ETERAZ

PG IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF

PG IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE NEOCON "FEMINIST" (THESE GUYS WHO CEASELESSLY INVOKE WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO JUSTIFY THE OBLITERATION OF OUR COUNTRY) - THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS UNTIL WOMEN START ACTUALLY EXPRESSING THEIR VIEWS...then they want to send them back into the kitchen!!! hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Just practice not letting

Just practice not letting the negativity affect you, it's not easy at first, but it's liberating.

Brilliant advice IranDokht jaan...I know this intellectually but sometimes the verbal contortions, distortions, slander and fog ofpropaganda just get to me...I think I've been battling these same figures, who funnily enough never really write anything, for quite a while and yesterday at least, I was tired and my restraint was just shot...I really have been castigating myself for going down to some individuals level however...

PG - as usual you show you don't know what you're talking about - you should really be ashamed of yourself for talking about a progressive, liberal and intelligent Iranian woman such as IranDokht like that...Disgraceful...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

IRANdocht

I guess you might be an IRI supporter, after all. I've seen you praise the usual suspects here a lot, and never seen you praise tehir critics. *shrug*

I withdraw my apolology for calling you an IRI supporter without any evidence. It seems you weern't willing to apologize for the labels you incorrectly applied to me anyway. Fair is fair, right? :P

Dear Sadegh

Of course it was important to know what groups are uniting for the purpose of destroying our country! I can't imagine any iranian wanting such doom for Iran and not being bothered by such alliances against our people.

People forget that there's always been a mandatory draft in Iran and the young people who'd have to get engaged in any future battles are our own flesh and blood not just bassijis or pasdars that they may not care about... I don't want Iran to become another Iraq or Afghanistan, no matter how much I oppose the IRI!

As for the slander you have to constantly face here and the attacks by the whole fish-tank on the other blog: Anyone who ever visited your website would know where you stand on issues.

Negative reactions and verbal hostility only take away our energy that can be used in much more productive ways. Just practice not letting the negativity affect you, it's not easy at first, but it's liberating.

IRANdokht

No problem IranDokht

No problem IranDokht jan...glad you found it of interest...I have to earn my official 'IRI Agent' fee somehow...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Thank you Sadegh

Very disturbing article!  What course of action could possibly be taken and by whom, in order to counter the bitter outcome of such union?

btw: I apologize for my part in sidetracking from your original blog.  

IRANdokht

//www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5

Dedrick Muhammad and Farrah Hassen | August 18, 2008

Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco

Though the national sentiment favors wrapping up the Iraq War, there exists a small but powerful movement for starting a new military conflict with Iran. The bipartisan drumbeats for aggression reverberate throughout the corridors of Congress. House Resolution 362 and Senate Resolution 580, for example, call on the United States to prevent Iran from "acquiring a nuclear weapons capability through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means."

The House's Iran resolution, sponsored by Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY), demands the president impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran." This legislation effectively requires a blockade on Iran which is considered by international law as an act of war. The Senate's Iran resolution, sponsored by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), would require a ban on "the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran." Neither resolution offers evidence on Iran's alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Both neglect to mention any sanctions against the only country known to actually have developed nuclear weapons in the Middle East: Israel.

Evoking Orwellian 2+2=5 logic, both Congressmen have offered sanctions as the means to avoid war by applying economic pressure on Iran. Yet sanctions rarely achieve their intended objective. For instance, unilateral U.S. sanctions failed to topple the Cuban, Iraqi and Libyan governments. They punished (and in Cuba's case, continue to punish) civilians instead.

The "squeeze Iran" and "confront Iran" positions are strongly encouraged by the increasingly powerful Zionist Christian Fundamentalist community. About 5,000 people from across the United States attended the third annual Washington-Israel Summit, organized by Christians United for Israel (CUFI). There, the "Iranian threat" loomed as a pervasive theme.

