Islamists, War and Treason

Kaveh V
by Kaveh V

The Islamist strategy in confronting US (or any other force) is called: "Bazdarandegi", or deterrence, as they call it themselves. Deterrence against an enemy, from their point of view, is the ability to withstand punishment from them, similar to their war with Saddam in 1980's. They believe, for example, by inflicting 50000 casualties on a western invading force will be a victory for them. The body count will be too high for any western nation to tolerate, which in turn, will diminish support for the war, or expedite a 'pull-out', from western side. In the process, they allow themselves casualties in the millions, again, just as they did with Saddam.

What they totally ignore is their responsibility toward their nation and population, to safeguard their security from such devastation. This is highest form of treason by any ruling establishment; to offer the blood of their young and the welfare of the population for ideological satisfaction of the ruling gang. To forsake the blood of millions and pretend these millions are theirs to slaughter, or are some type of sacrificial offer, is treason and crime of the highest order.


Recently by Kaveh VCommentsDate
History of murder...
Dec 10, 2007
more from Kaveh V

Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

I thought those were your opinions. Thank you for cleaing the misunderstanding. It is difficult to distinguish because you have defended the IRI many times. Knowing how sensitive we Iranians are with these issues, please make sure you clarify when it is not your opinion in situations like this.

Anyway, I am glad you were quoting the IRI and not yourself.


Re: Jamshid

by dariushabadi on

Jamshid-jaan. Please re-read my post. You completely completely misunderstood what I was saying.


I was not pointing my views, I was quoting the IRI and their views. I began the post by saying that internationally IRI is acting like Muawiya, and domestically like Yazid. Do either of those characters seem positive to you? Do you even read what I write?


I ask you to re-read what I wrote. When I said "IRI claims it has made victory against all odds", I was quoting the IRI, not expressing my own views. I was speaking of their view of being successful, not having a Husayni view to which one views military defeat as victory. The IRI views success as victory, not defeat. It is was a response to Kaveh's post claiming that IRI was Husayni, while I claim it is far from being Husayni.


And yes, I was speaking of certain mullahs when I said "Do not be fooled by those who speak of religion, and yet are only wearing the cloak of religion while their hearts are still submitted to the riches of the world."

Who did you think i was talking about? You are ridiculous for even writing that response, because it was not a response to what i wrote.


Re: Darisuhabadi

by jamshid on

It is becoming more aparant that you are so attached to your ideology that it has renedered you blind. You cannot see. You live in the hole that your ideology has digged for you.

You claim that IRI is being successful despite of the odds against it. Why should the odds be against it in the first place? Why can't the IRI have good relationship with all of the world including the US and Israel in order to benefit its own people?

You talk about "despite the odds against the IRI" as though it is something to be proud of. No, it is something to be ashamed of. Iranians are ashamed of the IRI turning the odds against Iran. This includes Azaris, Kurds, Balooch and Farsis too.

Additionally, Iran could have been FAR FAR more successful, had it not been for IRI's bad policies.

You boast about humiliating Israel with hezobollah. There is nothing to boast in there either. However, there would be something to boast if IRI would establish good relations with Israel, so that the Iranian people could go on with their lives, instead of wasting its resources on confronting Israel.

Then you boast about "all the shahids" in the iraq war. Wrong again. As much as we can be proud of the first year of the war, ever since 1982, the war turned into one of the most shameful episodes in Iran history where more than one million people died FOR NOTHING. However, you could boast had khomeini accepted the peace in 1982, saving millions of IRANIAN lives from death, limb dismemberments and war-homelessness.

You complained about the opposition saying, your quote: "oh, we are oppressed, we need more rights, the government is unjust, we have so much money but we want more because we think the government is stealing from us, etc." Isn't every thing in your quote legitimate complains? Also, doesn't that remind of you of the Shah's opposition too (read: Islamists)? Or are you entitled to complain about something, but others aren't? Isn't this called hypocrisy?

You then say: "Do not be fooled by those who speak of religion, and yet are only wearing the cloak of religion while their hearts are still submitted to the riches of this world..." Doesn't that sound more like IRI mullahs?

