eroonman

Dear Rosie

It is not that I don't know what you or (many of the so called moderates) want but what you or they think is "pragmatic".

The only pragmatic way to get out of any violent relationship is to completely break away from it instead of expecting that the excessively abusive "spouse" of 30 years will change or accept any less or compromise. Especially that all that has been tried again and again and failed. Often the victim justifies staying in that relationship as "pragmatic". Today Iranians are the victims and many show the symptoms of the abused spouse!

... in order to break away the first step for the abused is to believe that "yes we can" !

If you remember way before the elections (Nov 88) I brought up things that many pragmatists were thinking as impossible  The vents that followed 1.5 later proved them wrong. The first step that I brought up in solutions for Iran was :

Believe in Ourselves.

Unite

Organize

As you said I have been consistent and still think the same...

Thanks for the links, David

I'm surprised that you would think I 'd consider Iran as 'needing religious governments', or that I don't  'disagree with continuation of any form of Islamic republic'. Or that you'd think you have to explain your views on this to me.

In my first two posts I'm speaking from a purely pragmatic view which I thought I made very clear, so I wonder why you didn't 'get' me. Unless somehow I'm not 'getting' you now???

So please explain.

And while you're at it, could you also please explain to me the difference between civil and human rights. Because it comes up here a lot and I really don't quite understand.

Dear Roushan

The site is www.iransecular.org . In there you will also find link to the Irans Secular blog , facebook and twitter as well as a link to the solidarity declaration of Iranians.

Being directed at Iranians , the sites are substantially in Persian but many parts have English translations or articles.

* *

As for your other suggestions, I disagree with continuation of any form of Islamic republic. Iranians although majority shiaand many religious are nor any more or less religious than other human beings . As Dali Lama recently said, majority of humans are secular regardless of religion .

Iranians are no exception and all the basic civil and human rights that they demand are secular. In fact throughout most of Iran's history the governments have been secular.

Especially us Iranians have been secular before secularism! (read Cyrus's first  Human Rights Declaration)

This whole notion of Iran (or even middle east) needing religious governments is nothing but made up BS , initially created to block former soviet union (green belt)where at the time majority of middle east governments were secular (except saudi arabia)

and later the thought was implemeneted and advertised by Islamic extremists which resulted in Islamic Republic in Iran, Taliban, Al Quada, Hamas,Hezbollah, etc etc...

Zionism and Jewish extremism in Israel or the christian extremists in US etc are no different ...

We need to go back to our secular roots while respecting individual religions as we lived before....

In fact as I have stated before, the demands of green movement are and have been secular.

Aaah, but... (edited)

I am not Iranian. Unfortunately, it is a fait accompli that it will have to come after Shahnameh. The deed has already been done.  lol  

______________________-

I am already very angry and I am already more inclined emotionally and philosophically to full revolt. It's just that I am a pragmatist and also as a non-Iranian sometimes I can see the forest for the trees--or the trees for the forest???--better than many Iranians can because I don't have any axes to grind...rusty ones at that..so you people always fight with each other about politics but I hardly ever do with you. And so for me, for example  the very word 'revolt' I find counterproductive for a movement in Iran at this time.

Well give me a short required reading list and I will do my best to get an A.  Fekr mikonam keh daneshjooye khoob baasham.. Vali, Ostaad...pleeeeeeeeease don't give me anything to read in Persian!

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmtW6Y74SU4

(damned if i understand it but anyway, it looks funny... )

You haven't Read Iran's Constitution?!!

This is simply the single most important required read for ALL Iranians. If I had to choose which one you should read, I would recommend this even over the Shahnameh!

Once you read this, you will be very angry, and I think more inclined to full revolt. 

...for, this is truly revolting...

Constitution

Good points.

I haven't read the Constitution. I will google to see if it is available in English translation (it probably is), and I will read it. If you or David can direct me to the best source, then I will go to that one. I also know that David now has a website where a revised Constitution is being worked on collaboratively and I would like that link When David started blogging about this ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO I supported him onsite (although I couldn't contribute...), for the same reason he said below (don't just talk the talk, walk the walk, he always says, DO something..). I feel I am knowledgeable enough to make some suggestions now.

Assuming these are not part of the Constitutions, three demands could be in order of priority:

Elected Supreme Leader, full citizenry for Bahai, amendable Constitution.

Why?

The first is obvious. The second I already explained. You get a Sanei as leader, you will see how fast things move--look at Borujerdi (sp?), the clergy are afraid to speak up, and with damn good reason. In fact true Shiism (not the corrupted IRI version) is based on differing opinions and debate among the clergy with none censured (compare to Catholicism...), and as I understand although the concept of VF is about 500 years old, absolute VF has always been an extreme and minority opinion, it was enforced illegitimately by Khomeini. Many of these clergy are old men and they remember how it happened and it does not delight them. Nor does the treatment of Montazeri, Borujerdi, etc. which essentially desecrates Shiism and castrates them. (And now there is the harrassment of Sanei too, a Grand Ayatollah...)

