Roozbeh_Gilani

Mamad is not responsible ... don't you get it?

" by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sat Aug 27, 2011 08:32 PM PDTMammad would you agree that khomeini and IRI gave the worse name to islam from the view point of iranians?"

Mamad is not responsible for answering for government policies just because he shares the same faith.   Do you also go around asking random Jews to condemn Karl Marx (a/k/a Herschel Mordechai) just because their religious heritage is the same?  

You need to read this:

//iranian.com/main/blog/boosboos/iranian-...

Mammad would you agree that khomeini and IRI

gave the worse name to islam from the view point of iranians?

I'll chime in on this Mamad ...

" by Mammad on Sat Aug 27, 2011 08:13 PM PDT  You use a racist label invented by the neocons - 'Islamist' - to attack people like me, and you constantly label me! As terrible as I may be in your eyes, why can I not just be Mammad? "  

//iranian.com/main/blog/boosboos/iranian-...

The problem with you Sir

is that you are impossible to believe when you say you have no problems with Muslims. You use a racist label invented by the neocons - Islamist - to attack people like me, and you constantly label me!

As terrible as I may be in your eyes, why can I not just be Mammad? Why can I not be just professor (that you insist on calling me, as if by doing so you ruin my credibility as a professor, something for which you are utterly unqualified!)? And why is that as soon as I point out your inconsistency, I am an "Islamist liar?" Even if I lie - which I did not - why can I not be just a liar, but an Islamist one? Have you ever used "you Jewish liar," or "you Christian liar," or "you Hindu liar?" No, you have not.

Is it not prejudiced - I avoid racist here - to say, "It is only natural that when an Islamist speaks, an Islamist lies." Why is it natural? In science the only thing that is natural is something that has genetic roots. So, you mean Islamists - a racist term by itself - are born liars? What is then the difference between you and a true racist, if you do not consider yourself as one? 

Again, you awefully sound similar to another Muslim and Islam demonizer on this page with the same reasoning, the same labels, etc.

I rest my case. 

Mammad

Mammad,

Thanks for the encouraging words. I see my humble role here as a "roshangar" (not to be confused with a Roshanfekr!!). I noted the other day that almost every single blog on this site was devoted to attacking someone or some entity. People or political goupings are called all kinds of names for their alleged mistakes. Well, in my opinion the only people who do not make mistakes are the ones who do nothing, and that sums up the habitual attackers amongst us....

Having said all that, I agree with your points on the role of us outside Iran, to be the voice of those within. On leadership role, I'd not necessarily say that the leadership should be from within Iran, but I'd say that I'd certainly hope that it would come from within Iran, from our young and bright folks. The ones I know of, I have been deeply humbled by their intelligence, humanity, patriotism, tolerance and open minds. Let us see if we can transfer some of that mind set to this corner of cyber space... 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Really-Bites

1. The figure on 500,000 Iraqi children is from none other than the head of the UN UNICEF at that time. Check Wikipedia for the exact quote. He used "excess death," meaning on top of the normal mortality rate of children.

2. I do not agree with your take on the responsibility for the sanctions imposed on Iraq. As terrible as Saddam was, that was no excuse to impose such harsh sanctions. When Madeleine Albright stared into the TV camera and said, "We think removing Saddam is worth the death of Iraqi children," that said it all. Even the West itself backtracked after a few years, after the horrible results of those sanctions became clear. That is why I always say economic sanctions, at least of the type that was imposed on Iraq and is advocated by some in these pages for Iran, is nothing but a war that kills more. Iran lost 273,000 troops during the entire 8 year old war with Iraq, but Iraq lost 500,000 children as a result of the sanctions.

3. People kill each other all the time, but the question is the burden of the responsibility for what happens. As horrible as Saddam's regime was, the type of strife we saw in Iraq was triggered only by and after the invasion itself.

When General Josip Broz Tito, the leader of old Yugoslavia, died in 1982, after only a few years the Republic collapsed and there were several civil wars during which hundreds of thousands died. There, the responsibility was squarely on the people themselves. In Iraq's case, that is not the case. The Geneva Convention and other relevant international agreement hold the ocupying power responsible for the security of the occupied. The Geneva Convention does not distinguish between occupying Germany after WW II and Iraq in 2003. All are the same.

