some absurd non political argument to prove some points that don’t even make sense to a 5 year old, that the IRI is somehow legitimate. The IRI is extremely smart and has abused every hole in the law it can possibly find to justify its actions. You’re doing the same exact thing. What you’re doing is saying something like “ To German people to shut up and take Hitler’s crime against humanity against them because somehow Hitler was elected through some election. This is what you’re eventually doing. You’re saying since there was a revolution and Khomeini established himself as the new Hitler, and since the IRI has shut down any public opinion poll, any political freedom, any political participation, any election, any sign of democracy, and there is no “IRI approved public opinion poll to see whether the people of Iran want the IRI or not, and since the regime kills any sign of slightest opposition to it”, then, in your twisted logic, Iranians can’t prove anything, as if an IRI approved poll is the only tool to measure public opinion, so they need to just shut up and take all the death and destruction this regime has brought upon us. How dare you?  Q, you can only make these claims on this website in this free country, this country that you bash so much. You wouldn’t even dare to make claims that Iranians are pro IRI in the presence of Iranians from Iran. But again, Q, the only one you’re fooling is yourself.            

 


Mammad

Anonymous haha

by Mammad on

I finally understand why your name has haha in it. Your comments make me laught.

1. Regarding the janitor, yes, hindsight is always a beatiful quality that people like you have.

2. No, I could not predict what would happen after the revolution. If I could, I would not have supported it. A great popular revolution did not achieve many of its goals, especially in the political arena.

3. You asked a good question. Before answering, let me ask you the same question. What have you done, since you demand action? Am I supposed to be the only one to answer your funny question? Without knowing who you are, I am reasonably sure that I have done much more than you have. You tell me what you have done, and then I'll answer your question.

First, it was claimed by NM that, because the grand bargain was coming, I would stop criticizing the US, since I am an apologist for the IRI. Now that I have responded, I am told that, even a janitor could predict that, that what I had predicted  was trivial, and am "ordered" to outline what I have done afterwards.

I guess, nothing is good enough for you and your type.

Mammad


Farhad Kashani

Q, your argument is

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, your argument is absurd, your logic is flawed and your facts are all made up. The amount of anger you show when someone criticizes the IRI, leaves no room for any doubt that you are an IRI supporter.

 You said: “First, you are surely exaggerating as neither of us have any idea what went in the minds of all the voters. Certainly the Mojaheddeen and the Fadayeen were disappointed, that we know for sure.”. What kind of logic is that to accuse someone in such manner? Offcourse none of us installed a chip in any Iranian voter’s brain in 1979, but we all can make conclusions. Can’t we? You yourself go on to say “Do you realize you can say that about any election, any time, anywhere?”, which is what I’ve been trying to make you understand all along. in that case, why was “colonialism” wrong? As a colonial, I believe it was a good idea, and I can come up with my own reasons and definitions why! This “relativity” argument, and “subjectivity” reasoning does not work. Q, that’s what I mean by the fact that the root of your worldview and the way you analyze politics is fundamentally wrong.  You said: “you would see no one participate in ongoing IRI elections and maybe you will see them rise up against IRI. Either would be good indications that this current situation is unacceptable and there is nothing else one can do other than to overthrow the system. Until those things happen, you have no argument.”. He absolutely does. 1- What “elections”? These are selections, not elections! 2- People under the Soviet regime “couldn’t”, not that they “wouldn’t”, able to rise up either, because they were brutally oppressed under the Communist regime just like the IRI is brutally oppressing our people. Does that mean that people were satisfied with the communist regime? People enjoyed going to education camps? Obviously not, and we all saw that after the fall of the Soviet Union. The stories that came and are coming out illustrates how that era was. So, do the Iranian women “enjoy” wearing hijab? NO. But IRI is brutally crushing any opposition. Should we as Iranians, or the world conscious, be indifferent about that? You said: “Only positive things are proven with evidence. I can prove that there exists a horse, I can't "disprove" that there exists a Unicorn. Since, I know you still don't get it, I'll have to ask that you please read this page in the desperate hope that you can learn something.Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

You just can’t get it, can you? He’s asking the same question as you are asking him. That’s what I mean about you applying non political methodology and accepted realities, to understand world politics. Here’s something for you to learn about, and I’m gonna use the same source you used, because you’re either (as always), are dancing around the issue, ignoring the question, or unwilling to accept the fact. We were obviously talking about the state of Jews in Iran. Here you go:

