Islamic attack on democracy

IRI’s supporters on Iranian.com misuse the democracy on the site to support the undemocratic Islamic regime in Iran


Share/Save/Bookmark

Islamic attack on democracy
by Jahanshah Rashidian
19-Jun-2008
 

The Islamic Republic of Iran has reached the highest level of illegitimacy. The Illegitimacy is now an evident characteristic of the regime and henceforth can hardly be denied by an increasing majority of people in and out of Iran. Therefore, the Islamic regime, especially its so-called reformist factions, needs activists in the West to prop up the claim of regime’s legitimacy.

Among the various pro-regime cyber-media in the West, Iranian.com is one of the most read websites. Although, it has a secular character, because of its high popularity and openness to any idea cannot escape from the supporters of the IRI.  

IRI’s supporters and lobbyists and  on this site are three main groups:

--the first group consists of Islamists, either pro Ahmadinejad or not, they are the absolute devotees of Khomeini, the founder of the IRI, and his ideals for an ideal Muslim community, Ummah. Whatever their differences with each others, their writings on this site unmask their of Islamist attitudes; aggression, superstition, anti-democracy, anti- Persianism and anti-non-Muslim culture are their common attitudes. They attack, slander, humiliate and threaten any writer on the site, who rebuts legitimacy of the IRI.

--the second group does not share all traits of the first group; however support the IRI by showing their own ideological or political conviction. They side with the first group in many aspects.

The second group seems to be the teammates of the first group and fulltime staff hired and orchestrated by the institutions of the regime. They are mostly present on the site to do the job. Their job consists of attacking any other thinker who does not tolerate the regime. They incite feeling of nationalism, fear, populism to support the IRI against the “foreign enemy” while attributing feeling of self- deception, immaturity and weakness to people in order to prolong IRI’s parasitic life.

--the third group is a category of regime’s supporters who are supposed to look like “opposition”. This fake opposition consists of some lobby groups, ex-collaborators of the regime and those who have personal interests. They are supposed to neutralise all ideas and activities of the “subversive” opposition.

Although, members of this group mostly live in the West and are enjoying their western lifestyle, paint a rosy picture of daily life in Iran. They come also to the regime's rescues by ignoring or playing down the plight of people. In fact their unconditional supports for the regime go beyond that of some pro-reformists or factions within the regime in Iran. Even protest within the factions of the ruling system sparks their reactions-- Ebadi’s warning of human rights conditions in Iran can be criticised by IRI’s lobby groups in the West.  

It is to mention that a segment of the opposition mistakenly considers the second and third group “leftist”. However, the word “leftist” cannot objectively match IRI’s supporters in any circumstances because the regime is in total contradiction with the philosophy of socialism. At best, these IRI’s supporters or lobbyists are “lumpans”, sold members of an antagonistic class to a reactionary regime like the IRI, as Marxist theory of “deception” describes. In fact, they prove a “false consciousness” which irrationally leads them to support one of the most anti-socialist regimes.

IRI’s supporters, malignly or roughly, convinced or self-sold, propagate a series of pro-IRI views which deem to determine people’s passivity. Either religious or ideological, and so on, they attempt to patch up the fate of Iran and Iranians with the further survival of the IRI. This fatalism is to be imposed to all Iranians and especially on other thinkers.   

In this perspective, sensitive issues like the military attack on Iran, economic sanctions on Iran, US invasion of Iraq and precarious sovereignty of Iran (initially violated by the regime itself) and IRI’s nuclear progamme are their major issues “Ottoman’s shirt” to insist on IRI’s survival while totally camouflaging the non-Iranian, barbaric and vile characters of this regime.

The second and third group rarely raised the problem of human rights in Iran. Even so, they parrot baseless claims that human rights, democracy, and social justice are improving under the IRI. IRI’s lobbying activists argue that the main factors for economic problems, increasing gap between social classes and human rights violations are not due to the IRI’s mismanagement, class character, and Islamist brutality, but rather the pressure of the West, immaturity of people and resistance from the victims of the regime. They suggest tolerance, patience and acceptance toward the regime.  

IRI’s Achilles’ heel is its record of human rights violations. By arguing that all ills of Iran come from any factor but the regime itself, all IRI’s supporters are at the first place supposed to highlight the external factors and western coercive policies as the normal reasons of IRI’s atrocity.

IRI’s supporters on Iranian.com misuse the democracy on the site to support the undemocratic Islamic regime in Iran. Their message concludes baseless and dehumanising condemnation of all other thinkers on the site. They implicitly come to the following conclusion: since the West is the main enemy of “Iran’ (the IRI), any material on this site against the regime automatically parallels with a ploy of “anti-Iranian” enemy. Therefore, any protest toward IRI’s legitimacy deserves legitimate punishment of “traitor”.

