Moral advice from a criminal

So how should those clueless new graduates behave as they step out into the real world after George Bush's sermon?


Share/Save/Bookmark

Moral advice from a criminal
by Rostam Pourzal
09-Jun-2008
 

I was shocked when I read that George Bush advised the graduates at a college the other day to "act responsibly" in their adult life. He told of his dream for a "culture of responsibility" to spread in America so people stay away from too much drinking, sex, and drugs. This immediately reminded me of that proverbial Iranian story about an elementary school teacher who had trouble pronouncing some sounds. When he tried to teach the first letter of the alphabet, his students heard "anef" instead of the correct version, "alef." Naturally, they mispronounced, too. So he got impatient and yelled "when I say anef, don't say anef, say anef" not realizing that the kids were copying him faithfully.

So how should those clueless new graduates behave as they step out into the real world after George Bush's sermon? They do need guidance, but guidance from what sort of leader? As a parent of a new graduate, it matters to me who tries to influence our young. Should they do as Bush tells them or act like he does? Should they, too, "act responsibly" and terrorize innocent civilians on the other side of the world and lie about it?

After all, this jihadist is in the spotlight every day as the president of the planet's sole superpower. So we should want to be like him, right? Should the new graduates rob the poor to give (tax breaks) to their corrupt, rich friend, as Bush does proudly in the neme of freedom? That's "responsible", isn't it? Should they spend all the money they can possibly borrow on insane, failed ideas but tell the rest of us to exercise fiscal restraint rather than declare banruptcy? Should our graduates totally screw up the first project that's entrusted to them and leave the mess to their successors? Should they, like holy George, expect only others to sacrifice for the common good?

The twenty-something generation must be confused as hell, especially when the topic is something as awesome as "r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y" and the person advising is the Leader of the Free World! Many must be wondering whether drinking too much is more irresponsible or the mass murder of over one million Iraqis? Good question, especially when you consider that the Americans most likely to die in Iraq or come home paralyzed don't get to hear the President at graduation. They're in the military because they can't afford college in the richest country on earth.

But really, what should we tell our sons and daughters as they embark on their careers? That it's irresponsible to sleep around, but not reckless if you let hundreds of thousands of hurricane victims to fend for themselves in New Orleans while you're fundraising for the Republicans in California? Should we, too, pretend it's virtuous to let your greedy political allies rob tens of thousands of shareholders and employees, as Bush did with Enron Corporation?

Probably no one understands the confusion George Bush's campus audience experienced the other day better than US-backed Middle East tyrants. One day, the CIA sends them "terror suspects" to interrogate with torture; the next day George Bush shows up lecturing them on virtues of human rights! They, of course, know it's all a game. But what about America's youth? Are most of them mature enough to see vulgarity in high places behind the fig leaf?

Visit campaigniran.org/casmii, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)


Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Rostam PourzalCommentsDate
Boycotting Ahmadinejad's U.S. Visit?
92
Aug 30, 2008
more from Rostam Pourzal
 
jamshid

Re: Farhad Kashani

by jamshid on

Very good points. It is always good to see someone who is free of the 70s brainwashing that took place in Iran. Of course, I am talking about our generation.

The current youth in Iran however laughs at these silly arguments. Grab someone in Tehran's streets by random and chances are that he/she would give anything to leave Iran and come live right here in Bushite US of A. That's how bad things are in Iran.

I have always said that the US and Israel are not our problems. Our problem is the IRI and self-destructive ideologies. Iran could be a prosperous country with or without Bush as president. Iran could be a happy and progressive country with or without the US foreign policies.


default

Asghar Taragheh azeez,

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Asghar Taragheh azeez, you're a great Iranian. Keep waht you doing and keep speaking out, you and I and the rest of us are part of the silent majority that has waken up. Just remember, whenever these IRI apologists and leftists criticize you, thats when you know you're right! Cause their argument is baseless, fictional ideological and out of pure hatred. So if they are making the argument against your agument, then yours is right! Just like when fascist Khomeini said : "If the West criticizes you, thats when you know you're right",(And by that he butchered freedom of speech in Iran till today by killing, imprisoning, force silencing or exiling anyone who dared to say anything by calling him "Zionist, Kafar, Gharbzadeh and so forth..which are the same terms these guys use on this site), well, its the same concept, only we have reversed it!


default

Taragheh, you are still wasting time

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

This will be my last reply to you, as it is unfortunately clear that you are purposefully wasting time by making irrelevant new points instead of sticking to your original arguments.

From the beginning the debate has been about "If Iranians can change from within".

You have decided that they can't and are not open to listening to any evidence to the contrary. My response was two things.
1) They can and they have shown it in the past.
2) No matter what, change cannot be forced from the outside.

On (1), my point was if they DECIDE to change, the Iranian people CAN do it. The decision I am referring to is a CHANGE in government.

You said they have not been able to make this decision in the past 100 years. That is false.

They have done it two times in the span of 30 years, that is more than most other countries!

The Mossadegh revolution, and the 1979 revolution. A "decision" to change the government is not a lengthy thing. Both of these events were in the works for years, so it wasn't "5 minutes". You yourself mentioned the Mossadegh factor, so that's why I said you proved yourself wrong. Do you want me to spell it out logically?

YOU: "Iranian people have not decided to change from within in the past 100 years."
YOU: Mossadegh was a change from within.

So, that's why you proved yourself wrong. But there was also another case, the 1979 revolution which also proves you wrong a SECOND time.

The bottom line on point (1) is that you are WRONG, there HAS been change from within in the past 100 years. If you just don't want to admit this, you can continue to do so, but don't call it a debate: it's just mindless repetition with yourself.

You say you have not decided anything. Then why do you keep saying Iran CAN'T change from within??? Either you have decided or have not decided. You can't have it both ways.

Your making a personal value judgement when you say that these changes don't count because they were not "rational" or "progress". That's your call. Second, it doesn't matter what someone like yourself (or anyone) CALLS these changes. The POINT is that they were done BY the people of Iran "from within." That's the POINT. Whether or not you LIKE these changes is not relevant to this discussion.

On point (2), you seem to be completely confused, or else you refuse to respond directly. The point is irrefutable. Change must come from within. Point (1) clearly shows that it HAS come from within before. This does not prove, but it is a good argument to show that it CAN happen.

But even if there never was any change in the past, it doesn't matter. It MUST come from within NOW for it to be valid, grass roots and acceptable to the people. If it is done by outside coercion and military attack it won't by definition be something "decided by the people," it won't bey definition be democratic.

The rest of your imperialist justifications are really not moral arguments as I mentioned before. "Everybody meddles"? That's your answer? "Everybody" used to have slavery and rape women. If people thought like you did, these things would never change. What "everybody" else does is not an EXCUSE for what you are doing. In this particular case, it is especially a weak argument because USA does it MORE than everybody else combined.