I can't believe the degree of your disregard towards your fellow countrymen and the their lives, in favor of your ideology. I wish there was a way to awaken you, but my experience tells me it is easier to go lift a mountain.


Those in the cloak of religion

by dariushabadi on


If you want to bring actual religious analogy, then your analogy is completely incorrect.

I would rather say that internationally Iran thinks it is Muawiya, and domestically it is acting like Yazid.

Iran doesn't have the martyr complex (or victim complex). It is actually the opposition that have that complex ("oh, we are oppressed, we need more rights, the government is unjust, we have so much money but we want more because we think the government is stealing from us, etc."). The diaspora acts like Abu Sufyan, thinking that the "Muslims" took away their livelyhood and they want it back any way they can.

However, Iran projects itself as "we are standing up to the world" and "look at how successful we are despite all the odds against us." Constantly you hear government officials speaking of "our nations great accomplishments" and "look at the power we have accomplished in the region" and "look how our two greatest enemies were destroyed (Taliban and Saddam) and we didn't even fire a single bullet."

In regards to Israel, they boast how "these own hands" created Hezbollah, and they talk with great pride (and sometimes arrogance) how humiliated the Israelis were during last summer's war.

If you listen to Dr. Abbasi (the advisor to Ayatullah Khamenei as well as Ahmadinejad), he doesn't talk about 2,500 years of Iranian history (as the Shah did), he talks about 5,000 years of Iranian civilization. I can show you the clips if you want, it seems this regime is more nationalistic than the past.

Even during the Iran-Iraq war, they talked about the millions of shaheed, who stood up against the infidel Saddam, and made such great progress and talk about all the accomplishments.

To claim they have the Husayn complex, would be if they kept getting defeated and yet claimed victory. They speak of victories and celebrate them, not speak of defeat and celebrate it.

They talk about 10 million baseej that can stand up to the US, not 72 individuals that can beat 200,000 american soldiers.

They speak of numbers, as Muawiya and Yazid did, not of dedicated pious individuals that were martyred for their beliefs.

They speak of how America won't dare touch Iran, because it will be ruined if it touches the country; they don't speak of Iran sacrificing itself for Truth even if it means being martyred in the process.

One may speak of being Husayni, just as the people who fought Imam Ali (A) claimed they were great COMPANIONS of the Prophet Muhammad (S).

Jesus had 12 companions only, and all 12 betrayed him on the night. Yet all 12 took up his religion and injected what they wished into it for their own benefit.

Do not be fooled by those who speak of religion, and yet are only wearing the cloak of religion while their hearts are still submitted to the riches of this world.

Neither the government nor the opposition is righteous and humble. To be a true Husayni, you are content with what you have in this world. Neither can claim so.

So it is an unfortunate analogy that you claim IRI claims it is Husayni, or even pretends to be victimized, because it neither claims it anymore, nor acts it.

On the contrary, they act aggressive and proud. They talk about nationalism much more than the Shah.

(Disclaimer: I don't mean everyone in the government, or everyone in the opposition. Obviously their are good and bad everywhere)

Kaveh V

Reply (2)

by Kaveh V on

The victim mentality of the Islamic Republic is directly related to its core ideology; Shia Islam. Being a "victim", or being "victimized" is Shia Islam’s Modus Operandi. Shia clergy always seeks to create conflicts and seek "victims" in the society, in order to draw public’s attention and create sympathy for the "victim". This is based on Imam Hossein complex which strives to face-off a bigger, more competent, force with a much bigger punch. This process produces plenty of martyrs and miserable conditions in which the clergy can point out the "big" evil and draw parallels to Imam Hossein’s fate. This was the exact approach of the mollah’s in rallying support for war with Saddam. The premise was not defense, but to join Imam Hoessein in death. Sadly, Saddam’s henchmen obliged.