Religious or secular, under original or fake name and avatar, aggressive or demagogue, these three groups attempt to blame, slander and weaken the true opposition to the ruling clerical regime.   


Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Jahanshah RashidianCommentsDate
Journée Internationale des Femmes
-
Mar 08, 2010
Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery
13
Feb 04, 2010
Iran Fails United Opposition
5
Jan 20, 2010
more from Jahanshah Rashidian
 
Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Jahanshah

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

With all respect, there is no any sense of paranoia in my article. I have no such a delusion that “Jihadist agents” are lurking on this site to persecute us. This is of course a factious interpretation, which has not been exposed in my piece. I simply brough up the idea that the democratic environment on this site is misused by IRI’s supporters, I never claimed that these people can influence a great or effective weight on our political behaviour.

I do not belong to those who believe in “conspiracy theory”. Such a theory is rather a tool to distract people from their political decision-making and the origin of their ills in Iran.

What is the limit that a victim can defend his or her right when violated by an aggressor?  Is such a claim a sign of schizophrenic paranoia, mental disorder, devil element of “enemy”, or on the contrary a normal and necessary reaction of a victim in the state of all normality? Is  not the IRI the aggressor and our people the victims? Are not IRI's supporters on the site at work to distort this reality? 

Maybe, due to my candidness, I do not use a formulaic language to alleviate my words, but if you see many others who better express themselves propped the article up. What is your explanation when an increasing contributors share my ideas? Is it not a fact instead of a paranoid thinking? Can you still water down these “flies”?

Let’s hear all contributors and then conclude more seriously about this issue, we have so many comments ahead to find a better pattern conclusion.

Kindly

JR


default

Sorry Jaleho did I hear you right?

by Free Thinker (not verified) on

Let me see if I got you right: did you say "fringe", democratic ballot" and "majority"? Are you talking about Iran or the US? Can you please tell us which democratic ballot has so far been conducted in Iran that the world is denied of knowing about? On whose authority do you assume your voice to be the voice of the majority? Remember I never talk about statistics? In your typical conspiratorial mind you have to resort to bogus statistics to prove your empty argument. Statistics, particularly the bogus Iranian statistics, is the last resort of the desperados!


Abarmard

JJ baba damet garm

by Abarmard on

Harf e hagh javaab naddareh


Niloufar Parsi

twilight zion

by Niloufar Parsi on

grow up kid


Jahanshah Rashidian

Mr. Yaghub Kohan

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

No, I did not write that IRI's supporters on this site are a "lot".  They may be a littler minority with probably different avatars, fake names and styles of attacking the "subversive" opposition, distracting people from the plague of the IRI and sparking the feeling of passivity, deception and tolerance toward the regime.

I have never used the word "leftist" as a generlised term in my writings because I consider myself a social democrat and am concerned about its values in my host country, Germany.

I occasionally use "fake leftists" referring to Tudeh Party / Majority (of Fedayeen) or all those who collaborated with the IRI under the name of "leftist" in the first phase of the repression before they themselves became victim of the same regime.

I have never proposed a solution a la Bush or any non-Iranian entity for Iran. I believe in Iranian people themselves to remove this infested tumour of the Mullas' regime. 

I am not monarchist at all, my prefernce is a democratic republic based on free will of majority in a parliamenary system.

I agree with you, human rights dossier is the Achill's heel of regime and must always be brought up as one of the main reasons of IRI's illegitimacy.


Zion

One Last Time

by Zion on

I'll try this one last time, Niloufar. Please don't try to weasel your way out of it by changing the subject, Who has asked for people's accounts, posts or comments to be banned? Give evidence.
The whole article is designed to attack what it calls secret supporters of or apologists for the IRI.
Yes, so what? It is the expression of an opinion. One of the many you claim you want to hear. Others can write and attack this article.

Who has been asking people to be censored?
No one except the Islamist-leftist alliance. No?


Jahanshah Javid

Diversity and tolerance

by Jahanshah Javid on

Thank you Jahanshah for your thoughts. It's interesting to see iranian.com from other perspectives, especially those of long-time visitors and writers.

I disagree with the whole conspiratorial tone of your piece and your conclusions in general. First of all, there are a lot more bigger issues facing Iranians than this little universe of ours in iranian.com. I mean to think that Jihadist agents are conspiring to gobble us up on iranian.com and destroy a democratic environment... it's a bit far fetched, closer to fantasy. Fantasy is probably a strong word... You're point of view is just wrong. You see flies and you think monsters.

I have a feeling that even one comment from an Islamist is too much for you. Your ideal democracy is a place without a trace of Islamist thought and expression. I would love to get rid of ALL religious THOUGHT and EXPRESSION but how is that possible? How is that democratic?

If someone takes a general look at iranian.com for the first time, she's not going to say this site is pro-IRI, or that IRI supporters are in the majority. And most of the regular visitors would feel the same.

