Revolution is Not a Solution


Revolution is Not a Solution
by No Fear

A new revolution ( like the type that the secular greens were after , last year ) was not the correct solution for Iran and for the democratic movement of Iranians.

1-  Any revolution is required to display a new round of violence against the previous ruling class. This could have been a disaster for Iran since there is more hatred among different political or social groups for one another now,  than what we saw in 1979.

2- In any revolution, there are always " opportunists " who will ride the wave of revolution and will take control of strategic positions. We also witnessed this during the early years of IRI revolution when many of these opportunits took over paramilitary courts and made terrible mistakes.

3- During revolutions, "separatists" movements tend to increase their efforts to take advantage of the lack of a central government which can crush their movements. This issue is worst than the Shah era due to a semi independent Kurdistan and other ethnic groups being supported by US financially and military.

4- Every revolution creates a " Historical gap " between the past and the present. This means that all the valuable and costly experiences which we gained living under an oligarchic class could be lost. We might have to repeat this vicious circle and pay the same price again. 

5- In order for a revolution to succeed, all political and social groups need to be united, otherwise the revolution will encounter strong resistance from groups oppose to it. In my opinion, the "muslim majority" of Iranians who control the military and some other power centers in Iran, did not agree with this solution.

Our democratic rights must be gained through peaceful and respectful activism, specially when we are nearing the collapse of the religious elitists ruling class with new players who are emerging from within the old system. If you really had an open mind without any prejudice, you could have witnessed the emergence of the new system with its messages for Iranians. Although these messages are not enough to satisfy our entire democratic demands, it does point to a very different future.

In my opinion, in last year's election , we witnessed the clash between IR version 1.0 with IR version 2.0. While IR version 1.0 is a ideological system which represents the powerful ruling class and their families, IR version 2.0 is less ideological and is more nationalistic.


more from No Fear

yes brother magas

by fooladi on

i bite too, so be careful :)

so how about your sister "no fear"? i want her :)

marhoum Kharmagas

yes Fooladi!

by marhoum Kharmagas on

Yes, it is clear you don't read. You just bark.


OOOO wow

by Iraniandudee3 on

Now that you have wrote this article the revolutionaries have stopped
in their tracks through out the world, Here's a cookie for your effort.


my brother magas is my enemy!!!

by fooladi on

well, I am shaking in my boots :)

understand what? you really think I even bother reading your BS? you islamist retard! 

Now how about your sister "no fear", where has she ran away to?? :)

marhoum Kharmagas

No Fooladi

by marhoum Kharmagas on

You did not understand. BTW, those adjectives you used are applicable to yourself (For JJ's respect I don't rewrite them), I am not your brother.


so brother kharmagas....

by fooladi on

You say savak was paying you better, right? :)

Now same question to the other mozdoor islamist rat "no fear"....

marhoum Kharmagas


by marhoum Kharmagas on

When SAVAK was there I wasn't emplyable because my generation made a mistake and toppled Shah when he had just started to stand up to your masters, the AIPAC:


BTW, long time ago I had much disrespect for SAVAKis, people such as yourself have proven to me that there are those who are much worse than SAVAKis. At lease SAVAKis were serving Shah not Israel.




Evolution is what our "Revolutionaries" need

by Khar on

Evolution of the Iranian mass culture & the social, political norms is the solution. Everything is subject to change including the change itself!


Kharmagas you have not told us yet....

by fooladi on

Who paid you more? Savak or khalifa khamenei and his vazir ahmaghinezhad?

marhoum Kharmagas

choosing between different mafias

by marhoum Kharmagas on

Revolution at this juncture does not make any sense, at best the end result will be replacing one mafia with another. Replacing Sepah's mafia with Rafsanjan's. From that perspective you are correct. But I doubt you can convince many who are actually living in Iran, you and I living outside the country can't blame Iranians if they gather around a spark and turn it into a fire.


You're very welcome

by Fair on

and thank you also.  see you after break:)



by Fair on

is one who suppresses the rights of citizens.  Like AN and all other members of the ruling government do.  It is indeed worse when one who holds a lifetime position like you described is a dictator.  Like Rafsanjani.

So the worst dictator of all is Khamenei, who is a lifetime dictator.

Now, the green movement is much bigger than Rafsanjani, it is a deep rooted movement that is opposed to dictatorial rule by the Islamic republic.  So Rafsanjani is the godfather of nothing but his own pocket, and yes, he being the thief and criminal he is, will sell out anybody to maximize his own benefit.  He has sold out the Iranian people before and will do it again in a heartbeat.  