“80% of Iran's Jewish population left during the Islamic revolution of 1979. Jews in Iran may not hold government jobs or become army officers. They may not proselytize. Jews have a representative in parliament; this person is legally obligated to support Iran's foreign policy and anti-Zionist position. Jews, along with other Iranian citizens, can be criminally prosecuted and subject to the death penalty for supporting Israel. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, several Jews were executed for Zionism”. Which “approach” are you going to take to justify that for the IRI? You said:” Yes, it is an indirect election.” Referring to the supreme leader “selection”.With this, you are 1- Justifying and supporting the IRI 2- killing the truth 3-  Confusing and misunderstanding politics 4- Clearly lying,…… to a whole different level. How do you define “indirect elections”? The Supreme Court is only a part of one branch of the government, however, fascist Khamenei is a caliph, whos heading all branches of the government. The supreme court judges have to go through an intensive and extremely open to the public confirmation process, by representatives elected by the people, nominated not by the government, but by their political parties, who have all the right to bash and trash the government and the head of the government, how on earth is that equal to a fascist regime appointing a few of its uneducated fascist thugs, and letting the people chose between them? What criticism is done on Khamaeni in Iran? What kind of system is that that has 0, ZERO, Zilch, SEFR, tolerance for the slightest, unharmful criticism of the head of the government? What political party Khamenei belong to? Who were his opponents? From which “parties” were they?  What is his term? How long is he supposed to rule?  What absurd logic is this comparing the two? Leave your obsession with the U.S aside, and think.  Q, by using this “relativity” argument that we have to “look at politics using subjective method”, you have dag your intelelctual grave. That’s not even tuching on the fact that you showed your true character by insulting people and making up things. You still have not answered any of my following question: -         What makes a regime legal or illegal, legitimate or illegitimate? -         Whos is the source that determines what human rights are? (Please don’t say Democracy Now)? What are human rights? If a dictator hijacks power and enslaves his people, hows that to be viewed? Right? Wrong? Subjective? Necessary? Runs in the people’s DNA? No one’s business? Who is to determine that? What are the principles? -         How is tyranny, or dictatorship defined? Who defines them? Dictionary? Where the dictionary does gets its definition from?


Mammad

Killjoy

by Mammad on

With all due respect, what I said was not conspiracy theory.

The hardliners in Iran have always wanted to have a bargain with the US. But, they know that to have it they have to make concessions. But, how could they do it, after saying "death to America" for so many years? By ruthlessly suppressing internal dissent, so that not only nobody would remind them of their slogans, but also would protest the concessions that they would have to make. I believe that eventually they will have the bargain with the US, unless Bush and/or Israel are foolish enough to attack.

Mammad


default

Q: Where do you get your

by q-gir (not verified) on

Q: Where do you get your numbers/percentages?? Islamic Republic of blood and liars? MOIS? VEVAK? IRNA??

You're only fooling yourself and your ilk because you have no other choice...A Rude awakening awaits you, my beloved Gobbles.


jamshid

Re: Q

by jamshid on

Q, I tried to have a discussion with you. However, like every other time that you are intellectually cornered, you switched to personal attacks. I want you to know that I don't mind your strategy. I sometimes tire of serious arguments in this site, and welcome the lighter side of this site which you so perfectly represent. So let me have some fun with you Q...

In your last post you claimed that I said "IRI is illegal because ...."

And you call me cross-eyed? How amuzing.

I never said "illegal", I said the IRI is "illegitimate". Weren't you the one that were lecturing someone else on what the difference between illegal and illegitimate is?

Or is it that you don't know how to read? Or do you have memory lapses? Or you read it correctly, but in the middle of all your fallacies and lies, you mix it up with someone else's writing? Or perhaps you cannot maintain a coherant line of thought?

And then you call me cross eyed? Can I call you hypocrite?

"Elections can't be second-guessed by people claiming they were "fooled", no democracy can operate that way...."

mardikeye ahmagh, safsateh baazi ta key? kodoom democracy? Iran was not a democratic country when it voted in 1979, not before, not during and not after the vote. You are now comparing Iran's none-existant democracy in 1979 to that in the US or other democratic countries where their democracies had been established for long?

"Only if you count the 65% of Iranians who participated in the elections. Yes. "Excluding" 65% of Iran, you could be right that a majority, 18% might "regret" the revolution (not that they may be unhappy with the current government..."

What "balghoor" are you making here? You just make numbers at it pleases you, and you call this an argument? You really are pathtetic Q. You really are. Or perhaps your 10 years old nephew slipped this impossibly stupid sentence in, while you were not watching.

I won't admit to any numbers, be it 300,000 jews or otherwise, since I don't know what the number is and I am not interested to know. I asked you to prove it is wrong. And you came up with the negative logic argument.

If proving a negative is illogical, then why did you attempt to prove it anyway? I am glad you took the bait and eagerly proved everyone how tragically pathetic you must be. You don't show mercy to even your own self. You discredit and attack your own logic with your conflictive action. haan Q? I don't mind at all!

You have humiliatingly criticized others, including me, for having used Wikipedia as a reference, then you go on and use it yourself to back up your argument. When I caught you red handed with your hypocrisy, you tried in vain to patch up your goof, by saying:

"(yes) I have criticized many people for blindly cutting and pasting from Wikipedia without understanding what they were doing"

"Without understanding what they were doing"? Laughing Outloud Q! Yeah right! You are the only one who understands what you are doing! I don't know whether to laugh at you or to feel pity for your desparation Q.

"... even if you want to completely discount Wikipedia, it doesn't change the fact that..."

Brushing your hyprocrisy under the rug Q? NO! I don't want to discount your Wikipedia hyprocrisy! Let's talk about it some more and analyze the roots of your hyprocrisy and "oghdeh", shall we Q?

You wrote that I have accused you of saying the outragous lie that there were 300,000 political prisoners under the previous regime. I never accused you of saying such a thing. You can't read, can you Q? Cross eyed? Memory lapse? Inability to maintain a cohenrent train of thought?

When I caught you with your false accusation, you admitted that I indeed never accused you of saying such a thing, but in order to patch up your goof and to save face, this is what you wrote:

"no. You just said "your ilk" said that, so it's a lie and a slander..."

Back pedalling yet again Q? "Umm, no, jamshid, you didn't exactly say that, You just said... Umm, said... I mean.... You just said your "ilk" said that!!"

akhaaay! I feel pity for you Q!

"You lost this argument... ", "you have lost all your points..."