There were some superficial economic comparisons made with neighboring countries of Iran. Suffice to say that neither Saudi Arabia, nor Egypt shared Shah’s vision for industrialization. The quest for modernization was unique to Iran during Pahlavis. This is an entire different discussion by itself, and the roots for this quest goes beyond Pahlavis, but it gathered momentum during their dynasty. The massive infrastructure and industrial complex buildings of Shah’s period had enough momentum to continue during IRI, albeit on smaller scale, and in a much less hospitable environment for investment and growth.

Just as an example, the Arya Sasol petrochemical complex (// is built with the help of a South African consortium that owns 50% of the project. This would have been unheard of during Shah’s time. Iran used to retain, almost, all of the ownership of most projects negotiated under the Shah. This is the direct result of the weak negotiating power of a pariah regime that has no leverage and is under multiple economic sanctions.

BTW, economically Turkey is at a more advanced stage than Iran. This means that the economic growth rate of Iran, still recovering from the war with Iraq, will be higher than the more developed countries.


Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

I stand by the "victim" policy of the IRI. It is what allows the IRI to persecute its citizens with impunity. Your argument is too short to change any logical mind out there. 

I am aware of IRI's offers to the USA after the 9/11 incident thourgh negociations taken place in Switzerland. I am also aware that the US summarily rejected those offers. That is because the Bush admin had already made up its mind about Iran. I fault the US for this.

But what you did not say is that all those offers would remain under the tables. Otherwords, the IRI would never come and tell its people that yes we had made peace with such terms with the US. The IRI would continue bashing the US on the surface to continue with the "victim" policy.

I agree with your analogy of someone coming into my house and tearing it up and then cry peace once I get the upper hand. However, your analogy is partially wrong.

For instance, if you are walking down in a gang infested street with your sister, and a few bullies approach you and ask you for some of your money, or else pay the consequences, you would have two choices:

1. Give them some money, which amounts to blackmail, walk out a little poorer and with your sister safe.

2. Confront them, say "nafas kesh" and at the end loose ALL your money and have your sister raped.

Realistically, if I was an athelete dealing with a couple of puny jerks, I would choose #2. But if am just an average joe and dealing with a dozen of 300 pounders NFL type of people, I would choose #1.

The IRI is dealing with 300 pounders and it is choosing #1. The sister (the Iranian people) are paying the price.

Our similarity is in the fact that we both want and yearn for "putting the bully" in his place. Maybe give him a bit of the taste of his own medicine too. Nothing would make me happier.

Our difference is that I say it is not worthed. But you say that it is. The reason? Our ideology differs. You probably beleive in the after life where all the miseries endured in this world will be made up. I believe that this life right here IS it. You have to live your life to its fullest right here while you are still alive. People with your ideology are willing to sacrifice almost everything, however, people with my idoelogy won't.

Regarding the war, Saddam did offer reparation, but khomeini did not accept. Saddam, as much as I hate him, was not planning to rebuild his army and attack again. He learnt that the US and the Soviets will NEVER allow him or khomeini to win the war. So he set his eyes on smaller pray such as defenseless kuwait.

Also, a good patriot would not think of revenge against an agressor at the cost of one million death, many millions with bodily injuries and many millions homelessed. Unless...

Unless he believes in an after life where all those millions will be rewarded handsomely. Sorry, but that does not cut it for me.

P.S. I am willing to bet that if khomeini had accepted the peace offer in 1982 and today I would criticize him for doing so, and for not continuing the war and avenging Saddam's crime, then you would be defending his acceptance of the peace offer and use MY arguments to justify it.

It seems to me that you will defend khomeini no matter what. As long as you are attached to your ideology, you will be in darkness.


Re: Jamshid

by dariushabadi on


I would disagree with your analysis that Iran has a "victim" policy (or also known as the martyr complex).

This has been negated even by the Western press as early as 2005 (watch Frontline's special on PBS called "Showdown with Iran")
(see chapter 2)

After the tragic Sept 11 attacks, Iran was not only the first to send condolenses to America, during that week's Friday Prayers (to which Ayatullah Khamenei himself gave the speech), their was a removal of the traditional "down with America" slogan.