But maybe you might notice something-  I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT RAFSANJANI.

Now, your point about Mousavi accepting the results of the GC certification is absolutely right.  This is the paradox that any loyal opposition and reformist faces.  That they must accept UP FRONT a system which dictates to them undemocratically and arbitrarily.  But you know what?

This just proves my point further beyond any doubt, that this regime is not reformable.

Look, those who want change within the system will have to accept UP FRONT the right of the system to lie and cheat and steal and not even apologize for it.  They have to be loyal to an inherently corrupt system.

Of course, that won't stop some people like Mousavi trying and hoping that there will be some limits that even the system will observe.  Like not lying in broad daylight and declaring war on its own people.  But the system (that they swore loyalty) reserves the right to even ignore those limits.  And that is just tough luck, isn't it.

Furthermore, "Iran for all Iranians" predates Ahmadinejad by years, I remember the IIPF using it already years befor AN.  Of course, AN and others like him have proven to be frauds, and don't mind stealing others' slogans.

And even if he did use that slogan, he should practice what he preaches.  Not call the people of Iran "dirt and dust".


So, after all this back and forth with me, have you been able to demonstrate to anybody watching, that there was a clear, transparent, independently verified for everyone to see counting of the ballots by the GC or anyone else?


Therefore you have an illegitimate election, illegitimate president, and illegitimate system with the blood of many Iranians on their hands.

"Iran for ALL Iranians"?  Hmmm.  I guess not.

No Fear

taking a break now

by No Fear on

Thank you Fair and the rest for this very interesting debate. Thank you for the civil discussion.

No Fear


by No Fear on

Without any sarcasm, and with my deepest sincere feeling, i am ready to willingly accept your definitions of "whatever it was" that happened after the election to be the terminology that we shall use to continue this discussion.

Thank you my dear for clarifying it to a mortal soul like me. ;)

No Fear


by No Fear on

Good to see you hear. I hope to see your views actively expressed here. It seems we have a civil discussion going on. Hopefully  the trolls who usually follow you will stay at bay.



by Rosie. on

I can't figure out exactly where we got to the bazaaris but I believe they are irrelevant to the real issues at hand.

They are merchant whores, they couldn't care less who's in power or how the power is implemented as long as they don't have to take inventory or pay taxes. They are anti-working class, anti-modern, and pro-their stomachs, and the only place as far as I know where they are significant to the real political issues at hand is in Kurdistan where they strike for the Kurds and not their pockets.

In point of fact it is probably incorrect to call the closing of a lot of stores a strike in the true sense of the word. It gives it a kind of pinache, but it is hard to imagine Bloomingdales on strike.

In fact this Bazaars' striking so-called (for I believe the second time since AN came into office) is one of the proofs of the pudding that AN is more 'progressive' in certain ways than those before him, as No Fear has always maintained (he who however cannot distinguish between singular and plural, alas).

No Fear


by No Fear on

Who do you think fits the description of dictator?  Those who hold permanent positions like the head of the expidiency council ( Rafsanjani ) who can overwrite the parliament ( People ) decisions and can overwrite Guardian Council decision OR an elected president with a temporary position ( Ahmadinejad )?

Rafsanjani is the god father of your beloved green movement. Both Mousavi and Karoubi election advisors were members of the Kargoozaran e Sazandegi. Rafsanjani's political party. Who is the composer here? Did Rafsanjani ever come out and ask people to calm down during the aftermath of the election? NO.

And in regards to the election of last year, the defeated candidates must prove there was a fraud to begin with. Just saying they lost the race in their home town is not enough to point to a fraudulent result.

But don't dismiss the Guardian Council arguement so easily.

If the defeated candidates accepted the guardian council to qualify them for the race ( While disqualifying hundreds of others ), they should also accept the same council decision that saw them fit for the race, when it comes to verifying the results. The Guardian council acted like a referee in football. You can't enter the playing field if you don't agree with the referee. Do you see my point?

By the way:  Iran for All Iranians  was Ahmadinejad's campaign motto.




Please specify

by Fair on

which powerhouses when you say:


If you look at the major power centres in IR, except for the
administration which is under Ahmadinejad's control, the rest of the
power houses are under the control of the Reformists and their master,
Hashemi Rafsanjani. 

The guardian council?  The assembly of experts?  the IRGC?  The intelligence and security apparatus? These are the powerhouses in Iran, and they are hardly controlled by the reformists.  The reformists are not even safe in their own homes and have been summarily arrested and paraded on tv and imprisoned without trial.  Even Rafsanjani is not allowed to speak at Friday prayers. 