"What do you do with a maniac like Ahmadinejad? I'm not sure diplomacy works," Gary Bauer, President of American Values and a CUFI executive board member, told the crowd during the July 22 "Middle East Intelligence Briefing." Another panelist, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN), urged the attendees to make their support for HR 362 known to their members of Congress.

We attended this "the Rapture" meets "Clash of Civilizations" session – on the only day open to the press. We listened to the never-ending chorus from Bauer, Pence, Representative Elliot Engel (D-NY), and The Weekly Standard editor William Kristol who kept telling the assembled crowd why Americans must fear "Islamo-fascists"/"Islamo-radicals"/"death worshippers," and their other scary names for Muslims. Panels curiously closed to the press at the three-day conference included "Iran: Eye of the Storm," "Radical Islam: In Their Own Words" and "How to Stop Funding the Enemy: Divestment, Sanctions and Boycotts."

As Muslims, we attended the summit to learn more about CUFI. What we found was disturbing. Being well-received and courteously treated by the pleasant staff of a conference that talks of Muslims as "death worshippers" was a truly paradoxical experience. We also found it ironic that the organization's acronym, CUFI, is pronounced like kufi, an Arabic word for the short, rounded prayer cap worn by devout Muslim men.

John Hagee (whose name was recently in the news for ties to John McCain, who subsequently distanced himself from the Texas megachurch pastor), founded CUFI in 2006. According to its statement of purpose, the group seeks to "provide a national association through which every pro-Israel church, parachurch organization, ministry, or individual in American can speak and act with one voice in support of Israel in matters related to Biblical issues." Christian Zionists believe that support for Israel is not only mandated by God but is required in order to hasten the second coming of Christ (the End Times). They predicate their support for Israel on a desire to bring on Armageddon, and therefore push for policies that they believe will make this happen faster. Their "support" for Jews comes with a major and ironic caveat: after the second coming of Christ, Jews are required to convert to Christianity or else be left behind with the other "non-believers," like Muslims. Prior to starting CUFI, Hagee published a related, and equally disturbing, book called Jerusalem Countdown.

Those who don't subscribe to this religious interpretation too often dismiss Hagee and CUFI as "kooky." It's even kookier to ignore Christian Zionists' influence on U.S.-Middle East policy. In fact, Hagee, who also leads the 18,000-strong Cornerstone Church in Texas, would like to see CUFI become "the Christian version of AIPAC," (Read Max Blumenthal's article "Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism," published in The Nation's August 8, 2006 issue, for more about this.)

According to the Nation article, White House officials met with CUFI leaders in 2006 in a series of off-the-record meetings to discuss its policies in the Middle East. "CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah," Blumenthal wrote. Brog, who serves as CUFI's Executive Director, couldn't disclose who CUFI leaders met with at the White House.

CUFI's unequivocal "support for Israel" means the United States should stand against Zion's "enemies" – Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and any serious Arab-Israeli peace agreement. This parallels policies advocated by prominent neoconservatives who have served in George W. Bush's administration, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, and Elliott Abrams.

Just so readers don't think speakers at the "Middle East Intelligence Briefing" pandered to the audience, compare CUFI's positions to what supposedly reasonable members of Congress declared on the same issue. Being "committed to Israel" has come to mean passing congressional resolutions that vitiate rational, constructive policy towards Israel and its Middle Eastern neighbors. For example, Engel received a rousing standing ovation when he declared: "I don't think the U.S. needs to be even-handed in the Middle East – it needs to stand with and behind our only ally, Israel." Demonstrating the Congressman's resolve to support legislation targeting Israel's "enemies," Engel sponsored the 2003 Syria Accountability Act in the House, which led to the imposition of U.S. trade sanctions against Damascus.

Parroting Engel, Pence reiterated, "As the election approaches it will be a time of choosing. America's role is not to be an honest broker in the Middle East. It begins with standing for the security and interests of Israel." What kind of message does that send to Arabs, Persians, and Muslims in the region – the majority of whom would like to see peace and political, social, and economic development reign supreme over lingering war, occupation, and enmity?