More importantly, the point is the anti-Muslims and anti-Islam people in these pages always make it look like Muslims have murdered vast number of people around the world, and are the cause of everything that is going wrong around the world, or at least in the Middle Eart.  Nonsense.

Just look at the statistics since WW II to see what has been done to Muslims by the West, from simultaneous invasion of Egypt in 1956 by Israel, France and Britain - only because Naser nationalized the Suez Canal - to Algeria's war of independence that killed 1.5 million people of Algeria, all the way to Palestinians, Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the 1953 coup in Iran that is the true root cause of all the problems that we have today in Iran.

True, terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, have given a bad name to Muslims. But, first and foremost, AQ does not represent anyone but a small fringe group out of 1.4 billion Muslims. And, second, until the root cause of terrorism - poverty, exploitation by foreign powers, and dictatorial regimes mostly supported by the West (Saudi Arabia, etc.) - is not addressed, such terrorist acts will persist.

Mammad

Roozbeh and Rahmanian

Roozbeh:

First of all, thank you for the excellent blog that triggered excellent and extensive discussions. This is what we need here. People like you can change this website to one in which meaningful debates and exchanges of ideas take place.

What I mean, and what I alway say, is that the struggle is inside Iran, and the leadership has to come from within Iran (you may agree or disagree). Thus, in my opinion, Iranians who live outside Iran only have a supporting role for the struggle in Iran. The role that I see, and what tried to take up for myself, is being a voice of those who cannot speak in Iran; those who have been jailed; those who have been killed.

G. Rahmanian:

As far as I know, the leadership of the Coordination Council for the Green Path of Hope is entirely in Iran. Dr. Ardeshir Amir Arjomand is a spokesman for Mir Hossein Mousavi, but as far as I know he himself is not a member.

Mammad

Guys think we are all more united than we think.

We all want the end of the IRI.

We all want a new secular constitution, that is voted on by the people,

We all want true sanctions/an embargo on its oil exports by sea to cut of the regimes oil income.

We all want iranians to take this in their own hands within iran and not be invaded by outside.

If the weakened regime uses air power against unarmed peaceful demonstrators, we'd like some protection by the entire international community, not just nato.

Any disagreements with these points so far?

VPK, on "Unity in US"

Sorry, dont want to intreupt the debate, but a s reminder, 

This blog is regarding a Unity of aims and strategies in order to achieve democracy in Iran, through reform or complete dismantling of Islamist regime. In US, the system of government is democratic and representative. I think we can all agree on that.

Do you think the islamist regime can be reformed into a scular democratic state at all? 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Mammad: A question on "Decison making role"

You stated: 

"The Iranians in the diaspora play a supporting role for the struggle within Iran, not a decision-making role. Those who want to be part of the decision-making process should move to Iran."

Can you please elaborate who/what entity should be in a decision making process, in you opinion? Thanks,

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

BoosBoos Jan

I really think US has deeper problems itself. This blog is about unity. Well that is missing in America. There are so many division here it boggles the mind. There are both philosophical and ethnic divisions.

Not to mention the language issue. Before long the makeup of major region will be majority Hispanic. Many areas are majority Spanish already. How long before they demand their own autonomy?

Meanwhile the North East and West Coast is not considered "Real America" by the South. They return the favor wih a passion. Right now there is practically a civil war going on. Between the "Tea Party" and the rest. Plans may be made but I think America should be worrying about its own problems. Many others agree with me. I would not be surprised if people through congress force a new isolationism. Most Americans just don't want to hear about Libya; Afghanistan; Iraq or anywhere else. Given Medicare or Afghanistan they will force congress to defund the latter.

MAMAD & ROOZBEH ...

 To Mamad:

Read these 2 links: one is about a technique used here to attack people, and the other is about issues of separatism (the participation of the diaspora and the problems it now presents) all of which are topical to the issue of uniting:  

//iranian.com/main/blog/boosboos/iranian-mccarthyism-spies-house-love 

//iranian.com/main/blog/boosboos/usa-cons...