Is that all that matters to you? That you won? Like a 6 years old? Can't you go beyond these childish jiberish?

"... every country has candidate qualifications..."

Sure Q. Sure. And in some countires the qualifications are so restrict that it renders the whole election process a sham. You know what country I am talking about.

"No, they (US supreme judges) are not commander in chief, but that's not the point."

 THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT Q. You liberally compare the US judges to Iran's Supreme Idiot when it is convenient for you, but when it is not convenient, you claim it is not relevant. How depressingly pathetic Q.

"The Iranian people voted for that constitution..."

Sure they did Q. However, today they pee on it.


default

I could tell you that!

by Anonymous haha (not verified) on


"Three years ago, on the eve of Iran's presidential elections, I published an op-ed in a US national newspaper (I won't say which, because you will immediately find it, but I prefer to remain Mammad on this site), in which I warned that the hardliners, if elected, will suppress Iran's internal dissidents, by violence if necessary, but then will try to negotiate a grand bargain with the US. So, it is happening PRECISELY as I had predicted."

The front-door janitor in passport section of IRI told the exact same thing to a close relative of mine when she showed up very early in the morning to stand in line to get passport to go get us visa. And he was apparently right too!

The question is did you predict that khomeini was a fraud and the regime that would replace the now-considered-benign regime of shah would be the most criminal regime of iranian history and what did you do to stop the ugly revolution and the mass murder of iranians by mullas that followed from happening. (I did predict that at the time, although the fascist khomeini turned out to be far more criminal that anyone could imagine!)


Q

Jamshid, you have NO shame, none!

by Q on

You have no shame. You do a "hit and run", saying one thing and when proven wrong pretending you were talking about something else, change the subject and call me names, and act like you're taking the high road.

What a complete waste. I will summerize what has happened for people reading, since trying to communicate with you is an exercise in futility.

On your attack post at 11 PM. You raised these points.

your point 1: IRI is "illegal" because the people were manipulated and fooled.
my reply: a) You are exaggerating since some people are fine with the decision b) Elections can't be second-guessed by people claiming they were "fooled", no democracy can operate that way and must trust the people voting to make their own decisions. c) it's unprovable that someone was truly "fooled" ahead of time.
your illogical obfuscation: You assert that the majority of Iranians regret the revolution (no evidence), that "Everyone" "excluding" islamists/reformists regrets it. Only if you count the 65% of Iranians who participated in the elections. Yes. "Excluding" 65% of Iran, you could be right that a majority, 18% might "regret" the revolution (not that they may be unhappy with the current government). However, you have no evidence other than your own personal assertion for this.

So you have a personal assertion with no evidence that perhaps can negate point (a) if proven. You have no answer whatsoever on points (b) and (c). Yet in your typically cowardly fashion, you keep wasting people's time and pretending like your original assertion that IRI is "illegal" is valid.

I guess out of the anger and complete frustration for not having even a hint of an argument you let off steam by calling me an "islamist". I guess you are hoping people would forget how badly you argue and just take your name calling instead. What a complete waste.

your point 2: You said "prove there weren't 300K jews in Iran."
my reply: It is Kashani that has to prove his assertions. YOU are committing a negative proof fallacy by putting the burden of proof on me. In addition, I showed you evidence that there were less than 80,000 Jews in Iran in 1979.
Your absolute diversion: Once again, you completely ignore the main argument, which you have lost badly, and think you are clever by spinning and bullshitting on some side issues. I asked you to read the theory, but you obviously didn't.

So I guess you managed to prove a negative, thereby invalidating your own BS about negative proof, right Q
No! First, I did not "prove" the negative. I postiviely asserted a different proposition: 80K Jews. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim of 300k. I showed that even if you HAD a good argument (you did not since no evidence) for the 300K, there is actual evidence for 80K. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by pretending you had a valid argument even worthy of discussion for "300K' for just a minute. Second, it's not "my BS", do you understand? This is how the world works I didn't make up this fallacy.

If you were an honest man you would have no problem admitting that Kashani was wrong and there were not 300,000 Jews in Iran, this instead of wasting time. If you were an honest man, that is.

Wikipedia is only as good as it's sources. In the past I have criticized many people for blindly cutting and pasting from Wikipedia without understanding what they were doing. On many things, including Iranian revolution, there are much better sources, but this moot unless you have some other, better evidence, you do not.

Even if you want to completely discount Wikipedia, it doesn't change the fact that the 300K assertion is unproven.

I never claimed that YOU said there were 300,000 political prisoners in the previous regime.
Oh no. You just said "your ilk", so it's a lie and a slander. If I didn't say it, than don't bring it up in this debate. It's completely irrelevant and a waste of time. "Numbers were good enough for your ilk" is just shameful and illogical bitching, not an argument. You want to prove people lied about number of prisoners, have a seperate discussion on that, but don't cheapen the issue by using it as an obvious escape tactic.

conclusion: You lost this argument, you are too chicken to admit it, so you waste time on irrelevant crap just so you can save some face. Once again, no shame, no honor.

Your Point 3: you have some problem with my argument that supreme leader is indirectly elected.
My reply: Yes, according to definition of election. He is indirectly elected (or appointed by people who are themselves elected at large) just like US Supreme court and US electoral college.
Your diversion is really incoherent. The "filtering" argument does not change the definition of election. As I have explained (and you have obviously not read) several times already, every country has candidate qualifications that must be met according to their own constitution. You can argue this is unfair, you can argue this is corrupt, whatever. But you can't argue that it's not direct elections if it is directly voted for by the public who are given multiple choices. I even gave you examples of other experts calling it this, and no one disputing the terminology. But your arrogance does not allow you to put any fact above your own flawed ideology, even when it comes to tautologies like "direct elections." You simply can't "will" your own view into existence.