"Iran reminds me of Adolf Hitler," Engel told the crowd of young, middle-aged, and old folks. "When Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the map, he means it. He'd do it to the U.S. and Europe if he could." Engel then added, "We need to look at the world as it is – there's no way we can sit idly by and allow Iran to build a bomb. Iran is not doing this for peaceful reasons...Iran is the largest sponsor of terror in the world – in Lebanon, Syria..."

Even worse, according to the Congressman, "We find Iranians making inroads in South America with Bolivia and Venezuela. Iranians have no business in the Western Hemisphere." The paranoia around Iran is so great that relatively small trade deals between South American countries and Iran is viewed as a threat. Not to be outdone, Pence offered this nightmare scenario on Iran: "This is a perilous time with the menacing pronouncements of Ahmadinejad. God forbid the next Holocaust will not require camps but one missile and one bomb and 17 minutes of flight. Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are coming together to place more pressure on Iran until it abandons nuclear weapons." Thunderous applause ensued. Some in the crowd even raised their hands in the air, presumably to pay homage to an Iran-hating God.

Hearing these hostile pronouncements on Iran, without context, history or mention of the 70 million Iranian people, we both wondered if the Congressmen or expert speakers had actually read the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which concluded that Iran did not have a nuclear weapon or program to build a nuclear weapon? In another instance of dubious credibility, Kristol praised the U.S. surge in Iraq, exclaiming, "We're on the verge of winning the war on Iraq!" He warned that the consequences of an early U.S. withdrawal would be "catastrophic," without explaining how the U.S. occupation of Iraq has brought any modicum of stability in the first place. He didn't mention the catastrophe for more than 4 million displaced Iraqis, whose destinies, alongside other Iraqis, have been altered by the war and occupation, or the wounded and broken U.S. veterans, who too often lack adequate medical care upon returning home. "We understand our enemies and we will win this war," Kristol concluded. "We can win this war against jihadists who worship war, kill Israelis, and Americans."

After the two-hour briefing, we headed toward the exit of the Convention Center. Later that evening, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) would address the "Night to Honor Israel Banquet," alongside Hagee and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Sallai Meridor. We walked past the "Daughters for Zion" booth and another booth selling "Treasures of the Holy Land" – shiny, golden menorahs and ornate ceramic plates with the image of Old Jerusalem. (A sign assured that all those tchochkes were made in Israel, not a Chinese factory.) One would never have known that Muslims also share and inhabit the Holy Land, after spending a day at the conference.

Ultimately, what we found most disturbing about the Summit is how this group of Jews and Christians, Democrats and Republicans, managed to get past their differences to unite against their Muslim enemy. As Muslims, we never felt any hostility toward us personally, but rather a hostility towards the entire Muslim world for being a threat to the Western civilization shared by Christian and Jews (at least white Christians and Jews). We never heard any of the panelists explicitly say, "Muslims are evil." However, the same message was finessed with the excessive use of the trendier, post 9/11 term, "Islamo-facists," and its equivalents, "Islamo-radicals," "jihadists" and "death-worshippers."

William Kristol did mention that more Muslims have died fighting against terror than any other people. But he never managed to follow up with how Christians and Jews, if truly interested in promoting democracy and human rights around the world, could or should partner with those of the third faith of the Abrahamic religions, Muslims. Instead, it felt as though we were witnessing the manifestation of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis inside the convention center's halls.

Pence assured the audience "We're not beating the drum for war. Peace for Israel is through strength alone." Yet can there truly be peace for Israel alone in the small part of the world we call the Middle East? We think not. Christians United for Israel isn't the type of organization that will help advance a Middle East peace process. Nor can it help facilitate a constructive peace making role for the United States. What's needed is a movement of all people united for a peaceful and just Middle East.

Dedrick Muhammad is the senior organizer and research associate for the Program on Inequality and the Common Good and Farrah Hassen is the 2008 Carol Jean and Edward F. Newman Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. They are contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

IranDokht-e aziz

Yes, if you believe in the things I listed in my comment, you are indeed a leftist. These are the things that separate right from left.