US does MUCH MUCH more meddling than ANY OTHER country on Earth. It does not have to do this, it could stop the meddling and set an example.

As I told you US gives FREE foreign aid, weapons and protection to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf countries. It's not the same as Russia SELLING weapons to Iran. US SELLS weapons too, but in addition it gives them away for FREE in massive amounts and provides FREE diplomatic immunity for its client states.

At last you have to ask yourself: WHO should bring the change to Iran? There are only two choices.

1) IRANIANS LIVING IN IRAN
2) OTHER PEOPLE

which do you want?


default

Mammad: can you publish some

by hmmmm (not verified) on

Mammad: can you publish some of your articles in Iranian.com


default

Asghar Taragheh, exceelent

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Asghar Taragheh, exceelent responses. Great job my true Iranian friend.


Mammad

Asghar Taragheh

by Mammad on

First of all, although your name is Taragheh, there is no reason to get excited and write in capitals. Calm down. we are having a nice debate.

Secondly, I am certainly happy that of all of my 6 postings and a very long list of facts, you seem to disagree with only a few. Regarding your response, in your numerical order:

(i) Energy is my field of research - both oil and gas, and nuclear. I am very well-known for my research in this area, and my book on oil reservoirs is taught in many universities. I am not being arrogant, but I say this because I want you to know that when I talk about the oil price, I am talking from a position of knowledge and authority. But, do not take it from me, and check what I say by yourself.

Half of the present oil price, i.e., around $70 of $140, has no economic justification. Of this, only about 10% is due to speculation by hedge fund managers and other financial institutions, and the rest, i.e., around $60 dollars is called, in the oil market, the FEAR PREMIUM. Fear premium is what we pay due to political instability in the oil producing countries, and fear of a cut in the production. Last Friday, when Shaul Mofaz of Israel said, "the attacks on Iran seem unavoidable," the oil price jumped by $11 per barrel.Where is it that produces most of the oil? The Middle East. Why is it unstable? Due to Bush's policy: The war in Iraq; instability in Lebanon, threat of war with Iran, etc.

In 2000 I published an article in which I said that, long term, cheap oil is bad for the world. So, I agree with your point about expensive oil being good, but expensive oil makes a positive impact only if its expensiveness has to do with science, production, and demand, not with political instability.

(ii) I am not a Marxist. I am a practicing muslim, but a leftist, and am absolutely proud of it. I care about the image of the US, because I am now a citizen of it.

But, what you said about what you prefer is, with all due respect, not worth responding. That is the cowboy mentality of Bush.

(iii) You did not get the point, in your haste and excited state to respond. Whenever there is external threat to the national security of a nation, the ruling elite uses it as an excuse to suppress the opposition. This happens everywhere, even in the US. Just see what Bush has been doing with the Patriotic Act, and this is just a small part of him violating the wonderful Constitution of the US.

Same thing with the IRI. No one in his/her right mind thinks that elections in Iran are democratic or fair, but many of them have been competitive. But, when the right wing has an excuse, it kills the competition. The reformists may not be strong, but the fact is, despite all the restrictions on them, they have a coalition of 90 people in the 8th Majles. So, they are still feared by the right wing. That was the point.

(iv) With all due respect - and the emphasis is on respect - you should be really drink if you think that Hamas is Iran's stooge.

Hamas was established in 1989. When it was, Israel actually supported it secretly, because it considered the secular Fatah as the main enemy and wanted to prop up an alternative. Only after the Oslo Agreement was signed in 1993, and Hamas rejected it, Hamas became the enemy.

Hamas won the democratic elections of Palestinians. Hamas receives aid from Iran, but has only one item on its agenda: Liberation of Palestine. Hamas has never ever done anything outside the historical Palestine. Even the US and Israel have never accused of Hamas doing anything outside the historical Palestine.

Even if Hezbollah trains Hamas, that means nothing. The US School of Americas in Georgia trained for decades all the right-wing military officers of Latin America who later became blood thirsty dictators. Which do you blame? The US, or the Generals trained by it? The US is still doing the same, but under a different name.

(v) Once again, you missed the point. Due to Bush's bogus war on terror, corrupt and dictatorial Arab regimes that are supported by the US hide behind this "war." They justify what they do, by saying, look if we loosen up, these radicals will take over. That is the point. No one wants the US to invadsed Saudi Arabia, for example.

You are wrong about Bush and Palestine. In his last year of Presidency, Clinton brought the two sides very close to an agreement, but his efforts did not get anywhere, because Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's offer. Barak had offered to evacuate 95% of the West Bank. But the devil is in that 5%. Most of that 5% is roads that Israel has built and has divided the West Bank into isolated cantons and towns. The towns are not connected. So, the Palestinian 'state" was not contiguous and, therefore, not viable. I would have rejected that offer too. So, it was Bill Clinton who really wanted to help a Palestinian State.

Bush, on the other hand, has paid only lip service. No US Secretary of State has travelled to Israel and Palestine more than Condi Rice, but where is the result? None, zilch, zero, nada. Why? Because Bush gives a green light to any crime that Israel does.

You seem to imply that Palestinians started the Intifida because IRI supported them? That is nonsense. You want to tell me that, Palestinians were "enjoying" the occupation of their land, confiscation of their properties, destruction of their orchards for the Settements, constant stealing of their water resources, and the apartheid system, but, just because the evil IRI wanted it, they gave up all the "joy" and started exploding bombs?

Where is your common sense? Surely, the IRI exploits such things, but if Palestinians are revolting, it is because they are tired of their suffocation under Israel's occupation.

What Hamas does is a reaction not action. I am a pacifist, opposed to violence. But, even the UN Charter recognizes self-defense, and fighting occupation.  Israel has the same right of self-defense. But, it is Israel which has occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem against UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 and a bunch of others. Hamas did not win elections for Gaza, it won the elections for all of Palestine. Therefore, it has a right to fight the occupation. What do you expect the Palestibnians do? If they fight the occupation, they are the stooge of the IRI? That is absurd, to put it extremely politely.

Israel, just like Hamas, has the right to self-defense, but no right for killing civilians, and certainly no right for being an occupying power, setting up a complete aparteid system in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. When Israel kills civilians, what do you expect? But, Israel also closes the border and starves people. If a pregnant woman in a Palestinian town wants to go another town in the WEst Bank, to deliver her baby, she must pass through so many security check that is just inhumane.

I fail to go to the root of the problem? I just told you what the root of the problem is: 41 years of occupation, if not 60 years, and setting up an evil apartheid system in the occupied territories. That is the root of the problem.