But you didn't answer if the Supreme court judges are commander in chief too? Yes or no?
Yes, I didn't answer every one of your absurd questions because they were irrelevant. The answer to this question is No, they are not commander in chief, but that's not the point. I never said they were.

I'm only comparing their method of appointment, not their powers. Are you capable of sticking to any subject, yes or no?

Your point 4: Nazi Germany elections. (I honestly can't tell your point, you are too hysterical)
My reply: Yes, Hitler and the Nazi party were elected by the German people. Hitler was legitimately appointed the German Chancellor. However, they did not have the majority status, and thus used a false flag operation and illegal means to usurp power after the election. Illegal according to the German constitution.

Your now-morphed "argument":
Are you saying that Hitler's Nazi government was legitimate? If not, then in your limited view, and as a matter of convenience, the IRI must be legitimate?
No, as I already said, Hitler and the Nazis were elected but they usurped power subverting the German constitution. So his "government" was illegitimate after that. The comparison is absurd. Khomeini was the commander in chief according to the IRI constitution.
The Iranian people voted for that constitution. The Germans never voted for Hitler to have the emergency powers.

Meanwhile, keep adding the names of liers to your list, while your own nose is growing to an astronomical size.
I love it how you can never actually point to any of my lies. Just like Neocons, you really seem to believe that if you repeat something it will eventually be true.

I look forward to another complete waste of my time in form of your response. I anticipate obfuscation, diversion, personal attacks and other irrelevencies from you. Really, you will do anything, anything at all, not to have to face the fact that you have lost all your points, but do not have the integrity to admit it.


default

Mammad,

by Killjoy (not verified) on

This is what you wrote:

"Three years ago, on the eve of Iran's presidential elections, I published an op-ed in a US national newspaper (I won't say which, because you will immediately find it, but I prefer to remain Mammad on this site), in which I warned that the hardliners, if elected, will suppress Iran's internal dissidents, by violence if necessary, but then will try to negotiate a grand bargain with the US. So, it is happening PRECISELY as I had predicted."

The above statement is no prediction. In the political jargon it is called, "Conspiracy Theory."

There are many Iranians who say similar things, but they are dead wrong. And you are, too.

Let's wait and see if there will be "a grand bargain" before jumping into any conclusion.


jamshid

Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

1. Don't put words in my mouth and in others' ears that I claim I represent everyone. I only represent my own self.

2. I never claimed that I have or will have, or even want to have the influence that khomeini had from abroad. Again, don't speak on my behalf. However, I do believe in our Farsi expression that "ghatreh ghatreh jam shavad..."

I also do believe that we Iranians who live abroad in safety and away from Evin, are obligated to voice the concerns of those who live in Iran. Isn't this the very least we could do?

3. Khomeini could not speak Farsi properly, because he kept using Arabic grammar in his Farsi speech, and therefore he misplaced the words while speaking Farsi.

I still remember his first "norooz" speech in which in many occasions, he simply didn't make sense because he was unable to form his sentences using the correct Farsi rules of dastoor.

After that speech which was brodcasted nationally, he substantially improved since probably others assited him in writing his future speeches with the correct grammar. Nevertheless, he kept repeating these mistakes in live speeches. With time he improved.


jamshid

Q, I read your ranting.

by jamshid on

Q, I read your ranting. Well done venting off. However, you only managed to diminish yourself and your intellect in the eyes of others by exposing all the anger and hatred that is accumulated inside you.

I will respond to your post, however, without degrading and lowering myself to your level.

It wasn't only the mojaheds and fadayees who were disappointed with the revolution. Excluding the Islamists, including all variations of the so called reformists, who were enriched by this revolution, both in terms of power and also financially, EVERYONE else who participated in the revolution, regrets it, simply because they ended up at the wrong side of the stick.

You know it and I know it that this is true.

Add to this the fact that the majority who regrets the revolution were intentionally and fraudulantly manipulated into participating by means of lies, deceits, falsification and other fraudulent means. Otherwsie, why would they dig their own grave for the benefit of those who are in power today?

Together, the fact that they were defrauded, and that they regret it today, invalidates the legitimacy of this illegitimate revolution. Let me make something clear though. I do understand that for you and other IRI supporters, including the reformist variations, the revolution was legitimate since it brought you people power and wealth that previously could only be dreamed of.

If more than 50% of Iranians today were Islamists like you, and were benefiting from this revolution, then I would admit that the revolution was legitimate. However this is not the case.

You used in a reference in Wikipedia in order to prove that there weren't 300,000 jews in Iran. So I guess you managed to prove a negative, thereby invalidating your own BS about negative proof, right Q? I grant you that you never fail to amuse me. 

But by the way...

Are you the same Q that once tried to belittle and humiliate me for having used "Wikipedia" as a source of reference for my argument? Back then Wikipedia was a "joke" (your own word) and unreliable. But now I see you are using it to prove your own case.

There is a word for this behavior Q. It's called hyprocrisy.

I never claimed that YOU said there were 300,000 political prisoners in the previous regime. You only (falsely) claimed that number to be 100,000 which is still an outragous lie. However, I was referring to the number that what was being circulated among the people in order to entice and fraud them into joining the revolution. Do you deny that the number 300,000 was used for this purpose back then?