P.S. I agree with certain of the points you raise. 

------------------------------- 

To Roozbeh:  

REGARDING MY USER ID:

"[by Roozbeh-Gilani] BoosBoos: I really appreciate you participating. This blog was to a small part written about user ID's like yours. No reverse psychology was meant or applied. But Thanks for proving many of my points."

• I actually chose another user name - and JJ said it wouldn't work, so after communicating with JJ he helped sign me up with another User ID.   That's the truth.  My original user name didn't have the word "boos" in it but contained the same number of letters. Only JJ and I know about that communication - There goes your grand theory Roozbeh.  

VPK in the future you may be 100% right

Cash is tight now, but if as I hallucinate the real purpose of Libya was to create a sharia system and if possible a civil war, they are very expensive.  2 sides adds up to $4 billion each side per month if you look at Algeria.

Libya has over $100 billion cash frozen and and we are talking $100-120 billion a year say its a really short one 5 years, (unlike Algerias 10 year one) thats $500-$600 billion and when the money goes into these countries from the manufactering side there is a multiplier effect of x 10 (read multiplier in economy text books on weapons sales)

So $600 billion leads to money circulating and causing $6 Trillion in growth.  That's huge and it also covers the cost of importing the oil much more than 100%. 6Tril over 5 years isn't bad for a liitle talk about protecting human lives and spreading democracy, not too shabby at all.

The question is all these murderers they have trained and supported are they willing to kill each other for power once ghaddafi goes... who knows, who care.. Obamas already laughing all the way to the treasury bank, after all he got his nobel peace prize a few years ago and can do what he wants now.

Just one thing

Mehrdad and Amirparviz: 

You may be both right about the policy of ruining the region. But the US relies on its military. And it is running out of money. The congress barely funded Obama's Libyan fiasco. The mighty military machine runs not on oil but on cash. 

It is being financed by China right now. Have you noticed that S+P downgraded US credit rating. That will in time mean it gets more expensive to fund the machine. American jobs are moving offshore meaning a smaller tax base. Plus they keep reducing taxes. That means less money in the treasury hence more borrowing. The house of cards will crack if not collapse. Once that happen I guarantee you NATO will pull right out. Then the region will be left to its own fate.

The discussion is beginning to drift away

From the original intent of how unity can be brought about among Iranians of differing views on how to form the nucleus of an effective opposition to the Islamic, but I guess that's the nature of the beast.

While straying from the subject, I would challenge some of Mamad's quoted stats and views. For example I would strongly challenge the figure of 500,000 Iraqi children "being killed in the 1990s as a result of sanctions" and I would also challenge the cause of the death of Iraqi children being blamed squarely on "Christians killing Muslim through sanctions " where, imo, the real responsibility lay with Saddam, first in not complying properly with the UN in the 1990s and second in not allowing sufficient funds and resources to get to Iraqi people via the (much abused) "oil for food" program.

Mamad jaan, this is not to defend the West against some of the undoubted damage it has done, e.g. the war on Iraq, which was a total folly (though the war on Afghanistan was justified), but while no one can know for sure, it is likely more Muslims have been killed at the hands of other Muslims than anyone else, certainly in Iraq and Afghanistan and now Pakistan this is the case.

And to me, one the saddest thing has been the deafening silence of the decent and moderate Muslims in the World, against their extremist brethrens who are responsible for killing and continuing to kill so many other Muslims, while seeking to lay most, if not all, of the blame with the West.

Extremism and fundamentalism has enveloped an increasingly significant proportion of the World's Muslim population. The trend is accelerating and I fear if it continues to go unchecked, the huge of number of killings we have had in places like Iraq and Afghanistan will pale by comparison. The best way this can be prevented is by Muslims themselves to take on and defeat the extremists. But so far, I'm not seeing much evidence for this.

I agree with ArminParvizForSecMonar (VPK see also)

" VPK US Policy is to stifle entire region. by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sat Aug 27, 2011 05:06 PM PDTThey want Islam in govt to keep coutries backwards."