Yeah, all the reports of the IAEA, after the most intrusive inspection in its history of any nation, certifying that there is no evidence that Iran is making a nuc bomb, are blah, blah, blah, ... I won't even mention my own articles on the subject, which are very well-known. But, what YOU say, a layman who has at most read some articles about it, should be taken seriously? This just defies logic. I do not know you, but you are better than that.

If it is ok for the West to be engaged in hypocricy, then, why is it not ok for the mullahs to do it?

I believe that the IRI has already won the poker game, which is what I said last week in another article. As I said in another article that I published two weeks ago, a nation cannot be told to forget what it already knows. The IRI is making sophisticated centrifuges. So, even if the US bomb the devil out of Iran, the knowledge is there.

But, you still did not say: How do YOU think the IRI can be changed. 


default

xerexes: You believe Israel

by Anony (not verified) on

xerexes: You believe Israel should be wiped off the map? Do you agree with Hamas mandate? What are Israeli to do?? Act like a sitting duck until the Paleo destroy them and achieve their goal??


default

Prove that revolution was great

by XerXes (not verified) on

For one thing, and that's enough for me, all the people such as Zionazis such as Asghar were out of Iran. Why do you think that Iran is advancing in every field? Because all you people care about is Googoosh.
How can you tell that Iran has a great government?
Just look and see how Iran's enemies hate the Islamic Republic. That includes the sold Iranian Zionazis.

Long live the Islamic Republic of Iran. We never want any of those like Fred, Zion or Asghar inside our holly soil. Koor khundin.


Asghar Taragheh

Anonymous8 - Take it Easy

by Asghar Taragheh on

Still you don't get it.

1) How did I prove my self wrong by referring to Mosadegh? You are proud of the 5 minutes the people were in charge?

2) You are proud of the revolution? What did we exactly accomplish in this revolution? We kicked the shah out. OK great. Than we drafted an idiotic constitution that gives the ultimate power to a jurist consult and we formed the gaurdian counsel. So we kicked out a dictator and right away signed our rights away to another form of dictatorship that is 100 times worse than the shah. This was progress for you? You call this the ability of Iranians to succefully change? And are you saying that there was no Western involvement in this revolution?

3) You were not speaking the truth when you say that No one elected me or Bush. You are being Yek Dandeh and failling to see the issue. The west sees the IRI as a threat. I did not say this, I did not force this, Bush alone did not either. Its is a fact. Why are there UN resolutions against the IRI? Ok its an imperialist zionist conspiracy. Same idiotic rationalizations to avoid the fact that as a society we are absolute failures.

You say:

"YOU have DECIDED that
Iran can't change (even though I showed you otherwise) and are now
trying to make decisions FOR other Iranians."

No you did not show me otherwise. You gave me brief periods in history and failed attempts. I am not making any decisions for Iranians.

Again:

"It's NOT up to YOU or
GEORGE BUSH or the "west" to "decide" if Iran can change from within.
If you still can't understand this, I can repeat it for the 3rd time. "

And Again, this is not the issue. Right back at your face: Some how, you have decided that the Iranian people can change from within. Who the hell are you to make this decision without pointing to one solid instance of a succefull rational change by Iranians? Apparently, You have decided that Iranians can change within without any proof.

As to US meddeling. Every country meddels. You are being silly. The US is not alone. Every country meddles: The IRI does , Russia does, China does, France does, Israel does, Iraq does. Meddeling is called international relations. You don't like US policy so you call it a "problem". Because the IRI is at a disadvantage, you want the US to stop meddelling. OK- The US will do this for the Iranians and stay out so the Russians and Chineese could come and take a big bite out of the apple free of charge.

Then its the following:

"Only 8% of US oil
comes from the middle east all together." Agreed, but US partners like Japan, Germany, Italy, France get their majority of oil from this region. If they don't get is, it effects their economies which than effects the US economy.

Then you say:

"No other country gives this much military aid and economic aid to the
corrupt governments of the Middle East. Russia doesn't give ANYTHING."

Russia does not give anything? Oh really? Who sold the IRI their Mig 25's & SU 27's, T72's, silkworm/s, most sofisticated radar systems, ballistic missile technology? Who sold the same to the Syrians? Are you saying that the IRI & Syria are not "Corrupt"? Who armed Saddam to the teeth? Does France & Russia give you any clues?

So the Americans should just sit on their shit boxes, make hollywood movies, let tyrants like Hitler rise and when the rest of the world is in big trouble we should ask them nicely to come and liberate them at no expense. You want the americans to do this for free? They should not try to get any benefit from this. This is just what nation states do. Send their armies to fight world wars, spend money, loan money and when they libarate them they should drive back home without asking anything for return.

This is what the russians did after they liberated eastern europe. They stoped meddeling in eastern european issues. OK Mr/Ms 8. you are 100% right. I am 100% wrong. I am out of line. Sorry.

 

 


default

Zionazis want an attack on our land

by XerXes (not verified) on

Just like the MKO, Zionazis come in different looks and sizes. Look at them trying to justify their bending over to the west and trait their land with how many lined of logic. They go against the MKO because they help an enemy that was not a super power. logic of traitors.I will worship any Mullahs any day before I allow this kind of Zionazis come to my land. And they never will, same as MKO...


default

Kashani where did you get this?

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Kashani says: "The whole entire world knows that Shiites are 3rd group in Lebanon after Christianity and Sunnism."

Kashani, do some research before you speak for the "whole entire world".
Anyhow..., according to U.S NPR Shiites are stronger than ever especially after this last round of Saudi initiated stupidity through Hariri gang.
BTW, Kashani, don't get me wrong, I am not a Muslim but facts are facts and chAkhAnistics are not facts. At least watch CNN's documentary about Lebanon ....


default

Taragheh

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

1) Once again, you are not paying attention. The discussion was about if "Iranians can decide for themselves". You said they have shown that they can't in he past 100 years. You already proved yourself wrong by citing Mossadegh, but the relevant "decision" is the revolution. The 1979 revolution showed that Iranians DO have the power to decide for themselves major changes to their country's government even if they live under a repressive dictatorship. Elections of Khatami and Ahmadinejad was also a decision to reject Rafsanjani clan. It was not a revolution, but that's because the Iranian people had decided it was not time for it.

2) OK, I accept this. "All I said is that Iranians do not have the power to decide anything for themselves and have not had such power." And my reply to you WAS who the hell are you to make this determination? The West (Geroge Bush) as you claimed before "if they decide to attack its because they decided IRI cannot change" has decided the same. Therefore, I was speaking the truth when I said no one elected you or George Bush.

So, I'm not the one putting words in your mouth. YOU have DECIDED that Iran can't change (even though I showed you otherwise) and are now trying to make decisions FOR other Iranians. It's NOT up to YOU or GEORGE BUSH or the "west" to "decide" if Iran can change from within. If you still can't understand this, I can repeat it for the 3rd time.