You again compard the process of appointing the supreme leader with the process of appointing the Supreme court judges in the US. But you didn't answer if the Supreme court judges are commander in chief too? Yes or no?

You wrote, "The extra powers that then-Chancellor Hitler usurped however, was not done by popular vote. It was a false flag operation that triggered it .... (explitives)... and that's when he became a dictator. "

"false flag operation"??

Doesn't it remind you of our own revolution, and khomeini becoming a dictator/emaam/pishvaa? Are you saying that Hitler's Nazi government was legitimate? If not, then in your limited view, and as a matter of convenience, the IRI must be legitimate?

Meanwhile, keep adding the names of liers to your list, while your own nose is growing to an astronomical size.


Q

Jamshid, these are absolutely moronic statements

by Q on

It shows that you and Kashani really don't care about facts and truth. You don't understand logic, evidence, even how to have a meaningful discussion. Your anger and venom is so strong that it has made your cross-eyed, if not completely blinded. The only things you continuously accomplish is to make a complete ass out of yourselves.

I'll be happy to oblige... until I get bored, I hope someone else can take over after that.

you forget to say that the majority who supported the revolution, did so because they were intentionally manipulated and fell for the lies, deceits, falsifications and spread of false rumors.
Are you really that ignorant? First, you are surely exaggerating as neither of us have any idea what went in the minds of all the voters. Certainly the Mojaheddeen and the Fadayeen were disappointed, that we know for sure.
Secondly, it's absurd to claim that this invalidates the vote. Do you realize you can say that about any election, any time, anywhere? It's absolutely rediculous. Every election entrusts the voters to make their own choices known. Saying "I was misinformed" is a) unprovable, and b) of absolutely no consequence.

So much for legitimacy as proven by the popular vote.

Also, that same majority now regret they ever contributed to this illegitimate revolution since they suffered from it.

Maybe. But that does not negate their confirmation of the same regime. Perhaps if you are right on this point, you would see no one participate in ongoing IRI elections and maybe you will see them rise up against IRI. Either would be good indications that this current situation is unacceptable and there is nothing else one can do other than to overthrow the system. Until those things happen, you have no argument.

Now go get a notebook and write 100,000 times: "The revolution was "illegitimate".
Haha... does it make you feel better to have these power-domination fantasies? It's more than a coincidence now, you have made them multiple times. Quite fascinating...

You also wrote, "We did not have "300,000" Jews in Iran in 1979..."

You lie. Prove that we did not have 300,000 jes in Iran? Where is your evidence?

I "lie" ? Thing like this prove once-again that you really don't know anything, neither facts, nor logic, nor argumentation. For the sake of everyone who will be reading this, I will explain your numerous fallacies in detail.

First: one does not "prove" a negative. I have explained this to you before, but apparently you have problems with mental retention which we already know about. It's like this:

Only positive things are proven with evidence. I can prove that there exists a horse, I can't "disprove" that there exists a Unicorn. Since, I know you still don't get it, I'll have to ask that you please read this page in the desperate hope that you can learn something.

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

So, to recap, when someone says there were "300,000 Jews in Iran in 1979", it is that person that has to prove the truth of the fact. It's not a reversible situation where you can ask someone to "disprove" it or it's true. Logic does'nt work that way. You prove something positive. Such proof was not made (or understood) by Kashani.

Furthermore, even though I don't have to disprove this fact (since it was never proven) with evidence. I can still do it easily:

From Wikipedia:
At the time of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, there were approximately 140,000–150,000 Jews living in Iran, the historical center of Persian Jewry. Over 85% have since migrated to either Israel or the United States. At the time of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, 80,000 still remained in Iran.

Therefore, this makes the claim that "300,000 Jews in 1979" a patent lie, untruth, unsubstantiated garbage. The evidence support what I said and indicates what Kashani said and you defended to be false.

300,000 was good when it was falsely and "fraudulantly" referred to as the number of politcial prisoners under the previous regime.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never used a '300,000' number to refer to prisoners under the previous regime. Stop wasting time. Kashani's number was false, and if you had any kind of integrity, you would admit it.

You wrote, " IRI's supreme leader is indirectly elected just like US Supreme court judges..."
Yes, it is an indirect election. I don't care if you don't agree with the label. But it's not even my characterization, take it up with all the sources I cited about Iranian elections.

Nobody denies that Nazis were elected by people at large. As a Party, they got votes to be represtnted in the Parliament, but not enough to be the controlling party. If you understand history, not hysterics you would have no problem with these facts.

The extra powers that then-Chancellor Hitler usurped however, was not done by popular vote. It was a false flag operation that triggered it (it's called "Reichstag Fire", read about it so you don't sound like an idiot) and that's when he became a dictator.

This time you must have been thinking that you are talking with your 6 years old cousin.

I was. Except he was not my cousin.

I really should start making a list of all your lies. People will lose track after so many of them. The only problem is I just don't know if you are genuinly ignorant or willfully lying.
You still don't understand that you can't just immitate me and pretend you have said something of value. Not only is this "come back" so lame, it's not even funny, but it's utterly false since you and Kashani are the liars.