You fail to see that the real, true supporters of the IRI do not set eyes on iranian.com. They have their own corner of the internet universe. They are the sort who cannot stand any kind of diversity. They don't want to see videos of Khamenei and Bush being made fun of side by side. They don't want to see Bahais freely expressing themselves. They don't want to see Farah Pahlavi on the front page! They don't even want to see Shirin Ebadi or Khatami.

The problem is that if you are against any foreign intervention in Iran, if you want Iranians and only Iranians to solve their own problems, if you believe in non-violent opposition and civil disobedience... then anti-IRI extremists accuse you of being an IRI supporter, which is fine if you want to think that way, but it's so far from the truth.

The world is not divided by pro and anti-IRI Iranians. We come in all colors with many combinations of common as well as peculiar personal beliefs.

I deal with Iranians via the internet or real life all the time. The Islamic Republic is so pathetically bankrupt that I honestly cannot name you ONE person in my wide circle who would defend this theocracy.

A few comments here, a couple of articles there does not scare anyone. Especially from people who are NOT pro-IRI, but simply have different views than yours.

Tolerance only has meaning when you show it towards your opponents.


Niloufar Parsi

sanctity?

by Niloufar Parsi on

Zion,

The whole article is designed to attack what it calls secret supporters of or apologists for the IRI. It muffles debate in the same way that the other thread was doing.

And no there is no 'sanctity' about any religion.

I will ignore your sarcasm especially as you must still be recovering from your trip into the anti-colonialist twilight zone. 


default

What is the solution?

by Yaghub Kohan (not verified) on

From the article written one can come to the conclusion that there are IRI supporters inside and outside of Iran.

If that is true, then the IRI has a lot of supporters.

Most groups of supporters are recationaries according to the article. And calling some supporters "leftists" is deemed wrong. If that is true than all the IRI supporters in one way or another are conservative. How can the situation be helped with a conservative government in Washington? George Bush only compliments Ahmadinejad as Khatami complimented Clinton. And if the next US President is Obama, get ready... Larijani might become the next "reform/liberal" IRI President.

All that being said, there is no viable opposition to the IRI. The EU, NATO, UN, US and everyone else in world politics is helping prop up the IRI.

The only subject about Iran in the news is the nuclear energy issue. When did that program begin? During the Pahlavi dynasty. So the world really has a problem with the Pahlavi dynasty's plan for nuclear energy that the IRI continues. Now I understand the subject.

No where do I see any mention of Human Rights in Iran that leads to sanctions that have been levied due to the nuclear energy program.


Zion

Yes, Truthfulness Is Very Important

by Zion on

I fully agree. Since you are so open minded you even talk to zionists, no wonder you would also like to have a dialogue with nasty but harmless Islamists that can evolve into democrats. Inshallah.
I do believe you. Only in the spirit of truthfulness and remaining genuine, why don't you provide some reference about who were the ones who claimed they believed in democracy and then called for the banning of certain views at the same time. Some direct quotations will do.

(Also maybe you would like to explain why it is that you didn't speak up so vehemently and with such directness in the other thread about special sanctity of addressing Islam? I remember you wanted a more nuanced and balanced analysis of the issue . The stated issue there was the demand for islamic censorship. You never opposed and protested against that clearly stated demand itself...not as you seem to do now, and against what precisely this time around I do not know.)


Niloufar Parsi

Zion

by Niloufar Parsi on

Because I am an ardent atheist and a true believer in evolutionary democracy. I cannot pose as an Islamist. It is against everything I believe in. But i would love to talk to Islamists in order to engage in a dialogue. I therefore react negatively against those who try to limit such possibilities in a forum that is ideal for the purpose. I think it is hypocritical to claim that one believes in democracy and then call for the banning of certain views at the same time.

What are we afraid of? It is just about 'talking' to each other. Look I am even talking to you although I believe that Zionism is racism and not all that different from fascism. And I will continue to do so as long as I feel that you are being genuine and serious rather than deceitful and offensive. I would do the same with any genuine Islamist out of love and respect for other people's opinions even if I do not agree with them.

Peace!


Fred

Poor defenseless" Islamic democracy"

by Fred on

All the while eating their cake the Islamist/Anti-Semites and their like minded lefty strategic allies keep whining that they are not allowed to have any cake.


Abarmard

Is this the same as

by Abarmard on

The post a while ago in the Iranian.com:

//iranian.com/main/blog/q/profile-people-...