You have a lot of explaining to do...



No, No Fear

by Rosie. on

Because once again, you are ignoring (overlooking, deflecting from, not addressing, whatever you want to call it...) my main point.

Which is that whatever it was (or was/is, depending on whether one believes the Green phenomenon is over...), it was certainly not ONLY a 'series of riots', much less A riot.

And that it is disingenuous to contend that it was, and that such disingenuousness in language IN GENERAL will always lead these discussions to nowhere fast. And that we could begin to prevent that by discarding this notion of 'singular', as in one specific, circumscribed event, ONE riot, taking place uninterruptedly over a short period of say maximum one day in one place. 

And you know perfectly well that's what 'a riot' means.

You don't even seem to accept this basic point. Even IF, as I said before, every single protester attacked a basij station--even if, in fact, every one of them fired an Uzi, it would still not have been 'A riot'.

So first you were sarcastic, you put these words in my mouth about how you think I would define it. And then you gave it this lame, dismissive (non) definition. But once again (this is getting to be a pattern...) you still haven't addressed my core point:

So. Before we go on to my next point, we should stay on this one. Otherwise you are simply not describing a glaringly obvious reality in any accurate way. And that is what needs to happen on both 'sides'.

Starting with you.


So, can we agree that it was AT VERY LEAST a protracted series of large riotS?

Because honestly, No Fear, if we can't I may as well go back to the hummingbird thread, at least it's cute.



by Fair on

That is simple- the Bazaaris have some power over the government.  The people don't.

So the Baazaris don't get terrorized, the people do.

The question you should be asking is:

"Why was there terror, rape, murder, execution, assasination, and imprisonment without trial used against the people of Iran by the Islamic republic's security apparatus?"

I am waiting for your answer.  It should be an "interesting read" I hope...

As far as No Fear, I have answered him already.  To support a murderer (AN) to offset the power of a thief (Rafsanjani) doesn't seem a very reasonable solution.

The people of Iran have waited long enough.  We want freedom, we have spoken, and you need to respect that. Not rape us and kill us, because we are not your definition of the "majority".




No Fear

by Fair on

Interesting take on AN and theory that he is not an "insider".

I will get to your main idea (why not support the polarizing element vs do nothing) in a moment.

But first I will say- you have failed to demonstrate that an independent neutral body has verified the election results.  Normally, all the candidates would have full rights to observe the ballot boxes.  Only then can you claim that the other side is lacking proof that the results are incorrect.  The Mousavis and Karroubis DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE BALLOT BOXES and have to take the word of the leader as final (or as he puts it, "divine").

Like I said, until you show an open, transparent, and independently verified accounting of the votes, you have an election whose results are not legitimate.

This was NOT the case with Mossadegh, and I am sorry, to compare Mossadegh and AN is ludicrous.  Mossadegh did not have the blood of Iranians on his hands, and did not call the people of his country "dirt and dust".  The opposition to Mossadegh did not dispute his victory, and he did not insist on staying in power by force of some guards.

Now to your point of supporting one faction over another.  You are trying to make AN sound like an outsider and a fresh face just like McCain was trying to paint himself as a Maverick, when really neither is the case.  If Rafsanjani and the "old guard" are intolerant and corrupt, AN is no better (and the way he is going he is actually far worse).  We as a nation once made the fatal mistake of supporting one tyrant over another thinking that we will defeat the incumbent and things will work out later.  I refuse to make that mistake today.  I refuse to support someone who 

-calls the people of Iran "dirt and dust"

-is member and still very connected to a stateless terrorist anti Iranian organization- the IRGC

-uses his ties to the IRGC to suppress brutally all elements of civil society in Iran, effectively conducting the largest suppression of press and public opinion and imprisonment on this planet today

-in return for such suppression allows the IRGC to take over and abuse large parts of the Iranian economy and make themselves rich at the expense of millions of other Iranians who are excluded from participating

-has put our country on a collision course with more powerful countries that may lead to a very costly conflict, isolation, and ultimately the breakup of Iran


You may think I am saying this from the "comfort" of my life.  Well I can tell you, my life is far from comfortable, and I have paid my duty to my country more than AN or any other terrorist in power (including the fat cat Rafsanjani and murderer Khamenei and the damned enemy of Iran Khomeini) ever did.  I will not support a dictator. Period.  I will support a free and democratic Iran.  And I will tolerate others who disagree with me.  Even someone like Montazeri, who supported this crime against Iran in the early days, but at least was honorable enough to admit mistakes in the latter years of his life. Same goes for Mousavi (although not as much).  Iran is for all Iranians, and when the people speak, the government should listen, not the other way around.