3) Now, you are just trying to save face. First, of all, you WERE wrong on the numbers. The original point was that Palestinians have been suffering since BEFORE HAMAS AND IRI. So, I was correct to question your math.

You, however responded to a point that was NEVER MADE. I didn't say anything about when Palestine was a 'legal entity'. I never made a "math" argument about it. I don't know why you started talking about this when you should have been talking about the original point, therefore you sound CONFUSED when you accuse me of having wrong history and wrong math.

This is normally called a "dodge" i.e. forget the subject and start another discussion about something else. This question about Palestinian legal entity and when it was created is NOT the point, so DON'T waste my time bringing it up.

4) Here what you're saying is that it's OK for US to meddle in the Middle East because there is no other choice. You also point a finger at other places in order to again "dodge" the original question.

You had said: "What do you want the US to do?" I told you that US should stop supporting these tyrannies.

Now you say that US MUST support tyrannies.
US MUST support torture and undemocratic regimes
US MUST give weapons and tanks to these countries.

First, at least you NOW admit that US is meddling in internal affairs of other countries. Good, the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have a problem. But you now say it has to be this way.

This is a really stupid argument. We all know that US does not have to do any of this. You point the finger at Russia and China. This is laughable. No other country gives this much military aid and economic aid to the corrupt governments of the Middle East. Russia doesn't give ANYTHING.

The Soviet Union used to, but it stopped. No one HAS TO continue doing it. US can do the same. This idea that US must support torture and death because of OIL is not a moral argument. But beyond that it's not even true. Only 8% of US oil comes from the middle east all together.

Second, US has no right to interfere and keep Mobarak and Saudi family in power artificially. If any other country tried to do that, it would be condemned (by the US!). So US should butt out of the middle east. "other people do it" is not an excuse. It's not even valid because no one else does it with all these weapons and money. But even if they did, it does not excuse immoral behavior.

"Like I said, everyone is a hypocrite for their own self interest. You proved me right. Thank you."

What the hell are you talking about? What is my "self interest" ? Have you now decided that you know my self-interest too? Do you represent a government or something? You are now completely out of line and accusatory. It "proved me right" that you are too angry to think clearly.

Have a nice day.


default

Not Very well argued Zion

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Zion says: "You debunk the non-original, boringly non-original, ranting of a typical propagandist very well. I am no fan of Bush, but I'll pick him over a loud mouth foaming leftist-islamist any time."

my friend Zion you talk as if you are a neutral person! You guys (i.e., AIPAC) are and have been in charge of Mr. Bush et all. I might agree with you that it is better that AIPAC is in charge and not those ultra right wing Christians though!
BTW, if anyone is loud mouth foaming it is Mr. Taragheh, his writing are capitalized which means he is shouting.


Asghar Taragheh

Farhad- Thank you!

by Asghar Taragheh on

Excellent Command of the facts!


Asghar Taragheh

Anonymouse8, Here is your problem

by Asghar Taragheh on

1) If my statement "Iranians have not been able to do so for the past 100 years. Give us a break." is false, can you please describe how exactly it is false? What, the 5 days that Mosadegh was in power is when Iranians decided for themselves? Is that what you are refferring to? Am I missing something here? Please tell us.

2) As to "No one has elected you or George Bush to decide anything for them." I did not say that XYZ should be done or that GWB should do xyx. I am not deciding anything for the Iranian people. All I said is that Iranians do not have the power to decide anything for themselves and have not had such power. If you can show otherwise, I am still waiting to hear your case.

3) As to Palestinian entity. I am not dodgeing anything. You told me to get my numbers right. I showed you how you had your numbers wrong. I also showed you how you had your history wrong and how you were conveniently selective about choosing historical points to make your arguments. I never said that its OK for the Pals to suffer. It is not OK. Please do not put words into my mouth.

4) As to the last point re what should Bush "DO" (sorry for the typo- I write fast)- The US can't just stay out of it. Don't you get it? Just like Russia, China, Japan, Italy, Germany, France and everyone else who needs energy can't stay out of it. Have you asked Russia to stay out of it? And why not? Have you forgotten the English? When the French, Russians, English and Chineese stay out of it, and when you and the IRI ask them to stay out of it, we will ask the US to stay out of it. Do you see the double standard? Oh- and why is the IRI not staying out of Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Afganistan, Hamasistan? Have you asked the IRI to do the same or two wrongs make a right (if US is in it, IRI should have the right to do the same) ?

Like I said, everyone is a hypocrite for their own self interest. You proved me right. Thank you.

 


Zion

Good points Farhad

by Zion on

.


default

Taragheh, here is your problem

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

"Iranians have not been able to do so for the past 100
years. Give us a break."

Not only is this statement false, but it also shows that you prefer regime change by force from the outside (exactly what the Neocons say). Iranians CAN and MUST decide for themselves. If the decision is to rise up and revolt, they are capable of that too. It has been done before and it can be done again. This is the only way.

No one has elected you or George Bush to decide anything for them.

Your question on 'Palestinians' being a legal entity is seems like a confusing dodge that had nothing to do with the original discussion. At best it's changing the subject without answering the questions. At worst, it is saying just because they didn't have a legal entity it's Ok for them to suffer like they do.

This is a big topic and I can't really help you if you don't stick to your own original points and jump around in order to avoid being pinned down. The point was they are suffering for a long time and the laughable assertion that "they are suffering because of IRI funding HAMAS" is now debunked.

And to your last point. I can't help but think it's another dodge. You say:

"Didn't I say that the west was Hypocritical? Please read what I said again."

I did read it. You asked a question. The question was "WHAT SHOULD BUSH DUE,? ATTACK AND CHANGE THESE REGIMES AS WELL?"

I told you exactly what Bush should "DUE" and gave many examples. Why are you wasting time saying I did not read your words? Did you read my words carefully? I said US should STOP doing these things. It will NOT be cursed because right now it is actively keeping these tyrannies in power. It should stop meddling in middle eastern affairs period. Where is the double-standard?


default

Mammad, Your post on

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Mammad,
Your post on Iraq:
ii: the very opposite. Iraq started out during the first years of Saddam as one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East. However, by the time the war happened, it was one of the poorest in the world due to the fascist style policies of Saddam Hussain.
iii: It was Iraqis themselves who were looting the museums.
iv: U.S didn’t create that, Iraqis were and still are killing themselves. They have been doing that since Saddam took over. During Saddam, Iraqi Arab Sunnis massacred Kurds in the north and shies in the south. All is happening right now that those two groups are taking revenge. This is a CIVIL war, not U.S vs Iraq.
v: Refer to iv.
vi: refer to iv.
vii: Refer to vii.
Second part:
U.S has bases in most countries around the world with the exception of few. It did not have to go to war with them to get those bases. It did not go to war and spend so much resource for “58 basis”. Furthermore, the Iraqi government is a democratically-elected government (first time in Iraq history). If it wishes to grant the U.S those deals, it’s their fault and they should be accountable for it.