Why do I bother with people who attack and insult me, at the worst possible personal level? Because I firmly believe that such people cannot tolerate a tolerent Muslim. It really bothers them that a practicing Muslim and self-confessed leftist speaks (in your words) with clarity, passion, and knowledge. It really bothers them that there is a moderate Muslim who is a pacifist, is against war, against exploitation, and is for a secular republic. What they like to see is their stereotype of Muslim people which is so wrong. 99% of muslims are probably like me. As for that 1%, there are as bad or worse in other religions also.

Just read what Fred says about me. You will get the point.

So, that is why I stand up, tolerate, and respond. If I don't, I am not me, and I would hate that.

Thank you for your kind words.

Mammad

FK

Let me respond to your claims:

1. US and UN: Come on! The US has used the UN Security Council to advance its agenda. When the US cannot get its way, it vetoes the UNSC Resolutions. No UNSC permanent member has used, by far, the veto power than the US. An example, over 80 Resolutions against Israel, even when the vote was or is 14-0. When that does not work, the US simply declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction. An example, Nicaragua in 1985, when the US mined Nicaragua's ports illegally, and was ordered to pay damages, it declared that it does not accept the jurisdiction.

2. Communism: In the name of confronting communism, the US supported some of the worst military dictatorships in South and Central America, which murdered close to 1 million people; it supported Jonas Savimbi and his criminal gang in Angola; it supported apartheid regime; it supported the Shah; .....

3. 90% of the US foreign aids goes to TWO countries: Israel , which dictates US Middle East policy, and Egypt, a corrupt dictatorship which acts as a US policeman.

4, Muslims: The US intervened in Bosnia only after the killing fields of Bosnia started to really bother the Westerners' conscience; after 350,000 Muslims had been killed. But, to "compensate" for it, it invaded Iraq, and has caused the death of at least 1 million Iraqis.

Le Pen and France: He never got close to getting elected. He just came second once in the first round, but was defeated overwhelmingly by more than 80% of the votes in the second round. When I say you invent stories, it is precisely because of such statements.

Mammad

my aborted criticism! (to Kashani)

Kashani, as usual I started reading your comments so I could criticize you, but by the the time I finished skimming through them I had laughed so hard that my mojo for criticism of you had totally diminished!
So Kashani_jAn, I decided to thank you instead!
BTW, one of your phrases that made me laugh so hard was "I use facts, figures and logic" .... :)

Kashani, let me explain how "facts" work versus "opinions"

You have given more than one lecture about how you work with "facts" and no opinions. However, you constantly produce opinions and pretend like they actually are valid responses to proven facts.

Tell me honestly, don't you see that nearly 100% of your last "reply" to me was just opinions?

Your advice about what we Iranians should do, "take responsibility", "don't blame foreigners", etc. might be good advice, but it's an opinion. It does not negate the fact that operation Ajax happened, for the reasons UK and US have admitted (oil), and that it was planned and executed by them. Unless you can prove the same thing would have happened regardless of CIA and MI6 than you can't possibly dispute these facts. I would be interested in seeing any kind of scientific study that say CIA was not responsible, or that this was really just an accident.

Why are you (exactly as I predicted) are inventing arguments that I supposedly made? Did I ever say there was a governor installed by Americans? Did I ever dispute that the Shah was Iranian? If not, why do you say "Why aren't you able to grasp these facts?"

What you say in your arguments is a sign of that bruised mentality. That has nothing to do with the U.S or anyone else. We wanted a king, at least a good portion of us did, and in 1979 we didn’t want a king. It’s us, not them. Get it through your head.

These are all opinions + an insult. Given that overwhelming majority of Iranians supported Mossadegh against the Shah and the Shah had gone away to Italy, it's difficult to believe that "we wanted a King." If a majority did not wanted, that can't mean "we" wanted it. But if you have any kind of non-opinion evidence that the majority did, I would love to see it.

For example, are you gonna blame France for letting Khomeini stay and then fly back to Iran? Absolutely not!