Now once again, you need to prove that indeed the majority of Iranians voted for AN.  Where are the ballot boxes, the counts, the certifications, the concession by the opposition.  They are all curiously missing, yet you "sincerely" believe it to be true.  All we have to go on at this point is your and the fascist leader's word.

Well, that is not good enough.

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

we have just seen all the bazaaris go on strike against the government's new tax laws. there is no terror inflicted. and the bazaaris did so because this is their real struggle. it's class conflict of a kind. the factions and classes supportive of the government want to get a greater portion of the bazaaris' cash for government expenditures. [interesting aside: levels of democracy and taxes somehow go hand in hand. at least in many cases. this was a leading justification for the 'rentier state' concept.] iran cannot have stable government without a decent taxation system. but the bazaaris' money goes to the mosques and the parrallel, unelected state. of course the bazaaris may cut their 'religious' contributions if taxes rise. this would cheese off some ulama.

no fear: that's a great piece you wrote to fair. very ineresting read.   


No Fear

Ok then,

by No Fear on

lets just call it an "inconsistant event".  What is your next point?


You are being sarcastic...

by Rosie. on

and you know my answer. We have been there before.

The ceiling needs painting.

lol ???

No Fear


by No Fear on

Fine, Its Not a riot. its an orchestrated effort with common goals and leadership.

Whats your next point?

No Fear


by No Fear on

If you look at the major power centres in IR, except for the administration which is under Ahmadinejad's control, the rest of the power houses are under the control of the Reformists and their master, Hashemi Rafsanjani.

People started assuming since Khamenie endorsed the election results and gave Ahmadinejad a kiss on the cheek , then he must be Ahmadinejad's supporter. But this is far from the truth and every month i come across an interesting news that supports the notion that Khamenie is opposed to Ahmadinejad in so many ways. Who do you think controls the Judiciary and is preventing corruption files to go to trial?

Its publicly known that Ahmadinejad doesn't even accept Khamenie as his own Marjae Taghlid let alone letting Khamenie representatives to be present in government meetings! They are not allowed!

Ahmadinejad entered our politic during his first term as nokhodi who was suppose to warm up the hype for election which we were suppose to see Rafsanjani as the winner. But thanks to the Guards voting as a bloc, against all odds, Ahmadinejad won the race. Ahmadinejad is an anomaly in IR history. He was not suppose to be presedent. Specially when everyone was gearing up to have rafsanjani coming to power during Bush era and the nuclear deadlock ( perhaps the most critical time ).

Ahmadinejad is being tolerated. Sometimes he is not even tolerated at all and there are conspiracies to topple and end his presidency before its legally over ( there are talks now that if he becomes sick for more than two months, he must resign according to the law ). The only reason he is still standing, is because of the guards who have openly said they will crush any attempt to topple the elected president of Iran.

The otherside of the coin was, without sufficient proof, the election results were nullified and the president who was elected by the majority of the votes had to give the position to a candidate that was more in tune with the spirit of IR. Exactly the same as what happened to banisadr. This would have been a disaster for the majority of Iranians who voted for Ahmadinejad ( And banisadr ).

There is no need to talk about the effect that Ahmadinejad had on the foundation of IR.  Everyone is united against him. Isn't it bizarre that all factions within IR are against him? Why is that? Even oppositions outside of Iran ( Who don't have a clue ) are in the same boat as Rafsanjani... what a freaking joke.

Now my point to you;

Even if you don't believe this system is reformable, why not support polarizing elements within IR to weaken your old enemy which quite frankly, you have failed to do so in your 30 years history of struggle?

The old IR establishment based on a non tolerant ideology toward opposing viewes is mine and your enemy. You can sit back in your comfort and say they are the same, or you will realize there is something huge going on here and take advantage of it. You will accomplish nothing if you consider both the same. You will weaken your old enemy, if you support the one who is doing the most harm from within. (My reasons are more sincere since i have been following Ahmadinejad ever since he founded the Iranian Tunneling Association. However, like any other politician, he is just a tool for our people to push for more and to break political norms).

I don't care if our system is call republic or Islamic or monarchy or whatever. All i care about is my people choose it by majority votes in a free election. I am not afraid of the majority or a free election. I belong to the majority which will always win in any election ( No Fraud ).

Get it?