Afghanistan:
i: Taliban are strong because of the help of the Iranian regime and some elements in the Pakistani government. Also, Taliban is an idea, and to fight this idea, will take a generation or two.
iii: Wrong. Even Al Qaeda itself says it has suffered many blows. And you’re defending them?
iv: this is the first time Afghans have seen an actual central and democratic government. It will take time for it to boost its influence.
vi: Wrong again. If Afghanis didn’t support NATO, Taliban would’ve won long time ago,
vii: Afghanistan’s constitution and application of decomocratic laws are thousand time stronger than Iran. Its election were observed by the U.N and declared free aligned with International requirements. That’s democracy. However, Afghanistan suffers from decades old problems that will take decades old to solve. Thinking that a single military action would resolve tens of years of problems is astonishingly naïve, at best.

Pakistan:
i: wrong again. The steps that have been taken between India and Pakistan (such as establishing train and bus routes between the two for the first time) have been recently implemented. The relations are better now than ever. Both , with the mediation of Clinton, report each others nuclear test, and work closely to counter Islamic terrorism in Kashmir. Kashmir has never been so quiet.
ii: If you believe in facts and figures, then you should get it right. Musharraf had close to 7 assassination attempts by Islamic groups and Taliban. He was fighting them all along until the new government took over.
iii: What does that have to do with Bush’s legacy?
iv: You can’t be serious! “Bush sent Bhutto” ? What logic is that? Furthermore, is bush the president of U.S or president of Pakistan?

Lebanon:
“Everyone knows it is the Shiite, but never mind.” Wow! Lets have a conversation without distorting facts like that! The whole entire world knows that Shiites are 3rd group in Lebanon after Christianity and Sunnism. By the way, when you say everyone, does that include Hassan Nasrullah who recently said “ We understand that we are minority in Lebanon”? Have you ever been to Lebanon? Have you met any Lebanese? Do you know how many Lebanese shites oppose and despise Hezbollah, a lot!! Those 100-200 thousands you see in the streets every day, are the same people you see in the last rally! What research have you done on Lebanon? If you can’t get the most basic stats right, then let alone the rest!
“The elections were held. SURPRISE!” yeah surprise to all IRI apologists and traitors to Iran, Hezbollah only got minority. The people in Lebanon, with the help of the U.S, democratically elected Senora.
“This was, of course, just fine with Israel, because while the Arab world was fixated on Lebanon, Israel continued its crimes against Palestinians. “Such simplification of issues, its sad. When Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982, it was still killing Palestinians.
“Not this time. With strong support by Cheney and company, Israel started a full”. You just said Hezbollah began the war, (and credit to you that you’re being open minded this time), so what should Israel do? Not defend itself? I’m not against LEBANON, not a fascist group by the name of Hezbollah, waging a war to get Shabaa farms back. Hezbollah has different agenda in mind.
“. This was the 2nd time Hezbollah won a war with Israel.”why is so hard for you guys to understand that Hezbollah didn’t win the war, this war isn’t even your traditional war. Hezbollah doesn’t wear a uniform, has no army, and fires rockets from buildings with thousands of people in them. Hows that even a war? Israel couldn’t continue the war because it couldn’t kill civilians anymore, the world opinion simply stopped the war.
“But, Bush and company continued their provocation”. What is provocation to you? If provocation of someone or a government will let people be at fault for it, then Khomeini and the rest of the IRI, who have provoked the world for 30 years straight, are the biggest criminals of all time. (not that I have any doubts that they are!)
“Hezbollah swiftly took over West Beirut, and routed forces loyal to Siniora”. Who is Hezbollah to act as the Lebanese army? Why doesn’t Hezbollah guerillas don’t join the Lebanese army to fight Israel? You think Christians and Sunni don’t want Shabaa back? Why is Hezbollah clearly violating Lebanese and common sense law by sending gunmen into streets like the thugs they are, to “take over neighborhoods”? Who are they fighting, Beirut or Israel?

Iran:
Iran uses mafia like tactics to further its agenda. Bush’s policy has been wrong on Iran. The entire world, with the exception of few countries such as China and Russia, are yet to understand how the IRI operates. But they are waking up. Trust me.

Israel/Palestine:

i: Wrong and you know it. Here’s a fact. U.S has never condemned Israel for building settlements like Bush has done. He is also the first U.S president to call for a Palestinian state.
ii: also wrong. U.S can only do so much.
iii: when did the U.S says that Palestinian election were not democratic? All the U.S said was it wants Hamas to recognize Israel, and that’s not only what the U.S said, the whole world, including Fattah (who won the presidency, and is in the state of war with Israel), said it recognizes Israel. When did the U.S discredit Hamas’ election?
iv: Refer to iii.
v: if it wasn’t for Hamas who doesn’t want peace, doesn’t want Israel to exist and wants to establish an IRI like state, Israel would’ve left Gaza alone. Blame Hamas.

Middle East:
i: how on earth is that Bush’s fault? Have you heard of supply and demand? Do you know how much China and India using oil now versus 8 years ago?
ii: Some people in the Middle East have been poisoned by the Islamic fundamentalism’s propaganda machine. Gotta admit it, they have done a much better job promoting their values than what the U.S have done.
iii: That’s living in lala land! When Khomeini bashed Carter, out of all people, on 24/7 basis, what do you think they gonna say about Bush. Anti Americanism is a survival issue for the IRI. Without it, there is no IRI. They have built everything they got on blind anti Americanism. To them, establishing normal relations and stop bashing the U.S is suicidal, literally. The day that Iran and U.S will have normal relations, is the day that IRI is no longer in existence.
iv: what reformists my friend? The IRI structure, according to its own so called “constitution” and Khomeini’s legacy, is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. What “election”? What “parliament”? What “reformists”? Where are the political parties? Who has the highest power in the IRI? Is he elected? What were the reformists try to “reform”, tell me? In a country when a group of human rights group report, ranked his leader as one of the top 5 worst dictators in the world, you’re telling me we got “reformists” who gonna make changes? Furthermore, here are the changes in other countries: Kuwait just recently had a great democratic parliamentary elections where women were allowed for st time to run for office, so did Bahrain, who recently appointed a Jewish female as ambassador the U.S (in our country after the revolution, Jews fled in thousands), Qatar is ready to hold its first democratic elections, and just granted rights to private media (Something the IRI strongly opposes), and in all those countries, social freedoms are on the rise.
The basic theme of your article is that the U.S controls the air we breathe! Everything that happens in the world is somehow U.S fault, or the U.S has something to do with it. Just to tell you this, that’s even logistically impossible. I mean that argument illustrates one of the most deadly social diseases we Iranians face which is stripping responsibility from ourselves and blame it on someone else. Our country has been destroyed almost, because of this mentality. No one carries that state of mind like we do. U.S’ power is limited, it has always been. True that it’s the most powerful, but its power is not unlimited. They don’t even ever had nor have enough CIA agents to pull off those policies, not forgetting that U.S CIA operation were up until the cold war pretty much anti Soviet operations. That’s why they don’t understand how the IRI operates. They don’t understand “Shehadat”, “Jihad”, “role of religion in the Middle East”, and things like that. Bush doesn’t. neither did Clinton, nor Regan, nor Carter. Blaming U.S on things that we should be taking responsibility for, is a product of a troubled Iranian mind.