But I do welcome such a list. Unlike my list, yours won't have any evidence that is not simply your own imagination "word of god" decrees.


default

NM

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Jamshid, I have been very well aware for many years that khodies (or as you call them bache akhonds) have been enriching themselves and ignoring the poor etc... etc .... however I believe the only kind of change that can potentially change the situation for the BETTER, is a change initiated from inside Iran. Call me IRI appologist but I have no hope that Jokers like Mr. Kashani can fix Iran even if they are installed there without a fart fired.


Mammad

NM

by Mammad on

I totally respect your opinion of me, whatever that is. I am an apologist for the IRI? Fine. People are entitled to their opinion.

Regarding the grand bargain between the US and the IRI:

Three years ago, on the eve of Iran's presidential elections, I published an op-ed in a US national newspaper (I won't say which, because you will immediately find it, but I prefer to remain Mammad on this site), in which I warned that the hardliners, if elected, will suppress Iran's internal dissidents, by violence if necessary, but then will try to negotiate a grand bargain with the US. So, it is happening PRECISELY as I had predicted.

Now, does that mean that I'll stop criticizing the US? Absolutely not. The whole point of my criticism has been, unlike what many Iranian monarchists and right wings in the US assume, the US does not give a hoot to democracy and human rights. It is pursuing its own agenda, and whoever is willing to go along with the agenda becomes, overnight, an ok leader. Just look at what happened to Qaddafi of Libya. As soon as Libya gave up its nuclear program, it became a good state, all the sanctions were lifted, full diplimatic relations were restored, and all gross violations of human rights by Qaddafi were forgotten.

So, if the grand bargain does happen, it will, in fact, exonerate the views of people like me about the US, which means that my criticism of the US will not end.

So, before you start typing your comments about me, just spend a moment and try to understand what is it that I say, and where is it that I am coming from.

Mammad


Mammad

NM

by Mammad on

I totally respect your opinion of me, whatever that is. I am an apologist for the IRI? Fine. People are entitled to their opinion.

Regarding the grand bargain between the US and the IRI:

Three years ago, on the eve of Iran's presidential elections, I published an op-ed in a US national newspaper (I won't say which, because you will immediately find it, but I prefer to remain Mammad on this site), in which I warned that the hardliners, if elected, will suppress Iran's internal dissidents, by violence if necessary, but then will try to negotiate a grand bargain with the US. So, it is happening PRECISELY as I had predicted.

Now, does that mean that I'll stop criticizing the US? Absolutely not. The whole point of my criticism has been, unlike what many Iranian monarchists and right wings in the US assume, the US does not give a hoot to democracy and human rights. It is pursuing its own agenda, and whoever is willing to go along with the agenda becomes, overnight, an ok leader. Just look at what happened to Qaddafi of Libya. As soon as Libya gave up its nuclear program, it became a good state, all the sanctions were lifted, full diplimatic relations were restored, and all gross violations of human rights by Qaddafi were forgotten.

So, if the grand bargain does happen, it will, in fact, exonerate the views of people like me about the US, which means that my criticism of the US will not end.

So, before you start typing your comments about me, just spend a moment and try to understand what is it that I say, and where is it that I am coming from.

Mammad


Mammad

FK

by Mammad on

I am gulty as charged. There is no use in debating anything with you. 

Mammad


default

Free my country...

by Anonymous vatan parast (not verified) on

Islamists: what do you really want from iran and iranians? They both have been subservient and handicapped by islam for 1400 years. Isn't it time to end the occupation of iran and let it blossom as it did before islam defeated and humiliated them.

End the occupation and take your tasbeeh o sajjadeh somewhere else. Believe me it is good for both you and iran. You can go next to your beloved arab men and iranians can be free to use their god-given high-IQ to succeed in the absence of all the mambo jumbo that they have been fed for the past 1400 years.

Free iran from the occupation of arab culture.

Free iran from the occupation of arab religion.

Free iran from the occupation of pam-arab objectives.

End the occupation. 1400 years is enough. I swear that you have reached your goal and destroyed iran. It really is sufficient. I know you do not care about morality so I won't appeal to your morales, but I ask you to do what is good for you, migrate to your arab land and end the occupation of my iran.

End the occupation of iran.

End the occupation of iran.

End the occupation of iran.

Free iran from foreign cultural and religious domination.


Farhad Kashani

NM, I wanted to point out a

by Farhad Kashani on

NM, I wanted to point out a great fact you expressed, which is these people sacrificing our country for their ideology. I absolutely agree.


Farhad Kashani

Jamshid jaan, thanks for

by Farhad Kashani on

Jamshid jaan, thanks for your support. You’re absolutely right. They have narrowed down personal attack to “profanity”, but when you bash me, and not my argument, you’re attacking me (i.e personal attack), not my argument. Jamshid, there are only few people left in the world who think IRI is legitimate. I think all of them are on this website!Good job.


Farhad Kashani

Mammad,   1-    

by Farhad Kashani on

Mammad,

 

1-     Whats your point?

2-     That’s, by far, is not an established way of defining legitimacy or legality, rather, it is a twisted leftist definition of political concepts.

3-     When did I say history is an opinion? I don’t think you have a long history of putting words in my mouth, rather, you make up theories and facts, but, this time, you’ve actually put words in my mouth. I said that everyone has a different definition of historical phenomena. For example, the Qadesiya battle actually happened, there are facts to prove that. Some Iranians think it wasn’t such a good idea our country being invaded, some Arabs think it wasn’t such a bad idea. See my point? We’re not disputing the actually of the occurrence, but the observation of it.