Well said Rosie

by Fair on

To call last year's uprising "just a riot" is completely disingenuous and delusionary.  We all know there is one reason this "riot" is not happening in large numbers on the street now:

Sheer Terror by the Islamic Rapist Republic

After gunning down dozens (more likely hundreds), brutalizing and imprisoning and raping and torturing thousands, and one of the most brutal and widespread security crackdowns in history, the message is clear- Oppose the results of this election even peacefully and symbolically, and we will observe NO LIMITS in coming after you and your family.

"Just a riot" my A**.  More like fascist totalitarian state on the largest possible scale.


No Fear, about this 'riot' of yours,

by Rosie. on

To me the last year green movement was nothing more than a riot. If it wasn't a riot, where is it today?

A couple of people already responded to this statement of yours, and needless to say they were not enthralled. I'll pick up the ball.

To refresh your (or anyone else's) memory, here are some photos of your 'riot'.


Yes, I see the burning garbage cans. Yes, it has exasperated me when over and over people have talked about 'peaceful protests' as though there were nothing but a million plus Gandhis participating in loin cloths. But honestly, what was the proportion of rioting to the peaceful demonstrating? And how much of it was instigated and/or responded to with excessive force by the authorities?

And actually, No Fear, even if this were not the case, even if the entire million plus had been burning garbage cans and buses and attacking basij headquarters, every single one, it would still not have been 'a riot'. It would have been one of the more massive SERIES OF RIOTS in history. And the most in Iranian history.

To call what happened just a series of riots--one huge criminal act-would still be a travesty. But to call it A RIOT even robs it of its SCALE and DURATION. And that's how you can then arrive at the spurious conclusion that the movement no longer is because it never was. Never was anything more than a kind of gigantic historical hiccup.

(Actually this type of arguing backwards is called ex hoc ergo propter and it's one of what are in rhetoric the 'logical fallacies', but I won't go into that further here).

No Fear, you need to look at this. You know the diffence between a singular and a plural. This warped use of language undermines your arguments, actually your entire credibility.

And It warps your own perceptions. Because I for one trust that you sincerely believe (you WANT to believe...) that gradual substantive change is possible within the system through peaceful means. I reject the accusation leveled at you below that you are simply a fan of military dictatorship, or similar things. I believe your motives are well-intentioned.

And I know I promised I'd stop psychologizing, but that was on a different thread (lol ???), and now I am going to tell you again that you must be doing this as a defense mechanism to protect yourself from the feelings which come when facing the reality of the current Iranian political situation, which are inevitably extremely painful.  But they are the truth.

And I suggest it might be a good idea to begin by looking at this concept (or better said, construct) of this riot of yours--however small a detail it may appear to be, because I assure you it is not. Start with the singular/plural part and look at what you're doing. Then maybe move on to whether 'riots' is an honest description of the whole phenomenon, and from there to conceptualizing and using language which describes the realities, from which to then build credible arguments. And more trust with others. 

No, you're not the only one warps things but I've told you before and I'll say it again: it's not really all that relevant imho to start off with what 'they' do, because the onus is upon you to be the first one who is completely, scrupulously honest here in these discussions--starting with honest to yourself.No spurious arguments based on wishful thinking. Why? Because you are here. And you knew what you were getting yourself into when you came.

Just a riot? I don't think so...




by Cost-of-Progress on

The islamist "machine" is clever, cunning and evolves on a continuous basis to ensure power is not lost or weakened.

The non-clerical arm of the Islamist regime has realized that soon the clergy will "give away" the farm (Iran) on the count of incompetence and backwardness, if nothing else. They realize that in this day and age the crap that the clergy spews will soon leave a permanent bad taste in the mouth of even their staunch supportes.

It does appear that this no fear character's agenda and that of the AN (and perhaps even Khamenei) gang is to marginalize and eventually eliminate the rule of clergy and replace it with a compliment of thugs and chaaghoo-kesh - That's no comfort to anyone who opposes the rule of these types of elements; be it theocracy or thugocracy.





Further Proof for you

by Fair on

And in case you have any further doubts that this regime has any tolerance for any opposing ideas, you can take this from the mouth of the islamic fascist leader himself, who says it is essential that everybody obey him:


As you pointed out correctly, even the "reformists" are loyal to the velayate faghih and idea of a supreme leader.  The only reason the "reformists" have any support among the people is that the people are absolutely desperate.  If you think someone like Mousavi or Karroubi is personally popular you are deluding yourself.  People follow them because they hope that by doing so it will lead to change.

And if at this point anyone thinks that the majority of Iranians don't want change, they are (I am sorry to say) very blind.