Asghar Taragheh

Anonymouse8

by Asghar Taragheh on

I was writing in caps for ease of Mammad's reading. If that upset
you by thinking that I was being loud or something, I apologize.

1)
I did not claim that the west does not miscaluculate. You are correct
they miscalculate a lot. I just said that the IRI is playing a
dangerous game. You say that Iranians have to "decide by themselve what
they want to do". Iranians have not been able to do so for the past 100
years. Give us a break. Now the IRI is deciding for them and they are
not doing a good job at it as evidenced by their reputation around the
world. There is no "process" thart you speak of. There is the IRI dictatorship. There is no process in dictatorships/semi fascist regimes. 
Period.

2) As to Palestinians, they never had a legal entity
called Palestine- just like no legal entity called Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, kuwait, UAE existed 100 years ago..... I hope you know the rest. They were occupied by the
Ottomans, than by the British, then by the Jordanians and then by the
Israelis. It did not start in 1967 (and this is only the last 500 years). If it did, than why didn't they
declare a state in the current occupied territories prior to 1967? What
happened? So please you do a little math before you open your mouth.

3) As to your response to "WHAT SHOULD BUSH DUE,? ATTACK AND CHANGE THESE REGIMES AS WELL?"

Didn't I say that the west was Hypocritical? Please read what I said again. You just don't like the reality. If you are so concerned and civilized, go to the IRI and try fixing human rights there yourself since you care about Iranians so much ans since ITS UP TO IRANIANS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES as you claim. See how fast they will silence and nutralize you.

You show your double standards here as well. The US is cursed if it tries to do something (like foolishly attempting to give Iraqis a democracy) and it is cursed if it does not react (supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia because of its oil wealth).

It looks like you are being unfair madam/sir.


Abarmard

Let's see

by Abarmard on

If I was the Islamic Republic regime and saw all the enemies in front of me and also would wanted to do whatever I wanted with my Nuke program, I would have loved Bush's policies and diplomatic implementations. He himself, not Genghis khan, has been in charge and has been pushing for his policies and religious beliefs. Here we go, you get what you have asked for.

The question is the leadership. Not what happened and would happen but how you react to a possible disaster or a situation. If you believe that Bush has done a good job and no one could do better, then vote McCain.

Bush to me is the true representation of incompetent and religious nut case. Not a bad guy, just dumb. Not dumb that he doesn't know what he is doing, but he doesn't know how to do things correctly. Very similar to Ahmadinejad, just a different country. Replace them with one another and you get the same result. Very similar.


default

Taragheh, don't fire up prematurely

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

You say:

"IF THE WEST ATTACKS, IT HAS CALCULATED THAT THE IRI COULD NOT CHANGE FROM WITHIN."

The West's calculations have ALL been wrong in the past 8 years and when it comes to Iran, they have been wrong for over 50 years.

It doesn't matter what the "West" thinks. An attack on Iran is not acceptable. Iranians have to decide for themselves WHAT they want to do and HOW they want to do it. Do you understand? IRANIANS, not YOU, or your "West" have any right to disrupt this process.

The rest of your responses are frankly beyond absurd. Your use of all-caps makes me think that you are so angry that you cannot think clearly. Its really a waste of time to go through it one by one when all you do is negate without any support.

For example you say:

"THIS IS PURE PROPAGANDA. NOT FACT. PALESTINIANS ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF IRI POLICY OF SUPPORTING HAMAS."

You have been listening to Fox News. This is the view of people who have hit their head somewhere and lost their long term memory. Palestinians were suffering before there was any such thing as HAMAS or IRI. They have been occupied since 1967. Do a little math before you open your mouth next time.

"WHAT SHOULD BUSH DUE,? ATTACK AND CHANGE THESE REGIMES AS WELL?"

How about NOT keeping them in power artificially against their own people's will? How about NOT support them with massive military and financial aid? How about NOT help them kill and torture the opposition? How about NOT give them immunity from all human rights criticism while directing them to Iran. This is creating a double-standard that hurts human rights causes all over the world. No one can take US seriously when it talks about women's rights in Iran while at the same time the appalling, non-existant state of women's rights in Saudi Arabia is not even worth mentioning.

Taragheh,

Unless you are willing to be fair, support your claims and apply the same standard to everyone, you can not have a fruitful debate with anybody.


Zion

Very well argued Asghar

by Zion on

You debunk the non-original, boringly non-original, ranting of a typical propagandist very well. I am no fan of Bush, but I'll pick him over a loud mouth foaming leftist-islamist any time.


Asghar Taragheh

Mammad- Instead of Slogans I Will tell you

by Asghar Taragheh on

My Reply,

YOU CAN FIND THE BLOG TO YOUR IRI CHANGE FROM WITHIN ON THE BLOG PAGES. I THINK ITS ON THE 3RD PAGE

i) When Bush was elected the president, the price of oil was about $35/barrel. Today it is close to $140.

SO WHAT? YOU ARE SAYING THAT BUSH IS TO BLAME FOR WORLD MARKETS AND CHINEESE DEMANDS? I ACTUALLY THINK ITS A GOOD THING FOR OIL TO BE SO HIGH. MAYBE NOW BOTH DEMCORATS AND REPUBLICAN WILL BE FORCED TO LEGISLATE FOR MORE FUEL EFFICIENT CARS.

(ii) When 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, there was snmpathy for the
US in the Islamic world everwhere. Today, the US is despised.

LIKE A MARXIST GIVES A DAM IF PEOPLE HAVE SYMPATHY FOR THE US. AS I REMEMBER, PEOPLE LIKE YOU WERE THE FIRST TO BLAME THE US FOR THE 9/11 ATTACKS. REMMEBER, US BLIND SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL AND HAVING ITS FORCES ON ARAB LAND? I WOULD RATHER BE FEARED AND DESPISED THAN BE BLOWN UP INTO PIECES.

(iii) When Bush was elected, the US and Iran had a chance for
reconcilliation, after Madeleine Albright's speech. Today, there is no
chance, not at least until he leaves office, if he does not order an
attack on Iran.