No, of course not. Just like I'm not going to blame Turkey for allowing Khomeini's plane to fly over it's territory, or Iraq for both admitting and later deporting Khomeini both of which helped his popularity. These are what we call non-sequiturs. They are missing the element of intention.

if you have proof that France did something on purpose just to create the revolution, then we can intelligently speak about Khomeini's permission to stay in France as something relevant. If you don't, it has the same status as saying "Shah didn't kill Khomeini, it must be that he really wanted to be overthrown."

He didn’t need the CIA. He might’ve needed the CIA to fight domestic communist, yes, but not to help him with a monarchist tradition that has deep roots in our society and our psyche.

These are also opinions. You have no idea "why" the Shah used CIA. You assert he didn't need them but $Millions were spent on CIA training and creation of SAVAK. As you well know, Communists weren't the only people jailed and tortured by SAVAK.

Don't get me wrong, Kashani, you have some good advice. You are welcome to say the Shah didn't need SAVAK but if you want to refute the experts you have to show some evidence that proves it.

You are going against a lot of established historians and scholars who have dedicated their lives to the study of these events and Iranian history. The least you could do is provide facts against their conclusions.

IRANdokht aziz, you are a

IRANdokht aziz, you are a great Iranian and an example of a modern, civilized, democrat manner citizen of Iran and the world. I don’t think I agree with everything you say, but for me, whats important is the manner which you approached this forum for exchange of ideas. But the time that Iranian people were intimidated and bullied by these un-Iranians is over. If they wanna have a civil discussion, I’ll be more than glad to participate, and they are more than welcome to disagree with everything I say, but if they insult, intimidate or bully, they gonna get the same thing back x100.

Like I said, these people take kindness and civility, the same way the IRI has done with the world and the Iranian people, as a sign of weakness.

Q, I didn’t say I was

Q, I didn’t say I was smarter than you or I use logic and facts more than you, I let that to readers to decide. But I just gave you an advice not to makeup up facts, because I do remember things. You can choose to ignore my advice.

Again, you’re unable/unwilling to see the point. Like I said for reasons that I’m not gonna repeat again since you can scroll down and see my response, the 1953 was an IRANIAN coup. If we blame someone else for it, or most importantly, blame our current mishaps on it, then we haven’t matured as people, and the way we find whether we have matured as people is to compare ourselves to countries, which I mentioned only some of them below, that went through worst political turmoil and still made it. Try to open your mind and think about what I just said here. We need to take responsibility for our own action. The result of the 1953 coup was not a U.S appointed governor, rather, an Iranian king who was the son of the previous king, which were part of a s system that goes back thousands of years which has/had millions of supporters. Why aren’t you able to grasp these facts? Iran’s socio political structure has/is damaged because of centuries of tyranny. What you say in your arguments is a sign of that bruised mentality. That has nothing to do with the U.S or anyone else. We wanted a king, at least a good portion of us did, and in 1979 we didn’t want a king. It’s us, not them. Get it through your head.

U.S might’ve interfered with our affairs, no doubt about that, but we made the decision. And no one else. For example, are you gonna blame France for letting Khomeini stay and then fly back to Iran? Absolutely not! Because Khomeni didn’t need France’s support, so did Shah, he didn’t need U.S’ support to be in power. He didn’t need the CIA. He might’ve needed the CIA to fight domestic communist, yes, but not to help him with a monarchist tradition that has deep roots in our society and our psyche.

Who are you trying to fool?

I used to think all

I used to think all Iranians are civilized too, till I met the leftists and IRI apologizers like you.

I use facts, figures and logic, not “opinions”. Not just because someone who is ideologically driven, said so ! Or because someone whose ideologically driven thinks so.

You guys quote your allies in the media, and leftist university professors, and leftists organizations and use that as “facts”.

Who are you trying to fool?

useless accusations

I hope some day we can communicate without accusing others.

Sadegh jan and dear Mr Kashani

Please reconsider this method of arguing! What did these accusations thrown at either one of you accomplish? You both became frustrated and tried to hurt the other even more.

