DEVIL's ADVOCATE: Mir-Hossein Mousavi 'involved in massacre', says report

Share/Save/Bookmark

DEVIL's ADVOCATE: Mir-Hossein Mousavi 'involved in massacre', says report
by Darius Kadivar
08-Jun-2011
 

I just came across this article in the daily telegraph referring to former UN judge Geoffrey Robertson QC’s accusatory report on the direct involvement of ex Presidential candidate and current Green Opposition Leader Mir Hussein Moussavi in the 1988 massacres.

The investigation conducted by GeoffreyRobertson QC and was commissioned by as far as I know a fairly well intentioned and commendable Iranian Diaspora Human Rights Organization known as The Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation for the promotion of human rights and democracy in Iran (ABF) which is a non-governmental non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democracy in Iran.

Now I'm no fan of Moussavi but all I hope is that political prejudice and frustrations with his leadership capacities of what has become known as "the Green Movement" are not the main reason behind this report which seems to offer weak evidence on Mir Hussein Moussavi's direct involvement in the killings or in the decisions leading to the killings.

As an Official member of the regime and important member of government he is however accountable for endorsing the regime's policies at the time including arrests and executions of opponents presented as "terrorists".

However ...

Justified or not The MKO were involved in an armed struggle against a regime which itself was fighting an external enemy ( albeit a prolonged war which could have been halted were it not encouraged by no other but the leader of the revolution himself: the Grand Ayatollah Khomeiny) for more than 8 years at the time of the massacre and which had lost more than a million people on the War Front.

SARBAZ: Fereidoun Farrokhzad helps child soldiers of Iran Iraq War

Given the circumstance I very much doubt that any high or low profile government employee, let alone the nation at large would have been particularly sensitive to the treatment delivered to the MKO at the time given that they were presented as "traitors" to the revolution and the a nation which had fought an existential war against an enemy armed to the teeth by Western "Democracies" whose very own involvement in prolonging the war and silent complicity in overlooking equally condemnable war crimes against Iranians were never questioned by an International Court of Justice:

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE:Chemical Weapons Attack On Kurds (1988)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE:US Shoots Down Civilian Iran Air Flight 655 (1988)

That is not to justify the well established 1988 massacre of Political prisoners by the IRI which is definitively condemnable in itself all the more that they were not limited to MKO victims:

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: IRI's Reign of Terror Begins (BBC Report 1979)

nor claim that Moussavi or any other high profile members of the regime are not accountable nor have to respond to such serious accusations but any fair assessment of his eventual direct responsibility in the massacre based on merely his harsh words in an interview given on Australian TV is not enough an evidence to accuse him.

When Government officials in any country express themselves publicly they have to show solidarity with the government they serve and are often heard to express things which do not necessarily reflect what they think intimately. Otherwise they are merely kicked out of office and in totalitarian states often arrested if not worse.

If a scandal breaks open in a democratic state involving the president or Prime Minister which have far more powers than what Moussavi had at the time ( PM in IRan are sidecicks of the President who himself is a sidecick of the VF who has the real power) whether you are minister of the interior or minister of education or transport you are expected to immediately defend your government against any accusations even if it means justifying the actions for which your government is accused.

Now if one is struggling with a moral dilemma and is bold enough to oppose those actions he or she would at best resign. This happened in France for instance with a Minister of Defense Jean Pierre Chevenment who opposed France's involvement in the First Gulf War by resigning at the height of the conflict when French and Allied Troops drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

That spectacular gesture was widely commented and criticized by many but had the benefit of expressing his blunt opinion and difference of views with his government's policies. Would he have had the same courage if he were working in a totalitarian system ? I am not sure.

Given that Moussavi was operating within such a totalitarian system born from the revolution he supported and hoped to see become victorious in order to achieve that ideal of an "Islamic Democracy" in which the majority of Iranians who supported the revolution believed in, I find it hard that his responsibility in the massacre's should be judged because of his allegiance to the regime's policies.

That would be a distorted and rather biased way of looking at a case like this.

To draw parallels with the ethnic cleansings in Ex Yougoslavia makes no sense in this case. Given that the motivations behind both massacres are not at all the same. That is not to say that one is justified and the other is not. Far from that ! But that you cannot compare a massacre of innocent civilians like Sebrenica triggered by a Civil War with a massacre of people involved in an armed struggle against the State as was the case of the MKO.

On the otherhand the massacre of unarmed people in Camp Ashraf by a Foreign government who is supposed to protect them falls or can fall into a similar category as what happened in Sebrenica.

The fact that you cannot compare two distinctly different situations does not mean that each in their own way were not horrible or absolutely condemnable as crimes against humanity. On the contrary !

But you cannot compare the motivations and circumstances which led to two very different crimes on an equal level because they ARE Different.

Defining that motivation is important in order to establish the nature of a given accusation ( ethnic cleansing, genocide, political execution etc ) and the exact responsibility ( direct orders, or endorsement once the crime was committed without you prior knowledge) of anyone deemed involved in a given massacre.