I believe that's more complete


Jaleho

Free Thinker from Iran

by Jaleho on

You wrote:

"You hyphenated Iranians, have every right (under the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ....
amendments) to say what you want to say, but your words are worth
nothing compared to the words of the people who are trapped inside Iran
.......Nobody is asking for bombs to fall but YOU CALIF-IRANIANS ARE THE LEAST CREDIBLE ENTITIES TO SAY WHAT IS GOOD OR WHAT IS BAD FOR IRAN. . So
basically what we true Iranians who live and work and suffer inside
Iran are asking you and very politely so can be summed up in two words:
SHUT UP!"

 

I completely agree with you! It is the MAJORITY of people INSIDE Iran who determine the fate of Iran. Not the fringe whiners INSIDE OR OUTSIDE of Iran.

And the majority of Iranians have spoken through their votes and this is what they had to say to the fringe elements inside Iran or out in few word:

SHUT UP and let's our democratic voice through ballots speak for the Iranian majority!!

 


Zion

Niloufar

by Zion on

What is missing from here is a defence of the very thing that is being attacked: the perspective of Islamic revolutionaries. A defence of Islamic democracy. The very voice of those targeted for expulsion.

I think you are doing a good job in presenting that voice. Why don't you just continue doing it instead of whining? More importantly, why should you feel you have to shy away from performing such a function?

There are also more than few others who openly and honestly defend their regime here. Who is stopping them?

It is only the Islamist-leftist alliance that demand censorship here. I haven't heard anyone else asking for it.


Zion

Jamshid

by Zion on

Very well argued. Very well.


Niloufar Parsi

Democracy?

by Niloufar Parsi on


The nature of this debate, and they way it has developed is a clear demonstration of why the author is fundamentally misguided. What is missing from here is a defence of the very thing that is being attacked: the perspective of Islamic revolutionaries. A defence of Islamic democracy. The very voice of those targeted for expulsion.

I for one would LIKE to hear a clear and coherent defence of the Islamic Republic. This might teach me something or I may be able to influence someone. Who knows?

But who would dare to stand up for THAT in this atmosphere? How are we supposed to make a difference to anyone's worldview without the possibility for opposites (rather than parallels) to participate and meet?

Whatever happened to ‘Nothing is Sacred’?

Most of what we have here is either a) throw out those who will not spend all their time attacking the IRI, or b) let us try to be more sophisticated against the IRI. It reminds me of the Judean People's Front versus the People's Front of Judea in Monty Python's Life of Brian (one of the greatest and funniest movies of all time btw!). 

Is THIS the kind of democracy that some are proposing? How is this effort different from muzzling by the IRI? Don't we already know from experience that forced secularism is as counterproductive as forced religiosity?  

Oh I can hear the screams already… traitor, agent, blah blah. Or ‘yes we have been through this before’. So what? Is it time to close the door on debate because ‘we’ have been through this before?

No people! What we have is the reality of a 30-year old brutal regime that is not going away so easily. And if it does, it will not be because of any internet activism within Europe or America by people who cannot get a date on Friday nights as some (obviously single) unkind genius put it earlier!

It will not be because of sanctions by western hypocrites hungry for blood oil, and it will not be because of some aerial assault on nuclear facilities by some lawless regimes.

With the price of oil as it is, it will not come about through an economic meltdown either. At least not yet. For the same reason – and because of the lawless US attack on Iraq – there will be no real international sanctions against the IRI either. If we open our eyes, it is quite clear that the opposite is happening: there is a long queue of rising eastern powers waiting to trade with the IRI.

So lets get real. What IS going to make a difference? To me, this is the real question rather than trying to predetermine which ideological group should participate in this forum.

Peace!

 


Zion

Historical Points

by Zion on

Yes, America fought and won against British Colonialism and it is not considered a colonialist country.
Israel became an independent nation state by fighting British colonial forces, by migrating en mass to the land of Israel against the will of the British colonial forces. Something they had declared illegal. Haganah was in constant secret missions either to defend Jews in Israel from British colonial forces (and arabs) or to smuggle them in defiance of the decrees of British forces. The main target iof radical groups like Irgun were British forces. The arabs in the land were mainly supportive of British Colonialism and didn't want it to end. The british had helped them many times before against the Ottomans.

These are facts, the rest is just your sick outlook.

Robin, Herzel wasn't around when Israel was fighting for independence. You can't mix up the context so easily. He lived and operated in the 19th Century where the ideas of Colonialism were prevalent in Europe. More importantly, he was a realistic and pragmatic political figure, operating with what was possible in that time. He would be speaking the language that the political structure of Europe and the Ottoman empire would listen to, understand and act upon.
Worker syndicates in repressive regimes play a key part in organizing opposition and helping transfer the society to representative government. That is why they should be supported, whether in communist Poland or Islamist Iran. However in an already democratic state functioning under free market, they are a hinderance, a source of corruption and in constant violation of individual workers rights. That is the point.