The third: why I don't suggest phrasing such as equal rights for all minorities or even just for Bahai. Because again, this undermines implicitly or explicitly, the idea of an ISLAMIC Republic, at least for some. Citizenry I believe less so, and choosing one group also less so. It does not imply e.g. that the 'people of the book' must have unlimited rights to their numbers being elected to the Majlis but it begins to broach these issues.

And of course demanding citizenry, rights for the Bahai is direly needed. It was also a chant for the Green protesters. And it begins to broach the subject of equal rights for all, not just religious groups, but women, regionalists, etc.

I put the amendment issue last because of all the three it is potentially the most potentially threatening to the conservatives. In reality if non-election of the Supreme Leader and denial of Bahai citizenry are in the Constitution, amending it is implicit. So it needn't be articulated. (At first). Which is something to consider.

David, please respond to my (implicit) questions about the Constitution. 

----------------

A couple of other points in your post, Eroonman, I will address later.

One step at a time

Separation of church and state is worth two steps. Let's take it from there.

reply to roushan

Great point. I think I can agree. My assumption about the militia is that since they too are made up of mostly the same youth, at a relatively short point in the initial shooting they will soon realize the pointlessness of killing a fellow Iranian, and stop. The rev guard controlling the economy of Iran don't often get their hands dirty anymore, so this effect would take away their power.

Second, I agree that a more pragmatic approach would be to work within the system, ala your elected SL. However after this last election, the street beatings and Neda, I think things have gone far beyond that, and nothing short of the 3 principles of the Constitution being reinstated ought to be considered. The next adjustment in Iran s so close, you can almost smell it coming. It could happen as early as the very next big protest march event.

Things tend to happen that fast when power, fearing the retribution of the mob, abdicates and evacuates suddenly. This is after all exactly how the Shah left.

Refreshing

It is refreshing to see some plans being offered instead of the common whinings and arguments.

What we lack has been organization and planning. Different people may have different views but what is more important that the plans and means of achieving goals are discussed instead of only complaining about the current situation in Iran.

Thank You

Yes and no.

Yes to all points regarding strategy, organization and tactics. No to your initial demands. Look what you wrote:

Yes, they will try and beat up and kill the first layer of a crowd to scare the whole group. But they cannot physically shoot and kill everyone. .

First of all many people believe that non-violence means violence avoided by them committing it as well as being perpetrated on them,and do not advocate the idea of putting anyone in harm's way. Second of all the youth of Iran are not willing to die for a 'Revoluton'. Why? Because they saw how their parents f-d up royally (no pun intended). 

As you know the Sepah/Basij comprise perhaps one/sixth of the population and control about 60% of the wealth. They are the internal 'army' of the Leader. They do not exist without an ISLAMIC Republic of Iran. Despite internal fissures and increasing reluctance on the part of the rank and file, many of them will never let you 'sit in' for a demand to essentially dissolve them without shooting to kill first. (You said it first, not me). Even if only one of them and one victim--why? And anyway, do you really think there won't be a stampede once there is gunfire?

Protesting for civil rights or to end the war in Vietnam is not the same as protesting to topple an entire government, especially one that is now run by an army supported by organized street thugs (many of whom may religious fanatics willing to die for 'Islam'. 

The first demand should be for an elected Supreme Leader. This will not alienate the conservative and hardline voters. Or even many of the politicians. This will not alienate the clergy who are tired of being a rubber stamp anyway, why should most of them care whether the body in charge doesn't get to 'choose' the Leader, the body's oversight over the Leader will continue to exist (for time being) and since the Leader is elected, their oversight will have more clout. This is a demand very close to the original demand of 'Where is my vote?' and it is also one that was bandied about by some of the Green leadership, as I recall. It is familiar. It resonates. The people will go for it because it is attainable.  

Please stop seeing secular democracy's face on the moon. See it on earth, step by step, is my advice. An elected leader should be the first demand. With time and effort and organization and finer honing of strategies, over time the rest will fall into place.

My two cents.

I know, I know, you don't want to hear it.

Rosie

p.s. Finally, even if having it your way, you did not focus on general strike.

Clear goals and slogans, yes!

Very important.

I know this sounds funny, but considering that it was Grey power in Gaza (//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/grey-p...), I would suggest that millions of old grannies do the sit-ins. 

Thanks for a great blog - well-written and clearly outlined - and lots to chew on.  A pleasure to read.

Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution - Walter Benjamin