I presented a news article (the best one on the internet in my opinion) showing that the U.S. seeks to impose religion-based politics through a Saudi Arabia-style conservative regime in Syria.   Does the U.S. want democracy in Iran or Syria?  Not exactly.  It wants regimes that will take orders from Washington.   It's an article out of India and gives the best explanation of Syrian history and politics also -- you just don't see that on the mainstream US news (and for some reason it got no play on this site):

Here it is (Syria sheds light on Iran):    //iranian.com/main/news/2011/08/25/very-good-article-u-s-actions-syria-shed-light-its-approach-iran

Also read this:    //iranian.com/main/blog/boosboos/usa-considers-dividing-iran   

VPK US Policy is to stifle entire region.

They want Islam in govt to keep coutries backwards, look at Libya Sharia constitution, they don't want to help progressive elements but to suppress them, thats why even with Unity I doubt we can succeed against that.

Weakness gives them an opportunity in the future to cause civil wars, reconstruction projects and dividing up countries and resources for multinational exploitation.

They absolutely don't want shah, for this reason.  Read their policy papers and what they write to educate their own armed forces, University faculty and NGo's.  Its al done in thename of promoting democracy, freedom and justice.

They are geniuses in their own corrupt way.  Not at all about what they say or human rights.  That's why I say Shah needs all the help he can get from iranians as the west is against him as it conflicts with their long term aims for Iran, The Middle East and North Africa.

The late Shah was a patriot, not a stoog, but they took him down due to the lack of wisdom of our intellectuals. 

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

I have not been living in Iran and going through what the youth have. Maybe they got anger I don't because I have not felt the oppression. But I do know people who have come from Iran recently and have been reasonable.

I don't know what is going to happen in Iran. The real change will come from inside. Maybe there will be a massive civil war with lots of deaths. Maybe the Italian Mussolini thing will be repeated. I am less worried about Khamenei than normal people.

What really worries me is the diaspora standing in safety of West. Then joking about bombing Iran. I do agree that Reza Pahlavi will make a great unifying force. But it takes work and support which is missing for time being.

Dear Amir

I like to remind you that  USA oversaw the new constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why did it not give them a secular one? The USA today is not that of 1945. It used to be a lot more benevolent then. 

In addition Germans and Japaneses have a different mindset. In Germany the people felt guilty about their actions and accepted occupation. Japanese simple did what their Emperor told them. Neither Iraqi nor Afghans feel this way.

The only group that feels grateful to USA is Kurds. And they are in fact the one region where US has no problems. Because its population accepted Americans as liberators while the rest do not feel that way.

VPK You are mature in your view on the subject of hating regime

Problem I find among Iranians that have just left iran for education abroad is that they have serious rage in themselves.  There is not a tolerant word in their views.  They talk of being mullah kosh etc and laugh, they are totally decensitized to harm and extreme oppression, this site with all its issues is so much better than the general iranian community.

The political dimension is that we now have an environment that we can not control at all, when Reza Pahlavi talks of Reconcilliation with the people who worked with this regime he loses popularity. If a person talks of strong punishments he gains popularity.

I may be totally wrong on this, but my view is people are wanting a reza shah to rally around not a mohammad reza shah.  It's either apathy or rage among majority of youth, no moderation, among older people its much much better.

What's your solution for the non IC community walking around Europe, with little money and barely surviving?????????

dear amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

This was a response to a guy asking people to stop name calling on all sides today.  LOL.

There will always be people who are not going to be civil. We just have to live with them. It means we are not going to all be united. But we don't need every single individual; just the right number of people.

amirparvizforsecularmonarchy jan

People should not joke about this. There is a bit of truth behind each joke. The first step to each horrible action is joking about it.

I am not PC but I do not go jokingly using the "N" word for African Americans. We do not joke about a new holocaust.

My first demand is that we in diaspora stop joking about mass murder of Iranians.

How do some of us cope with people who share different views?

This was a response to a guy asking people to stop name calling on all sides today.  LOL.

//iranian.com/main/comment/reply/156129/4...

Down we Fall. Ouch.

What Are Our Demands?????????

The demands of us, the Iranian youth, are simple: the most urgent demand
is to have a full-on love-parade down Pahlavi Avenue.