Mehdi-Palang, The free market is what brings poor people in third world countries out of the mess. Look at India, South Korea or Japan. I mean look at China for god's sake. This kind of old worn out nonsense will get you nowhere. Read some serious economics instead of such propaganda rubbish. In a nutshell my friend, it is something like this: You either coerce people and rub them, or interact with them and reach agreements in mutual consent. Free market is the embodiment of the second, and limitations put on it, usually sugar coated by ideological nonsense like the ones you stated, are all intended to replace parts of that with coercive self-interests of this or that group. If you think any organized body, like the benevolent government (!), who work essentially through coercive measures (even in the most democratic fashions, politics is ultimately bound to coercion) can take over something that can already be done by free market, the arena of business based on competition and mutual consent, and get something better out and not more corruption, you are mistaken. The funny thing is, all this vested interest corporations leftists keep ranting about can exist only by nearing themselves to governments and winning special privileges. You leave government out as much as possible, and the special privileges can only get weaker and less effective. And don't forget that all this information revolution we live in, from the internet to the cell phones your young students use to photograph or film the repressions they face and broadcast it to the world, all of this has been made possible and can only survive by free market logic and in a free market environment.

PS. Is that a Parthian soldier you have chosen for your avatar? Nice one.


Jahanshah Rashidian

anonymous 7

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

The article has a clear topic: various IRI's supporters, apologists, lobby groups and of course categories that may appear according to IRI's tactics. Since you ask "who is true opposition" I refer to one of my previous article tackling the question.

In my opinion, a true oposition is any secular and democratic opposition which seeks to free Iran from the plague of the IRI as a precondition for democracy, prosperity and secularism for our country.

Undoubtedly all democratic and secular opposition cannot be in harmony with each other, it is however an ideal that all the democratic opposition groups are united within one direction, the direction of a secular and democratic movement in Iran with a great historical responsibility, to free Iran from the plague of the IRI and pave the way for a democratic and secular regime in Iran.

An Iranian democratic movement cannot consider our society a lab of ideological or religious experiments. Such a movement should be the fruit of Iranian people’s struggles for unconditional freedom and self-rehabilitation. Such a movement does not symbolise a throne, the Koran or any symbol or emblem of submission. By emphasising on all individual freedom, including free choice for one’s religion, one's form of state. Such a movement, from beginning on, respects the will of majority.

It democratically confronts the behaviour of the backward religiosity which since many centuries has robbed the chance of progress and democracy from our social consciousness.

An Iranian democratic movement should immediately present its programme to the immediate demands of society, namely unconditional democracy, social justice, gender equality, development of national economy, rehabilitation of an Iranian identity,  culture and art, negation of Islam as state religion, elimination of all religious institutions, removal of all religious aspects from education, judiciary and social life, and of course many other measures to free the country from the long Islamic plague of backwardness, successive dictators and lack of democracy and dynamism in Iran.

After the IRI’s fall, it should organise a constitutional assembly for a new constitution without however monopolising or influencing power structure. In a free Iran, form of state and all key positions will be freely elected by people under UN supervisers. Only so the regime gains legitimacy.

An Iranian democratic movement should bring all criminals of the IRI and their collaborators before an international court for their crimes against humanity.

However, such a court should not ignore the fact that the essence of process is not individual punishment but the rehabilitation of Iranian dignity, it proves that no Iranian woman is half that of a man that no Iranian can be punished for his political or religious belief that no dungeons, torture and humiliation can be anymore tolerated. By condemning the current political system of medieval belief, such a process symbolises a return to the civilised world and a lesson to our history.

An Iranian democratic movement has a hard task to confront the IRI, one of the wildest killing apparatus of the world. However, a regime change, as it is heard from Bush administration, is not to be founded on the interests of Iranians. The West is traditionally more interested in the economic gains and does not seem to realise that political Islam not only threatens Iranian people, but also the whole international community. The West still ignores that their barrels of Iranian oil cost many lives in Iran.

The above is, in my humble opinion, the major commitments proposed by a real oposition within a vast democratic platform.

 


Zion

Jahanshah

by Zion on

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough about the left and leftism. A social-democrat who is active under a democracy with serious programs is very different from a marxist or a leftist intellectual or a hippi-anti-globalization activist or what ever.
As someone else mentioned here, social democratic tendencies were a big part of Zionism. It must be clear that there is a huge difference between Ben-Gurion, who was a member of Avodah (labor), and say, Noam Chomsky. It is really not possible to even make a comparison. As far as I know, the last prime minister in Iran, Bakhtiar, who stood up against Khomeini and all his leftist allies was also a social democrat.
What is really behind this major difference? In my opinion, it is a sense of healthy but strong nationalism combined with a true understanding and respect for democracy, and most importantly a mind free of ideologies. This is what sets the two apart.
To be sure, I would still have difference of opinion about the priorities and details with you, but as you said yourself, that kind of difference is a useful and healthy one, embedded in a much larger shared value system. As long as that value system is under such a huge attack by the alliance of Islamists and their ideological leftist enablers and subordinates and has to fight for its very survival, none of such natural difference in outlook in our camp should matter. I agree with you 100%.