4-     No I did not. I said it before, and will say it till the end of day: unless our country gets occupied by a foreign army, we are the main responsible party for what happens to our country. CIA’s role has been exaggerated, Shah had million of supporters and the coup was done by people like Zahedi and others, so, it was an Iranian coup. Mammad, some people might think its an CIA coup because some CIA agent in U.S embassy, or the U.S ambassadors, was monitoring or watching the event, or, that the Shah spoke with the U.S ambassador about it, and thats what I mean by interpreting things. The party responsible is Shah, who was Iranian, because he wanted to do it and did it, his army which composed of Iranian soldiers and his intelligent service which composed of Iranian officers executed it, he arrested Mosadegh, he imposed his tyranny on our country, he killed democracy. Why is it hard for you to understand? And in 1979, we raised p to kick him out, but Khomeini hijacked the revolution and our country. It doesn’t matter if Khomeini lived in France or that France let his airplane lift off, the responsible party is Khomeini. Also, I’ve said, why some countries recover in much faster pace from tyranny, occupation, colonialism or poverty, without giving their independence or sovereignty away, but we don’t? what is the difference between us and them?

5-     Yes, and the point is?

6-     I think your hate for the U.S, which derives from your ideological beliefs, has led you to be unable to see the truth about world politics, and most specifically, Iranian politics.

 

Yes, the movement is in Iran, but I’m an Iranian, and love my country and what it stands for, and I want to see it free, prosperous and independent. So, yes, I will help the movement, as much as I possibly can, and the keyword is “possibly”, it might help it might not, but I know I have a free conscious. And I agree with jamshid when he mentions Khomeini’s example, he lived abroad for many years and was still able to take power in Iran. Considering he did not live in the age of internet, or email, or satellite, how do you think he was communicating with his supporters? Through simple means such as “letters”.  Yes, I’m a nobody, I don’t know where I claimed I was somebody? It’s you guys who made this “leader” figure of me, which I don’t know whether to be thankful or annoyed by it !

  


Farhad Kashani

Anonym7, and that’s

by Farhad Kashani on

Anonym7, and that’s perfectly fine.  I’m glad that you guys are able to see how democracy and free exchange of ideas work.  I make similar accusation too, but I don’t initiate naming anyone, because I don’t think that’s a civilized and mature way of conversing. The amount I’ve gotten attacked by those few, but vicious and confused Iranians, are nothing compared to what poor guys like Mr, Imani, Mr. Rashidian, Mr. Nooriala, jamshid, Fred, and others experienced. They get trashed and bashed all the time,, because they write great articles. However, Anonym7, that’s why we write these articles, 1- to tell the truth 2- to expose people who make untrue statements, support the IRI in different ways, and reflect what’s wrong with our country. When we make statements that IRI and its supporters have shown intolerance, and then immediately get viciously attacked by people who say “we’re making up things by saying these facts”, exactly proves our point. I often wonder why these guys don’t understand this, but I’m glad they don’t, because they keep showing their true faces. The more we get attacked, the more we understand we’re on the right track and the more determined we get. Like I said, people are speaking up more and more. The left and the IRI posy have realized that and are becoming more desperate and helpless about it, so they resort to character assassination. It’s an old trick, we know that. Anonym7, I appreciate what you said against that Shiny Head person’s statement. I wish all like-minded people acted as such. By the way, just today, I read a posting in which someone was asking me whether I was an Iranian and if I was circumcised! Anyways, jamshid is on our side, the people’s side. His arguments reflect the Iranian majority opinion, and are logical and based on facts and reality. He has correctly understood how the world works and how the IRI operates. He is a realist, and presents real and applicable solutions to real problems facing our country. He will always have my support, along with the guys I mentioned above and whoever speaks of the truth. I know they support me also. Hopefully, you get away from the “dark side” and join the people! I see a potential. You said yourself once that you are well aware of all the atrocities the IRI made and the extent it has destroyed our country, but you don’t wanna say it in public. Hopefully that changes.                 


default

Anonym 7: There are many who

by NM (not verified) on

Anonym 7: There are many who think You, Mammad, and Q et al are apologists for Islamic Jihadist revolutionaries and you care more about your ideologies than your country.

Now that you and your ilk have gotten your grand bargain to preserve your access to IRI's ATM, I'm sure we won't hear your tirades against the US for a while.


Mammad

Jamshid

by Mammad on

Guilty as charged, and you are also correct, as usual, about everything, and I am wrong.

In particular, I correct one mistake of mine: YOU represent everybody. You always respond to me on behalf of everybody else. Thank you very much.

Yeah, you and FK, living abroad, are at the level of the influence that Ayatollah Khomeini had, or even some of his aids that had been active internationally in the Confederation of Iranian Students! He had lived the first 65 years of his life in Iran (he was born in 1899 and was exiled in 1964), and was an important Marja', before he was exiled. I'll be happy if I just make it to that age! And, it is incorrect that Ayatollah Khomeini could not speak Farsi correctly. In fact, given that he was exiled when he was 65, that is actually a lie.

Let me just ask a question: If what I said is personal attacks, then what isn't? What you say, when you label me all sorts of things, and when you are questioned about it, your response is, "oh, he is that, so calling him that is no problem"?