Iran immediately, almost overnight changed its foreign policy (which was a coordination by both reformists as well as conservatives in government), to help the US out in its time of need. You know yourself that Iran helped the US in Afghanistan by both allowing US planes to land in Iranian land in cases of emergencies, as well as forced their allies the Northern Alliance to make a deal with the US.

On the eve of the Iraq invasion, a letter was sent with the direct blessing of Ayatullah Khamenei, directly to President Bush, calling for a re-establishment of relations, to which Iran would disarm Hezbollah, help the US in Iraq, as well as stop its persuit of even ENRICHING URANIUM.

Do you claim that Khatami's era was filled with aggresive foreign policy as well? This all happened during the Khatami era, with the direct blessing of Ayatullah Khamenei.

What did Iran get in return for a complete 180 on its foreign policy? According to PBS, it got a "slap in the face".  It was quickly put into the Axis of Evil (which you as an Iranian should have been the first to condemn, no matter what the government in Iran was like).

Now, despite all this change of tone, and with the aggressive US response, what did you expect Iran to do? Cower and throw itself on the ground in a dead position so the bear wouldn't attack? We have a hadith that says "in the face of someone with arrogance, show greater arrogance" for them to come back to Earth. Iran, in face of such threats, and American drunkardness, elected Ahmadinejad, to which what followed was an extremely strong foreign policy which led America to do exactly back down with its threats.

When Iran was nice, the US government made threats and labelled Iran as a threat. When Iran bullied up and created an aggressive foreign policy tone, the US backed down and called for meetings and negotiations (when Iran started getting involved directly in Iraq, that is when the US started asking Iran to the table).

It is because we live in an era where the lone super power in the world only understands the langauge of power. If Iran shows itself as weak, it will be kicked around.

So I stand behind the current foreign policy, because not only has it protected Iran, it has driven up the price of oil to actual market prices, which has substantially helped Iran's growth (of course I'll agree with you that they are mismanaging the economy, my call is for everyone to unite and push for Iran to fix the economy rather than demonize them for things they are doing right).

Now, regarding the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam offered "peace", but Iran said (to which it was her right) to demand reperations for the onslaught, as well as take back the 200,000 refugees that Iraq had kicked out of the country. Saddam refused and continued with the war. You can't just yell "peace" when you need to rebuild your army, and refuse to accept just peace terms.

It is like me going into your house, tearing up your furniture, raping your wife, killing your son, slapping you across the face....then you bring out your gun...and i jump out of your house and yell "PEACE!!!!". Khandeh nadareh agha, what would you do? You wouldn't ask that I at least be tried in court, and that you at least get reperations for what I damaged?

Or will you let me go and be like "nice to meet you". You tell me. You know very well that even IF iran was able to accept that peace treaty (which was just a call for peace, nothing else), it would only mean that Saddam just wanted to rebuild and attack again. They didn't stop laying claims to Iran's territory. They just wanted a cease fire so they could rebuild (because at that point Iraq was now losing)


"When it is said to them 'Make not mischief on the earth,' They say: 'Why, we only want to make peace!' "
-Quran 2:11


Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

Dariush, you claim that the "victim" (Iran) has the right to defend its rights against the "bully" (West).

You are right and wrong. You are right in principle. But you are wrong in practice. In practice, the IRI strives on Iran being a "vicitim". The IRI, in purpose, is "making" a victim out of Iran by continuously choosing poor foreign policies.

This "victim" policy, allows the IRI to further its goal of dominance and control over its citizens. As long as there is a manufactured "foreign" threat, the IRI can continue its persecution of its citizens with impunity.

Take the nuclear technology issue. The IRI have made Iran a "victim" and the US a "bully". Note that it is the IRI that has MADE Iran a victim, not the USA. To prove this, ask yourself why the US and Europe were even competing to sell Iran the most modern nuclear technology during the Shah's reign? Why wasn't Iran a "victim" back then? And don't give me any of the "he was the US's puppets" crap.

You may have unknowingly fallen for this "victim" and "agressor" game that the IRI is playing.