I am not trying to divide the people at all. My point was, and still is, that falling for conspiracy theories is a mistake. You can't fight a disease by its own syndromes. Many people who you mentioned take those positions because of an ideological leftist mind set that causes intellectual and moral blindness in the victims. We have to know the dynamics behind this and attack the root cause. Many of them are expressing opinions that they think is moral and correct. The fact that they take the time to participate in discussions means they want to be active in changing things. That is a good thing by itself. Many are clearly deluded, have read one book and been impressed by it so much, they only parrot its contents. Important is to attack those ideas, to overcome the ignorance that is the cause of falling into ideological traps and the ensuing blindness. Otherwise the leftist ideology is very attractive and will win over your next generations as well. It is by debunking the half truths that constitute it, and exposing them and their consequences that its spell can be broken. That is why people like Hayek, Popper, Orwell or Solzhenytsin have been so important. That is how modern serious social democratic parties function with integrity in many Western democracies.

Labeling all of them as agents won't help. It only denigrates people. That is not right. Individuals should always have respect as individuals. It is the ideologies and ideas that have to be exposed, attacked and ultimately killed.


Bijan A M

Jamshid

by Bijan A M on

Many, many thanks for your reasoned posts. I know it takes time and dedication to compose such well thought out posts and I want you to know how much I appreciate that.

I very closely identify with your response to Mammad’s “a bit of history” post. I was also a young college graduate, pro national front and critical of shah’s reign, when all of this was happening. I witnessed how the left and pro-democracy activists, in spite of their distrust for clergy and Khomeini followers, seized the moment and capitalized on excitement of the masses to overthrow Shah. They lend their support to Khomeini followers by organizing general strikes and most importantly shutting down the oil industry. I was there in Ahwaz, I witnessed assassination of oil workers and head of the oil company (called OSCO) which succeeded in shutting down the blood stream of the nation and toppling the government. 

 

In every pro-democracy activists meeting, (in spite of some skepticism by some minority in the group), they would emphasize that, now is the best opportunity to get rid of the Shah and his tight grip on the nation. They rationalized that it would be much easier (piece of cake) to take the power away from clergy…..

we now know how wrong they were…..the rest is history.

As for Khomeini himself, I cannot refute Mammad’s account of the events regarding draft of the constitution, etc… (I was on my way out as Khomeini was coming in). Mammad may have many evidences or documents in support of those accounts. But, how velayate vaghih was inserted into constituton, does not change who I believe Khomeini was.  He was a vindictive, hate filled, illiterate fundamentalist who was not capable of having a vision for prosperous and free Iran. His top priority was to overthrow the Shah who sent him to exile. Once that was accomplished and he got his revenge, he couldn’t care less for what would happen to Iran or what goes into constitution. Iran was already in the grip of the ruthless clergy and he didn’t care for anything else.

All he was capable of doing was to make some nonsensical speeches, and tell people what to do after taking a dump, or what if during an earthquake you accidentally impregnate your sister, etc…I don’t think any of Mammad’s accouts contradicts my belief that who Khomeini was as an individual.   

My apologies if this post took off on a different tangent on the subject of this thread.  Bijan


K Nassery

Communists/Marxists also use democracy.

by K Nassery on

I always read the articles of "the social movements" here on Iranian.com.  It didn't work in the USSR or China...or NK...but there is always hope when you have a forum.  I enjoy their attempts to convince us.  Of course, like Islamic Republics, once they get power they keep it and democracy is tossed aside.

It's my opinion, after being on the side lines of the Iranian American community for thirty-five years, that Iranians simply love their homeland.  They have to ignore some of the awful aspects of the IRI in order to visit relatives and beloved friends. 

 We, in America, have to hold out nose here too.  No nation is perfect, but I am proud that this forum can exist in my nation and I applaud the creators and the participants for keeping the discussion at such a high level.  There are some participants that seem to be unhappy with others who don't walk in lock step, but that number is quite low. 

I still think the Iranian Canadian cartoonist that constantly insults my gender should be allowed to publish here.  His drawings were getting better and better. LOL....

 

 

 

 

 


default

slandering "true opposition"?

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

JR says, "Religious or secular, under original or fake name and avatar, aggressive or demagogue, these three groups attempt to blame, slander and weaken the true opposition to the ruling clerical regime."