THIS IS TOTAL BS SIR. TOTAL BS. THIS ARGUMENT ONLY WORKS IF WE BUY INTO YOUR CLAIM THAT THE SO CALLED IRI REFORMERS WERE REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE US POLICIES AND SANCTIONS...I ARGUE THAT THE REFORMERS, WITH OR WITHOUT US WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFEATED BY THE CONSERVATIVES BECAUSE THE IRI SYSTEM IS FLAWED AND ALLOWS SUCH THUGS AT ANY TIME TO TAKE POWER FROM ANY REFORMIST. THE REMOVAL OF THE REFORMERS WAS LIKE A WALK IN THE PARK FOR THE CONSERVATIVES BECAUSE THEY FEARED THAT THE REFORMERS WOULD USE THE SYSTEM TO DESTROY IT.

(iv) When Bush was elected, due to Iran's internal developments
(only 7 months before his electection, Iran's reformists had taken the
control of the parliament), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE,
and Jordan were moving towards cautious reform. They have stopped that
now.

I COULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS BECAUSE OF THE IRAQ INVASION AND THE INSURGENCY.

(v) Due to Bush's support, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and
UAE are still run by corrupt, dictatorial governments. They are
supported by Bush as "moderate governments," even though they produce
more terrorists than any other country.

AGAIN- THIS IS TOTAL BS. WHAT SHOULD BUSH DUE,? ATTACK AND CHANGE THESE REGIMES AS WELL? WHAT ABOUT SOVIET SUPPORT FOR SYRIA & IRAQ? WHO IS IRI RUN BY WITHOUT BUSH SUPPORT? EVERY AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION HAS SUPPORTED THE SAUDI'S.
JORDAN, KUWAIT AND UAE DO NOT PRODUCE TERRORISTS. IN FACT, THE IRI HAS PRODUCED MORE TERRORISTS THAN ANY OTHER NATION. THE HAMAS FOR EXAMPLE WERE TRAINED BY THE HIZBOLLAH WHEN THE ISRAELIS KICKED THE MEMBERSHIP OUT INTO LEBANONE. WHO IS THE HIABOLLAH TRAINED BY? OH AND OFF COURSE IN YOUR WORLD THE HIZBOLLAH WERE NEVER A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ANYWAY.

i) He is the 1st US president that actually recognized Israel policy
of settlements in the West Bank, giving Israel a letter committing the
US to such settlements.

HE WAS THE FIRST US PRESIDENT TO PUBLICLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF A PALESTINIAN STATE AS WELL. ISRAEL HAS SUCCEFULLY ARGUED THAT THEY CAN NOT REMOVE ALL THE SETTLERS FROM THE LAND. THEY HAVE AGREED TO GIVE THE PALS LAND IN ISRAEL IN RETURN. THE LETTER ACKNOWLEDGES THIS FACTS ON THE GROUND.

(ii) He has not moved a finger to prevent Israel's innumerable atriocities against the defenseless Palestinians.

THIS IS PURE PROPAGANDA. NOT FACT. PALESTINIANS ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF IRI POLICY OF SUPPORTING HAMAS. DO YOU REMEBER AT THE BEGINING OF THE INTIFADAH, EVERY OTHER DAY A BUS EXPLODED IN ISRAEL? WHO WAS PAYING FOR THIS? WHO THOUGHT THESE CHARACTERS SUICIDE BOOMBINGS? WHO WAS THE FIRST TO CONDUCT SUICIDE BOOMBINGS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

(iii) He pushed for democratic elections among Palestinians. Radicals wanted it too! What happened? I AGREE WITH YOU.

Alas! Darn! Hamas won! They got the pularity of the votes and absolute majority in the parliament. I AGREE WITH YOU.

(iv) But, wait a minute, Bush and Condi Rice said: True, we wanted
elections, but you guys voted for the wrong side! Our "directed
democracy project" was defeated once again. So, let's punish the
Palestinians for not electing our stooges! WELL THEY ELECTED IRI STOOGES INSTEAD. IS HAMAS ANY BETTER IN YOUR OPINION? I GUESS THEY ARE SINCE THEY ARE MORE MUSLIM FOR YOU.

(v) So, what happened? With Bush's support, Israel "evacuated" Gaza
Strip, but created the largest jail on Earth: Gaza's land, sea, and air
borders are all controlled by Israel. Israel attacks at will, and when
it kills innocents, what does Bush say? "Israel must defend itself"
against children, old men, and women.

THE GAZA IS IN THE CONDITION IT IS BECAUSE AFTER HAMAS TOOK OVER, THEY INDISCRIMINATLEY FIRED ROCKETS INTO CIVILIAN POPULATION. PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE TARGETED KILLINGS TO SHOOTING ROCKETS INTO CIVILIAN POPULATION. AS WRONG AS THE ISRAELI POLICY OF TARGETED KILLINGS MAY BE, IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY SHOOTING ROCKETS INTO ISRAELI CIVILIAN POPULATIONS. HENCE WE HAVE A BLOCKADE. ITS NOT ONLY SUPPORTED BY US BUT SILENTLY BY THE EU BECAUSE THEY SEE IT AS A FIGHT WITH THE IRI BECAUSE THE IRI IS THE ONLY ENTITY THAT IS SUPPORTING THE HAMAS. YOU SEE, IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE IRI THESE DAYS. I DON'T SEE ISRAELIS ARMING THE MEK WITH ROCKETS TO SHOOT INTO IRI BUT I SEE THE IRI ARMING AND FUNDING ALL OF ISRAEL'S ENEMIES- AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE AIPAC UP THE IRI'S ASSES UNTIL THIS MESS ENDS.

IN GENERAL MAMMAD MOST OF WHAT YOU SAY IS PROPAGANDA AGAINST US (NOT ONLY BUSH) BECAUSE YOUR ANALYSIS FAILS TO GO TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM OR IT FAILS TO ADDRESS HOW THE ISSUE/PROBLEM WAS CREATED.

FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO:

It is time for you and the like to declare clearly your position regarding changing Iran.

MY POSITION IS THAT THE IRI IS PLAYING HARDBALL IN A GAME OF POKER/CHESS AND WILL EITHER WIN OR LOSE THIS GAME. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK IT CAN WIN THIS GAME. I KNOW THAT YOU WILL SAY THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE IAEA BLAH BLAH BLAH- THE FACT IS THAT THEY WERE WORKING IN SECRET AND THEY TRIED TO COME CLEAN AND BE IN COMPLIANCE. THE FACT IS ALSO THAT ITS NOT ONLY THE US AND BUSH THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE THEM. ITS THE FRENCH, THE UK, ITALY, GERMANY.............THEY ARE ALL AFRAID OF THE IRI AND DO NOT LIKE TO SEE A POWERFULL IRI EVEN THOUGH IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM ACTUALLY STARTED UNDER THE SHAH WITH AMERICAN SUPPORT.