The IRI played the same game in 1982, after rejecting Saddam's peace offer. They called the war "the Saddam/US imposed war", but after 1982, it was a "khomeini imposed war".

The net result of accepting to end the war in 1982 and in 1988 was the same, except that in 1988, we had 1 million death, many more maimed, and even more homelessed. Our oil infrastructure was damaged in the first year of war, but in the last 7 years of the war, it was UTTERLY destroyed. Don't forget all the 80 billion dollars that was spent for military purchases.

But the IRI has no values for human lives Iran. The only thing of value for the IRI is its ideology.

Iran can coexist with US and with Israel, and it can focus on its progress instead of confronting them. Mark my words, even if the IRI stays in power, eventually, they will make peace with the US. When that happens and when someone criticises the IRI for their new "soft" foreign policy, YOU will be the first to jump in and defend that new policy.

Unfortunately, just as in the war against Saddam, such peace will happen only after significant damage have been caused against the people of Iran.



Imperialist Brainwashing

by dariushabadi on

It seems you are constantly being brainwashed at the CIA about how great American Imperialism is. Western countries are getting richer, and poorer countries are becoming more and more reliant on their Western masters. Colonialism might be over, but they've found ways to control countries without directly occupying them anymore (except for stupid Bush that went and actually started occupying countries).


World Bank is making the majority of the countries either bancrupt or in eternal debt. Not the good debt the US has, but the kind that causes their resources to be defaulted into wolves hands.


You watch as America's two biggest allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, commit any injustices they want, their people hungry (even though Saudi has more oil than Iran, it is suffering from poverty amongst its locals), and claim that somehow a relationship with the US causes prosperty and industrialization. You must be joking.


Iran's growth rate matches that of Turkey right now, even though Iran is under heavy sanctions and international pressure, while Turkey is not. I am talking about growth both in the oil and non-oil sectors. Saudi Arabia has twice the oil as Iran, yet Iran has 3 times the GDP as Saudi Arabia. Saudia Arabia is a BEST friend of America, how do you explain that?


You need to get a reality check, and get out of your brainwashing sessions with the CIA. America doesn't do anything for its client states except exploit them to its maximum capacity (thats what capitalism is, survival of the fittest). Your analogy with the cow does not apply (because America doesn't allow you to milk it). On the other hand, it is the US that wants to milk Iran, yet Iran is attacking it with its hoves.


A more appropriate analogy would be to say that Iran the sheep should try making friends with US the wolf. Because as friends the sheep might be able to fool the wolf. But you forget that a wolf is a wolf, and at the end it will eat the sheep.


So wake up. Smell the hookah.

Kaveh V


by Kaveh V on

IRI has a history of sacrificing their people in a dead-end conflict. The war with Saddam was a clear case in which they threw the children of millions of Iranians into the fire when there was every indication, and promises from influential capitals, that Iran will not be able to occupy Iraq, nor topple Saddam. This was plain criminal behavior. Any military in the world will prosecute commanders that endanger their troops so recklessly, much less wilfully sacrifice them without in numerous operations without clear, or sustainable objectives.

So far as the conflict with US, the responsibility sits squarely on IRI shoulders that has been promoting anti-Americanism with every breath since inception. Don't start whining about 1953 coup and the Shah, US has done a lot worse to other countries and these countries don't complain like Iranians do, and are happy prosperous partners of US today. America (US) is the biggest economic partner of just about every country in the world. Most countries (world) have prospered a great deal by maintaining good relations with US and they continue to prosper economically and otherwise. As the saying goes, somthing like: you can milk the cow and prosper, or you can grab it by the horn and suffer the consequences.

This little bit about being independent and proud to stand up to US is most hypocritical; at what cost ? Who is paying for it ? The poor Iranians are the ones being offered as sacrifice for standing up to US. Has anyone asked them if they are willing to die so Islamists can stay in power ? or live in miserable conditions because the coward Islamist leaders continuously bring economic sanctions to them.