JR, who is the true opposition? Let me get more specific... By "true opposition" do you mean borderline fascists such as Mr. Imani (an ultra right wing necon) which many of you "opposition" people (FK, you ...) side with?
Personally I see that kind of "opposition" as reactionary as the most reactionary faction of IRI.


default

Does it really matter?

by Lets call me Burt (not verified) on

Iranian women get arrested, raped, tortured and killed because they take pictures, speak their minds or wear red shoes. This wont end. Iranians are well edjucated people yes. But it seems like they lack edjucation in history. This will not end cause of discussions like these. Different factions and mistrust makes it impossible for changes. Usually I wouldnt care. Im but a redneck, unedjucated, "low class" redneck.. But my wife is from Iran. She has been through it all. Your country did this to her. I have no love for Iran or its people. She took a picture. Your police arrested, tortured and raped her daily for 2 months. And you talk. Cant you c the truth? Feel lucky that you CAN sit in front of ur computers and write. The daugthers of Iran are getting raped and tourtured and you talk..


default

A view from Inside Iran

by Free Thinker (not verified) on

You hyphenated Iranians, have every right (under the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, .... amendments) to say what you want to say, but your words are worth nothing compared to the words of the people who are trapped inside Iran. You guys have reached your dreams - we, on the contrary, have been living through a nightmare while you folks were realizing your dreams. Now, you are saying: hands off Iran - let those poor bastards live in the same hell they were living for the last thirty years BECAUSE we, the Iranian-Americans have made to it to the promised land and want no more of "them" over here. If you guys had a care in the world for your homeland, if that is what you still call it, you would have helped toppling the regime of mullahs and NOT encouraging other countries to sit around the negotiation tables with them and have trade and investment with the regime.

The trouble with you Venice beach residents is that you see everything from vantage point of the Hollywood hills further up the road. Sorry fellows, but life in Iran is very different from that shown in the photo essays of those happy-go-lucky travelers who go to see their parental homeland for a couple of weeks and leave it in the same mess that it is was and continue with their happy-go-lucky lives back in the comfort of their Venice beach or Albany houses. There are people in Iran (sorry no statistics available :o) who are prepared to die if this regime is stay there for another two years. Nobody is asking for bombs to fall but YOU CALIF-IRANIANS ARE THE LEAST CREDIBLE ENTITIES TO SAY WHAT IS GOOD OR WHAT IS BAD FOR IRAN. . So basically what we true Iranians who live and work and suffer inside Iran are asking you and very politely so can be summed up in two words: SHUT UP!


jamshid

Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

Mammad, you wrote, "his (Rashidian's) premise for the article is wrong."

Why is it wrong? Rashidian's premise was that there are pro-IRI supporters of various types in this site. Are you denying this? If not, then why is his premise wrong? You can debate his conclusions, but not his premise. This was a weak logic.

You wrote, " he does not have any category for those of us who are against the IRI, against the monarchy, and against the..."

Could it be because he was NOT talking about the other categories? He was only talking about the IRI supporters. If you are not one of them, then there is nothing to worry about.

You wrote, "If someone expresses an opinion against military attacks on Iran, he/she is attacked savagely..."

If someone expresses an opinion against military attack AND in favor of the IRI, then there is nothing wrong with attacking such belief. Conversely, if someone expresses an opinion against the IRI AND in favor of military attack, there is nothing wrong with attacking such belief either. The majority of the people of Iran are against an attack AND against the IRI.

Again, I find your logic to be weak.

You wrote, "If someone says that establishment of a democratic political system in Iran is an internal affair for Iranians living in Iran"

Your statement is true and I agree with it. Change must come from within. But if someone says that "establishment of a democratic political system in Iran is an internal affair for IRI files and ranks living in Iran", then that person deserves to be attacked, as the IRI does not represent the people of Iran and is doing everything in its power to stop the people's will. The people of Iran have every right to want the overthrow of the IRI in its entirety.

You wrote, " if you ask the same attackers what their solution is for the present terrible situation, they either fall silent (which, most of the time, it implies that they are embarrassed to say that they support military attacks... "

Conversely, it could be said that if you ask the "other" attackers, what their solution is for the present terrible situation, they either fall silent which, most of the time, it implies that they are embarrassed to say that they support the corrupt and illegitimate IRI, or they offer solutions that would work only after the passage of 100 years.

You see Mammad, your logic is a "do par" knife, it can cut both ways.

You wrote, " If someone says that human rights are universal values and, therefore, just as we should protest loudly violation of human rights in Iran, we should also protest violation of Palestinians' rights,  Iraqis' rights, or Afghans' rights, he/she is accused of being anti-semite and/or anti-American. "

It is wrong to accuse such person of being anti-this or anti-that. But it is correct to accuse such person of diverting attention, of diverting the much needed attention from the crimes being committed in our own home by the IRI, to those crimes that are being committed in foreign countries. 

Do you agree that Iranians' resources are not infinite? Do you agree that therefore Iranians should come first and their plight should benefit from the majority of those limited resources? Yes or no?

You wrote, "In the opinion of this crowd..."