The Nuremberg Trials are a perfect example of the moral dilemmas any unbiased judge or prosecutor was confronted to. Barely 11 of those accused of a direct responsibility in the Holocaust were ultimately hanged. All others got Long imprisonments like for Albert Speer ( who was minister of War and industry very much like Moussavi) if not life imprisonment as was the case for Rudolf Hess. Yet both served and supported a regime which was directly responsible for the massacre of Millions of Innocent civilians including 6 Million Jews.

It is interesting to note that this former UN Judge on this affair for instance who has undertook the investigation also defended the Irish IRA an organization which was involved in an Armed Struggle against the British Government.

It's not because horrible things take place in the world that one should generalize or reduce everything under a common denominator.

Only a serious investigation can lead to serious conclusions.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Does that mean Moussavi is not accountable for that matter ? Definitively not. Actually that is one reason I never took part in the elections under this regime contrary to so many including in the diaspora who rushed enthusiastically to cast their votes despite the horrible record of this regime.

So why Judge Moussavi and not Your Own Motivations which prompted you to vote for him ?

If Moussavi as suggested by this article endorsed the massacres in his interview on an Australian TV back in the late 80's or early 90's or justified the regime's crackdown on opponents of the republic he chose to serve then there are two levels of responsibilities which have to be established:

1) Was he directly involved in the decisions leading to the massacre ?

OR

2) Did he merely endorse the executions once they were carried out without his prior knowledge ?

If the answer to the First question is YES then there can be no ambiguity as to his direct responsibility in this horrendous crime.

If Not then his is only guilty by association but then so are all those who voted for him in the last elections.

Fortunately My Conscience is Clear on Both Accounts:

FED UP WITH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: Ahmadinejad is NOT my Prime Minister !

SATIRE: I voted ;0)

LOL

So Personally the least I would expect from any eventual international investigation is a fair and balanced judgment, not one based merely on political motivations and calculations which should have no place in a court of justice.

So please spare me all the Banalized and inaccurate parallels with the Nazi Holocaust, or Rwandha or Ex Yougoslavia when trying to establish the exact circumstances of any genocidal crime.

As Judge or Prosecutor Your Job is to establish the TRUTH Not deliver a history Lesson !

Banalization of history By DK

Iranian Diaspora Intelligentsia Unite Against Islamic Republic's Holocaust Revisionism By DK

Otherwise I truly don't see the difference between this judge and these clowns:

HOLOCAUST A MYTH: Michelle Renouf on Iranian SAHAR TV | Iranian.com

Alleged SAVAK Victim testifies on an American Liberal TV

Justice is Not about Voyeurism but the honest and genuine pursuit of TRUTH !

I rest my Case,

DK

Related Critical Blogs:

DEATH - VERTISING ? Mehrangiz Kar Claims Husband was No More a Monarchist

GUNFIGHT AT OK CORRAL: Co-Starring Fakhravar & Batebi ?

LOST IN TRANSLATION: NIAC Welcomes Hamid Dabashi on Advisory Board

COLUMBIA PRESENTS: Academic Excellence With Hamid Dabashi & Sadri Bros

WOMEN KNOW YOUR LIMITS: The Shah's Post Mortem Apologies to Barbara Walters and Oriana Fallaci

FINALLY GETTING IT RIGHT: Shirin Ebadi say's "I Don't believe in an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights"

Other Related Blogs:

MKO LOBBY: Former US senators seek to lift MKO off Terrorist List

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: IRI's Reign of Terror Begins (BBC Report 1979)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Man Chased by Anti Shah Protestors During Shah's US Visit (1977)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE:Chemical Weapons Attack On Kurds (1988)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: First Assassination Attempt on Shapour Bakhtiar (1980)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE:US Shoots Down Civilian Iran Air Flight 655 (1988)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: MKO Highjack Boeing 747 with 200 hostages (1983)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Vendetta Against Anglican Bishop in Iran (1980)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Man Arrested For Being a SAVAK Agent (1979)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Shah's Generals Executed and Imperial Army Disintegrated (1979)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Amir Abbas Entezam Chained to Hospital Bed (1990's)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Hadi Ghaffari executioner of Amir Abbas Hoveyda (1979)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Pulitzer Prize Photo of Rebels Executed by Iran's Revolutionaries (1979)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Prince Shahryar Shafiq (1945-1979)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Rafsanjani speaks to Press from Hospital (1980)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Ahmad Kasravi and secretary assassinated (1946)

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Shah of Iran wounded after Assassination Attempt (1949)

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Darius Kadivar
 
salman farsi

Which "Islam" are you talking about Mr Kaveh V?

by salman farsi on

 

You obviously have a monolithic view of Islam and assume that Khomeini was the sole and rightful interpreter of what you allege to be the Islamic law. I am afaraid you are siply wrong.