Iran is under occupation

by Iva (not verified) on

What we witness today in Iran, in my opinion, is no difference of Arab occupation that tool place 1400 years ago. Iranians are subjected to Foreign invaders’ religion (in this case it’s Islamic fascist) and rules. Any divergence from these barbaric Islamic rules means death. Iranians natural resources are being sent to Arab countries as today’s occupiers’ forefathers did in form of taxing people and sending to their Khalife. Iranians have no say in their future, and they are led to death in order to bring back that invisible Jen in the well.

According to even modeh-parast mullas, fighting against injustice and foreign invasion is acceptable and encouraged. So be it, hands of these blood-thirsty Islamic fascist must be cut off from Iran.


Re: Rashidian

by Curious (not verified) on

Yes, but you didn't answer my question: what would you do if your country is attacked by bullies, like what they did to Iraq? Let's not mix the issues. As I said, if your concern is democracy in Iran, the kind of arguments that you and people like put forward would turn your supporters off.

BTW, I'm not a supporter of IRI. Sorry!


well said

by MRX (not verified) on

it is the highest form of treason, but many are too blind to see it. Don't expect reason, logic, mantegh from Islamo facists. these people mentality belongs to 9th century. chaanging every discussion to Bush and MKO shows their total ignorance and their inability to even understand a basic premis of this
short topic.



by J.Rashidian (not verified) on

You wishfully interpreted my comment-- Rejecting the IRI does not mean to support a foreign attack on Iran. Your conclusion is the common propaganda weapon of IRI's followers to silence any voice on this site.

Apart from some few thousands fantics, Iranians have no sympthy for the MOK. Nor have most Iranians invested hope on the Bush administration or any pro-US opposition.

Our problems with the IRI are the problem of democracy, human rights, and political Islam, these problems are the main problems of an increasing majority of Iranians.


To Kaveh and Rashidian

by Curious (not verified) on

I wonder what you will do if your country is attacked by a bully. I'm sure your answer would be similar to Masoud Rajavi's: treason. I'm afraid that your lousy arguments will create a lot of sympathy for the IRI.



by dariushabadi on

It is interesting that Kaveh lives in a country (the USA) which has deployed 300,000 of its poorest people as sacrifices for its imperial goals (control of resources, geopolitical balance, etc.), and yet it blames a country (Iran) that has not had an aggressive war for 200 years.


Kaveh-jan, are you saying that if the US attacks Iran, then the people of Iran should not sacrifice themselves to defend their land, property and religion? When Iran claims it has 10 million forces ready to "defend" Iran, you find that somehow aggressive and irresponsible?


While Bush, after hearing that Iran is not producing the nuclear weapon, continues to say war is NOT off the table, and Israel continuing to threaten Iran with military action, you are telling the VICTIM that she cannot defend herself? You are saying that the people of Iran should stand back and watch their country burn in the flames of aggressive imperial fire, because defending their country is somehow "highest form of treason"?


Shookhee meekonee? (Are you joking)? You have committed the highest form of treason by standing with the aggressor. You claim to be nationalistic, yet you claim the nation cannot have soldiers that are willing to defend themselves, because somehow that is "sacrifical offer" and mass "slaughter".


Iran has not threatened to pre-emtively attack US forces. On the contrary, it is the US and Israel that have threatened to attack Iran pre-emptively, and Iran has only POINTED out that it can DEFEND itself by attacking back. In a world we live in, where the West has created a world order based on force, it only understands the language of force. Iran cannot cower to threats, it must defend itself.


You must be CIA, because you are telling Iranians they cannot defend themselves if they are attacked.


The point

by J. Rashidian (not verified) on

When citizens of a nation can not go to the polls with the full political consciousness and freedom to elect their own top authorities and their own lawmakers, then we live in a totalitarian country, where the whole institutions serve to maintain the ongoing dictatorial regime. The point is that the IRI is not only one of these toalitarian regimes, but also a unique phenomenon; not only it does not care about lives of its citizens, but even consideres their blood “halal” or a blessing for the sake of God's state.


speack english

by Anonymous5 (not verified) on

what you said ? any way?I am ESL?