Who is "this" crowd? Could you please describe them? Don't you think you owe to your readers to provide this description?

You wrote, "in the opinion of this crowd... We should just be grateful that we are allowed to live here - as opposed to being thrown in Guantanamo Bay, or be sent to a secret prison somewhere under the program of extraordinary rendition"

I think such accusations could be only attributed to your momentarily lapse in judgement due to anger and hatred towards that crowd (whatever that crowd is), therefore it is quite excusable. The same applies to that crowd too, whoever they may be.

You also wrote, "even though many of us probably make much more contributions to the West or the US than most of the all-American people, the blue, the blonde, the Anglo-Saxon type of people..."

Blue, blonde, anglo saxon type? Don't you think this is a racist statement? I am not fond of Americans myself, but how would you like one of them saying "I contribute more than those dark, hairy, Arabs..." Would you consider this a racist remark?

You wrote, "As soon as they cannot argue rationally, they start labeling people: IRI agent, leftist, (the non-existent) Islamic Marxist, "lumpan," etc."

This is an unfair statment. It would only be fair and balanced if you complete the sentence by saying that the IRI supporters do the same. As soon as they cannot argue rationally, they start labeling people CIA agent, 75M club member, zionist, neocon, Bush-lover (a label you have used often.)

Now none of this is to say that you are an IRI supporter. It is only to say that you need to be more fair when expressing your opinion. When you can't be fair, then you should not expect others to be fair with you.

 


jamshid

Mammad, a bit of history

by jamshid on

Mammad, you make it sound as though ayatolah khomeini was a simple and honest "talabeh", and that it was the circumenstances that drew him into internal politics of Iran after the revolution. This is far from the truth.

I was a pro-jebheye melli and anti-shah student activist in those days and I heard many of khomeini's messages which was circulating on cassette tapes among activists.

If he was honest, then why did he say in those tapes and speeches that the shah had killed 600,000 people? Why he kept repeating his promise to women that hejab will not be enforced on them? Why did he say that the shah was halting Iran's progress and potential in industry, education and economy? Why did he say that we have "hundreds of thousands" of political prisoners?

He lied. Again and again. The truth is that 3500 people were killed during the entire revolution, not 600,000. This is according to Baghi, and IRI archivist who may still be rotting in prison today because he dared speak the truth. We already know about khomeini's lies on hejab and women equality. We also know that Iran had some of the highest economic indicators of progress and growth during the previous regime, in fact some of them higher than ANY other country in the world. We also know that there were 3000 political prisoners, many of them currently in positions of power today and busy brutalizing the people of Iran.

Please don't make khomeini sound any different than he really was: A backwarded, lying, deceitful, ideologically corrupt, murderous man that duped the people of Iran in an opportune time.

In order to proof my above statement, one only needs to read his "tozihol masaa'el", listen to his circulated casette tapes, read his many books and look at his human rights record.

khomeini was a deceitful and murderous man, two prime attributes of evil.


Mehdi-Palang

To Zion...

by Mehdi-Palang on

I find your comments regarding the "free-market" a little perverse.

"They do this service for free, because of their ideological hatred of the liberal (in the true sense) free market basis that has liberated the West, and many parts of the east actually, and brought them prosperity"

How has the free market liberated "the West" or many parts of "the East"?  Hasn't it also shackled a great many of the 3rd world's populace? seen here in this John Pilger film:( //video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7932485454526581006 )

Is the current free-market system sustainable and/or fair to the poor?  Does the free-market/consumerism that exists in the "West" really liberate the people that are living there? Or is it another method for spreading Elitist Hegemony? [Please watch the 2 four part films by Adam Curtis]: //video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151

//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085&q=the+trap&ei=YVAoSPAgkKquAqjMtJkK&hl=en

I am not asking you these questions in a condescending manner, I simply am interested in your point of view regarding the exploitation of 3rd world economies and the mindlessness of consumerism in the the capitalist "West".

How do you feel in regards to the US's proposal of building and maintaining 58 military bases in Iraq, indefinately?  Also, how is Israel anti-colonialist?  (instead of calling you names, I prefer to listen to what you have to say regarding this)

I know that I am young and brash, perhaps there is something that I'm overlooking. I respectfully await your response.


Rosie T.

Delete

by Rosie T. on

Double post.  Delete. So sorry.


Rosie T.

Dear "True Friend" from earlier in the thread re JJ is a traitor

by Rosie T. on

True Friend, you wrote: "But from what I have read from Mr. Jahanshah Javid (true traitor) to Ms. Irandokht (naive individual) there seems to be no hope for the future of our beloved homeland."

I would like you or anyone else who voiced a similar opinion to please substantiate the claim that Jahanshah Javid is a 'true traitor." 

Thank you,
Rosie


FACEBOOK