-Quote of the decade.

VPK

I think that was a joke of poor taste.

Please read this thread

While we are discussing how to be uniied I found this post. It shocks me that an Iranian or at least poster on IC advocates use of Nuclear weapons on Iran:

//iranian.com/main/blog/fred-569#comment-...

I like you all to please tell me what you think of this person and his proposal. No need to say I strongly oppose it. Not just their use against Iran but also against any nation; group including MEK; Israel or *anyone*.

Mammad:

You wrote:"The people that you attack in Iran are far, far, far, far ahead of you in terms of understanding the current conditions in Iran. After all, your are here in the confort of your home, constantly saying 'lengesh kon' but they are there, mostly in jail, facing the most extreme brutality." You also wrote: "Iranians in the diaspora play a supporting role for the struggle within Iran, not a decision-making role. Those who want to be part of the decision-making process should move to Iran." If you remember, you mentioned the "Green Leaders" in diaspora a while ago and said you could not reveal their identities. Does what you have said above pertains to those leaders as well? If yes, what kind of leaders are they and how can they lead the movement when they are far, far, far, far behind the people inside Iran? If your answer is no, then I would like to ask you: Why double standard? Why such blatant hypocrisy? Based on which moral principles or political beliefs are you prescribing two utterly opposing criteria for different groups of Iranians. Who has given you the authority or the right to say such a thing? What kind of political analyst are you when all you do is regurgitate and spout regime's propaganda anytime you get a chance? What sort of unity are you proposing when you tell millions of Iranians in diaspora they have no right to participate in the decision-making when it comes to their country's affairs? Is this how you want to build democracy? Iranians are in jail because there is a brutal regime in power. Iranians are being persecuted, imprisoned, maimed, raped and lynched because a bunch of ruthless Islamists are in control of our country. They are not in jail so that Iranians in diaspora would not have any say in any kind of decision-making with regards to their country. They are not fighting against the regime, so that a demagogue like you, who left Iran more than three decades ago could tell their compatriots outside of Iran how to fight against the bloodthirsty savages in Tehran. 

I have been following this discussion with kin interest

This blog started good and the subsequent discussion and debate has made it great.

Thanks for all participants specially Roozbeh for not only providing a base for this discussion but also adding great comments which serves as a template for unity even when it is in disagreement.

Also, I enjoyed the debate and points by Mammad, it goes to show that even though I am as far apart from his view regarding religion (be it Islam or not) but I find his debate very logical and to the point.

Mehrdad

Islamist "logic" at its finest

Case in point: the Islamist Professor.

A sample of Islamist nonsense in action: "...meaning that if the U.S. invades and occupies Iraq". The U.S. also invaded and occupied West Germany and Japan with tens of thousands of its troops. There are still tens of thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea. There was no campaign of murder and mayhem in those countries by fanatical terrorists, was there Professor? The notion that Colin Powell or the Geneva Conventions or anything else would absolve terrorists of moral responsibility for the bombings, beheadings, and murders they commit makes perfect sense, Professor.

I have no doubt that's what Colin Powell meant: that if Islamist and Arab terrorists go on a spree of killings and bombings, naturally enough the U.S. is morally responsible for the actions of its deadliest enemies! When Islamists kill and destroy, who is responsible? The Great Satan, of course! What a way to use "logic", Professor!

And Islamist Professor, try though you may (false accusations being a mainstay of Islamists) to accuse me of "hatred towards Muslims", I have made it very clear that the problem is Islamists, not Muslims. It is only natural that when an Islamist speaks, an Islamist lies.  

My 2 cents

• Afghanistan: The Islamist movement there was fueled by the Carter Administration. Before that Afghanistan was relatively sane. The Soviets were lured into there in order to in words of Brzezinski give them "their Vietnam". It worked but cost Afghans their nation.
• Iraq: While Saddam had control his Iron First kept the factions under control. The interventions there again allowed chaos and the resulting deaths. Without US intervention Iraq would have been a secular dictatorship.
• Reformists: I do not put Karroubi in the same group as Mousavi. He did not oversee the executions and has shown far more decency. I do think a reconciliation process will be necessary.