IS THE WEST ENGAGED IN HYPOCRICY? YES 100% YES. BUT THAT IS A FACT OF LIFE AS LONG AS THE AREA WILL SUPPLY OIL. THEY GOT RID OF SADDAM AND THEY MAY GET RID OF THE IRI IF THEY PRECIEVE IT AS TO LARGE OF A THREAT. THIS IS BECAUSE KOREA IS NOT SURRONDED IN AN AREA WHICH SUPPLIES THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S ENERGY NEEDS AND BECAUSE KOREA IS CONTAINED BY CHINA (AN ECONOMIC PARTNER OF THE WEST).

ASK YOURSELF, WOULD BUSH 1 AND THE REST OF THE SO CALLED COALITION ATTACK IRAQ IN THE 90'S IF SADDAM HAD A NUKE? NOW, IRI'S ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS IS 100 MORE ADVANCED THAN SADDAM'S- OH AND YES- DIDN'T THE IRI TRY TO STOP SADDAM FROM ACQUIRING NUKES EVEN WHEN HE DECLARED THAT HE HAD NO SUCH INTENTIONS? DIDN'T THE IRI TRY TO ATTACK OSAIRAK POWER PLANT BUT FAILED TO KNOCK IT OUT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS IN THE 80'S? PLEASE MAMMAD- ALL PARTIES HERE ARE ENGAGED IN HYPOCRACY IN PURSUIT OF SELF INTEREST. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. AT LEAST MAMMAD IN THE WEST CAN SPEAK HIS MIND AND NOT GET PERSECUTED. IF YOU WERE LIVING IN THE IRI, COULD YOU SPEAK YOUR MIND AND STAY ALIVE FOR A DAY? FOR THIS REASON ALONE, I SUPPORT THE WEST AGAINST THE IRI.

YOU MAY THING THIS IS A JOKE -BUT ITS NOT!

THIS GOES BACK TO WHETHER THE IRI CAN CHANGE FROM WITHIN. IF THE WEST ATTACKS, IT HAS CALCULATED THAT THE IRI COULD NOT CHANGE FROM WITHIN.

 

 


default

Legacy of Islamic

by xyz (not verified) on

Legacy of Islamic Republic:

افشاگری غافلگیرانه یک مسئول قوه قضائیه

//www.archive.org/details/efshaghari
//iranian.com/main/blog/democrat-0

Palizar has been arrested by the IR's.

عباس پالیزدار به اتهام تشویش اذهان عمومی بازداشت شد

عباس پاليزدار، که خود را دبير کميته تحقيق و تفحص مجلس معرفی کرده است، پس از ايراد اتهام های سنگين به مقام های جمهوری اسلامی در زمينه فساد اقتصادی، بازداشت شد.

//www.radiofarda.com/Article/2008/06/11/f4_Pa...


default

To One % Yar-e Ommat-e Hezbollah!

by Anonymous500 (not verified) on

:-)) Thanks for your advice "dear %" (I guess this is your mind set: a percentage, which tells me that you probably work on a % type of commission).

As to my being duped by the MKO "propaganda" as against being the "kharkesh-e ghool-e biyaboon" that our beloved Hezbollahi Intllectuals are on this BB, let me do my bidding and you, your's; afterall, this is America and not the land of "Estfessa" through the Good Offices of "His Eminence Akhund Teryaki, Panj-Tommani, Arus-e Ghom," concerning our civil liberties.

As to my drinking a glass of cold water, or better a cold beer (If I could afford); thanks for the advice again and tonight I will drink some cold "Sharagh" (Wine and Araq is known as Sharagh), and will say hurrah to the MKO for being able to dupe one more among Iranians rather than allowing him or her of becoming a "Kif-Kesh-e Akhund Jakesh, Kollol Ajmain."

Nice talking to you, percentile-based dime a dozen Hezbollah in Diaspora, and I sincerely hope that you get enough dough from these akhunds so that you can afford to cool down yourslef tonight with a good brand of Whisky if you know what hit you buddy.


default

Count down to impeachment of

by xyz (not verified) on

Count down to impeachment of Bush:

//www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/10/countdown...


default

Mr. Mammad: very thorough

by copper moon (not verified) on

Mr. Mammad: very thorough analysis of Bush admin's. legacy. The sheer incompetency of this man is astounding.

However, I would like to do a thorough examination of the IR's legacy using the same vigor and passion as you've displayed on dissecting moronic policies of Bush adminstration and the ensuing unintended consequences!

thanks.


Abarmard

mammad

by Abarmard on

Very good points. Impressive:)


Mammad

Asghar Taragheh

by Mammad on

I described the Bush's policy towards the Middle East. What I have described cannot be disputed. They are all factual. In addition, many of what I described have been Bush's initiatives. So, instead of slogans, tell me which of the facts given below you actually dispute. The analysis is not "cute." It is very serious. Come out, dispute the facts, and let's have a debate.

Surely,

(i) There are always two sides to the story and, therefore, I suggest that you take the lead and enlighten us by describing the other side, and

(ii) no policy is created in a vaccum. There are always actions, reactions, and counter-reactions. Bush declares Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the "axis of evil." Then, Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, and is invaded. North Korea does, and not only it is not invaded, but also given security guarantees, and economic incentives to stop its nuclear program. So, the message is loud and clear: If you have nucs, you are safe. This was Bush's policy.

(iii) The Soviets were totally responsible for the initial mess in Afghanistan. But, they left 20 years ago. It is like blaming the present mess in Iran on the Shah. He was responsible for the revolution, but not for the present mess created by the mullahs. The Shah left the scene 30 years ago.

The present Al Qaeda is the same as the Afghan mujahedin, funded by Saudi Arabia, armed by the CIA, and trained by Pakistan's ISI. Taliban are ISI's creature. They are the same people whom Ronald Reagan declared as "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." Remember this? 

(iv) I tried to go to the site you gave, but it did not connect. But, I'll say this:

Those who think that Iran cannot be changed from within, come out and say loudly and clearly how they think it should be changed. As an externally imposed solution, there is only war. If that is what you support, say it loudly, clearly, honestly, and precisely.

It is time for you and the like to declare clearly your position regarding changing Iran. Say it sir.


default

shrewd mollas (to Asghar T.)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Asgharjan, as you may agree with me Iranian Mollas in power are very shrewd. During past 28+ years they have used their shrewdness to many bad ends, ....., to enrich themselves while ignoring the poor, etc.
However they have also used their shrewdness to stop likes of Mr. Bush from destroying the country. So Asgharjan join me in wishing them success in that regard.
Lets also hope that they start paying attention to Iranian poor. Asgharjan, also .... join me in wishing them success in enrichment now that they have enriched themselves.