Mammad


default

propaganda and misinformation (to Jamshid)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Jamshid, there are many of us who believe Mr. Kashani behaves likes God Father here, there are many of us who believe he exaggerates (that is an understatement). I also have pointed those out to him referring to his SPECIFIC statements numerous times in this article and other articles.
Saying Kashani is making propaganda like statements or misinforming people is not a personal attack.
BTW Jamshid, you are the king of personal attacks in this website, you defending Kashani does more damage than good. Granted I disagree with Kashani very seriously, as a person he stands way above you and that is why I wrote against Shiny Head (see below) who is in your league and very aggressive.


jamshid

Mammad, what personal

by jamshid on

Mammad, what personal attacks, you ask? What about these:

FK has appointed himself as the spokesman for practically everybody...

He makes statements with such certainty that he often violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle...

he starts revising things, giving new and absurd definition of everything without having an iota of expertise in the area...

These are all personal attacks. None of them are targeting the subject, but instead they target the person. Then you ask "what personal attack?"

The IRI is "illegitimate". It is a "naa mashroo", unpopular, criminal, corrupt, and illegitimate government. Its birth was on illegitimate grounds. Its continuation was on illegitimate grounds. Its existence today is still on illegitimate grounds.

The fact that the shah left Iran in 1979, does not mean that the army was not behind him. It only points to his incompetence as a king. The same applies to 1953 when he left Iran. 

You wrote, "there is a big movement for changes. But, it is in Iran, not where you or I live, and (we) do not belong to it..."

This is a false and absurd statement to keep Iranians who live abroad to get involved since that won't benefit the IRI. The falsehood of this statement is historically proven: Khomeini and many members of his entourage didn't live in Iran for more than a decade. Khomeini couldn't even speak Farsi correclty. Nevertheless, he managed to change Iran, unfortunately for the worst.

I am just sitting in my own corner of the world, minding my own business..."

Yeah right! You are just minding your own business.... akhaay! No comments on this.


Mammad

FK

by Mammad on

What the heck are you talking about? What personal attacks? Which one of the specific statements that I attributed to you, you actually dispute? 

(1) Did you not declare the Chinese Government illegitimate?

(2) Did you not declare that because IRI does not allow UN monitors for its election, or because Ayatollah Khamenei cannot be called "agha", or because there are no political parties in Iran, IRI is illegitimate? The point is, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the IRI is not decided based on your absurd statements. There is a well-established way of defining the legitimacy of a system (or a revolution for that matter), which is not the way you define it. 

(3) Did not you say that history is opinion? In other words, am I wrong to assume that  you actually do not believe that there is such a thing as history, but just opinions? If I am wrong, then, tell me, how do you distinguish opinion from history?

(4) Have you not rewritten the 1953 foreign-sponsored coup? Have you not denied things that even the CIA and the MI6, the perpetrators, do not?

(5) Did you not tell me that, "the Shah had the Army and the big majority of the people?"

(6) Have you not told me many times that I am blindly anti-US, yet also told me - when you ran out of any "argument" - that I should not be consumed by what they teach as political science in the US?

(7) .........................

Just using big words like, "logic", "we", etc. does not cut it, sir. Provide specific responses. Because, as we say in Persian, "beroot avardam," you are upset? Sorry, but you brought this onto yourself. 

Yes, there is a big movement for deep changes. But, it is in Iran, not where you or I live, and you do not belong to it, just as I do not belong to it, by simply not being there. You really seem to have the illusion that you are helping, and playing a leading role in, the movement. If that is the case, it is really sad.

I have never claimed - neither has anyone who thinks like me - that we did this or that, or tried to do this or that to you and your like-minded friends. I am sitting in my own corner of the world, minding my own business, or as we say in Persian, "maast-e khodam ro mikhoram." You take the leadership of the revolution that you so claim. All is yours! 

And, if you think that I am attacking you personally, do not respond to my nonsense. If I do not hear from you, I'll shut up, and will do so fast!!  

Mammad


jamshid

Re: Q

by jamshid on

Q: You wrote, "How is the IRI regime illegal? The revolution that brought it to power was supported by the vast majority of Iranians..."

But you forget to say that the majority who supported the revolution, did so because they were intentionally manipulated and fell for the lies, deceits, falsifications and spread of false rumors. Any transactions that is based on fraud is void and illegitimate.

Also, that same majority now regret they ever contributed to this illegitimate revolution since they suffered from it.

Now go get a notebook and write 100,000 times: "The revolution was "illegitimate".

You also wrote, "We did not have "300,000" Jews in Iran in 1979..."

You lie. Prove that we did not have 300,000 jes in Iran? Where is your evidence?

300,000 was good when it was falsely and "fraudulantly" referred to as the number of politcial prisoners under the previous regime. Numbers are good to your ilk. They are good since they can conveniently and fraudulantly and "illegitimately" be used to defraud a people, isn't it Q?

You wrote, " IRI's supreme leader is indirectly elected just like US Supreme court judges..."

"elected"??? What elected? You mean to say "filtered" by the illegitimate Assembly of Experts? Let's not forget the even more illegitimate Guardian Council. Why don't you say it like it is Q?

"Just like the Supreme court judges"? And do the US Sup. court judges are commander in chief too? You can't fool anyone except your own 10 years old nephew.

You wrote, "It's direct election because the people at large vote..."

Let's say you are in 1937 Germany. The Nazis offer you to vote for Hitler or Goebel or a bunch of other Nazis. The defenseless German people vote to choose the lesser evil. And now we have a Nazi government direclty elected by the people at large!

This time you must have been thinking that you are talking with your 6 years old cousin.

 

I really should start making a list of all your lies. People will lose track after so many of them. The only problem is I just don't know if you are genuinly ignorant or willfully lying.