Khomeini's interpretation of Islam was only one version among many but in saying that "no one was executed for their religious beliefs" you are affirming Khomeini's interpretation of Islam as the absolute one. It obviously has not occurred to you that one's apostate is another one's believer.

Geoffrey Robertson is not, so far as I know an adherent of Khomeini's Islam and therefore he is correct to suggest that people were executed for their religious beliefs (which did not coincide with Khomeini's). Your comment however can be read as an endorsement of Khomeini's Islam as THE Islam.

For an Islamic democracy


Kaveh V

  Dear Mr. Kadivar, I

by Kaveh V on

 

Dear Mr. Kadivar,

I also read the article yesterday in the daily telegraph, by Geoffrey Robertson. I also have some misgivings about his choice of words, in particular for stating that "….the prisoners were executed for refusing to recant their political and religious beliefs." There is ample proof that IRI Islamists have been executing people for being non-believers, Kafirs, against god, apostasy, corruption on earth, Islamic hypocrisy and a host of other "Islamic" death sentences. However, no one was ever executed for their religious belief, or any other reason, other than the death sentence handed to them in accordance with the Islamic "law". This qualifies them for a special form of genocidal crimes; religious genocide of non-believers, with great historical precedence.

On the other hand, one can argue that this was a "measured" genocide and did not include all the "non-believers", or the declared enemies of Islam. Had they (Khomeini and co) not been restrained by various resources, internal tensions, and perhaps outside threats, they (Khomeini and co) had every intention of implementing "Islamic law" which clearly advocates annihilation of the enemies of Islam (there are plenty of evidence as they publicly spoke about this subject).

Then, there is the issue of the convenience of labeling the victims as militant MKO, leftists and various other extremist parties. In being the devil's advocate, you have conveniently chosen to call the teen protestors who were picked up on the streets and schools for participating in, as little as, an anti IRI demonstration, militant MKO. As a member of the same generation, you should have a good understanding of the evolution of the events that lead many of your former classmates into protests against Mullah's Islamic oppression.

Those who languished in the Islamic dungeons for several years before they were slaughtered as enemies of Islam, were the defenseless high school kids and presumed supporters of these extremist groups. The armed, extremist elements were killed in fire fights, executed within hours of capture (along with many innocents), or ran across the borders. There are plenty of victim profiles that would establish these facts for any tribunal.

These are truly the crimes of Islam against humanity and I do not see the will, anywhere in the world, yet, to confront the issue of genocidal Islamism.

One last note; Mousavi, as the head of the government was directly responsible for the activities of his "Justice" and "Intelligence" ministers, who were members of the "Special commission" and appointed by Knomeini himself.

 

 

 


bahmani

Moussavi is Khamenei's, not the people's (real) choice

by bahmani on

This is what we get for being stubbornly stupid in an age when reason and logic governs every other aspect of our lives.

Why Iranians fell for the obvious play on their "patriotism" by voting in the last election that was NEVER going to be a fair measure of the will of the people, and had EVERY mark of being the toy game Khamenei and the guardian council play with Iran, is beyond me.

I called for NOT VOTING, because the election was an utter sham, and the 2 choices selected by Khamenei and being given were A and M. And I had my ass handed to me by my green friends and family for saying it.

With the election conducted by the Ministry of Interior, instead of an independent election like a real country, Iranians foolishly believed their unelected Supreme Leader, and like the stupid sheep still roaming what's left of the hills of Tehran, went to the polls and "Baaaaa-leh"'d their way to yet more oppression.

The Ministry of Interior runs the Security Service. Which used to be called SAVAK. So in this modern day and age of twitter and FaceBook, Iranians, knowingly put their faith in the election in the hands of what used to be SAVAK.

And they seriously expected a fair election?

At the end of the day, even if the Green Party was utterly victorious and won, and sent A home to his less than attractive and even less than intelligent wife, they were pre-cursed, to have merely endorsed the pre-selection Khamenei had already pre-chosen for them.

In his house, laughing at how easy it is in fact to fool almost all of the people almost all of the time.

Even if he was "elected", in a conciliatory self delusional moment of historic proportions, M would have chosen to kiss up to Khamenei (because he actually said that he would) in hopes of "working together to achieve reform", and that would have given Khamenei about 3 years of laughter, and in the end, since the Constitution expressly and un-amendably bans it, no reforms would be able to be put in place, "...that go against the laws of the qoran..." and everyone would be hilariously right where the Supreme leader likes them to be, square and dead center in his sights.

Dramatizing the A and M and Green vs Red election of 2009 is a mass delusion that chooses to forget how the process really works, and who's really pulling the strings that continue to tangle and hang the Iranian people.

Everyone knows that the 5-card Monty is rigged, yet Iranians foolishly think they have a new way to beat the game.

You can't. That's why I say it's simply better not to play.

To read more bahmani posts visit: http://brucebahmani.blogspot.com/