I think if people who currently live in Iran and are working effectively against the government show up on this side and tell others how they think their problems are better resolved, none of you guys would think twice before attacking them. If they favor a specific group, you will shut them down.
If they say they think reform is the best way, they'll be accused of being IRI supporter in a heartbeat. We're so used to slamming each other, lashing out at one another and poiting an accusatory finger to whoever disagrees with us.

When I first made a comment on this website, I was called IRI supporter, leftist, thug, slow, naive etc... based on one comment. Nobody cared what I had to say, everyone was eager to shut me up.

I think this attitude is going to cost us immensely.

As for humanitarian causes and IRI human rights violations, I have seen some people on this site reply negatively, but never saw Q or Sadegh speak up for HR violations and I don't see much human rights violations posts written by the rest either... (I don't know who else, I forget who has been thrown to which bucket) 

I like Sadegh's contribution to this site. I also like to read JR's articles, I think reading about different subjects seen from different angles and considering a broad range of views help expand my knowledge and tolerance.

Dear Mr Kashani, I can't imagine someone coming here to spread IRI venom when they talk about the results of the revolution the same way you do. They too have called it a hijacked revolution.

I believe if we listen before we shout, we might find more common interests between us... Using the same accusations every time someone writes a blog can't be a constructive method.

When I first saw the comments on this site, I was overwhelmed with the extremely offensive attitude and non-compromising stands taken by so many.

I find myself in agreement with certain points you make, and then I find other arguments from Q to be sound and reasonable. But on these comments sections, once a new-comer agrees with one side or another, the attacks start and the labeling continues forever!

I seriously think there must be a better way of communication. You guys are not enemies. I know you can find common grounds.

The enemy is getting stronger every time you guys fight one another over simple differences of opinion. This recent name-calling was just not becoming of you gentlemen.

I can only wish you reconsider.

With respect and best regards for all of you.

IRANdokht

Kashani, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong

that's a concept that I think you should think about really hard before responding.

Also, for such a good memory, it's truly remakable why you seem to always misremember what someone's argument was. Instead, you project what you wanted them to say into their mouths and then pat yourself in the back for having defeated such nonsense argument (that was never made!)

Is it possible that your memory is actually terrible but you don't remember this fact?

For those (like Craig) who insist on this silly argument that 1953 was not responsible for 1979. This is a concept called 'Blowback' well known in CIA and real foreign policy analysts not the (idtios on FOX) for years. In fact, CIA itself warned something like this could happen as it was conducting Operation Ajax and put it in the report later (unlike what Kashani says, it is not "new" and not congruent to rise of Islamic movements). Stephen Kinzer has said it many times and recently it was used by Ron Paul to answer Giuliani about roots of terror.

For Craig and Kashani, with much love.

See IranDokht...the man

See IranDokht...the man knows our mentality and he is the one to cleanse Iran of us once and for all!!! Thank you all benevolent dictator!

Yes we are all IRI supporters...we receive our monthly checks from Khamanei gladly...thanks for sharing...I used to think we were a civil people, but we are not, that illusion has long been shattered...all I receive on this site is slander and abuse and I'm sick of it to be honest and that is why I now snap back...I've had enough of the brain-dead morons on Iranian.com who surf the blogosphere merely to attack someone - with these wolves there is no argument, no dialogue, no back and forth, no comparison of facts, statistics and opinion polls (they don't even bloody read the damn article!!!!) - all this element can say is "oh go back to your master Khamanei", "he's an agent of the IRI", "you're an Islamo-fascist" etc...etc...to hell with you all quite frankly, I know a lot of people who have been alienated by the noxious element on this site and it seems I soon will be amongst their ranks! Good riddance to bad rubbish!!!

Good night!

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

And FOX news just gave me a

And FOX news just gave me a show, watch me tonight at 9 PM ! Thanks for calling me a “Zionist”.

IRANdokht aziz, I am

IRANdokht aziz, I am relieved to see that you agree that we should move on. And the obvious reason for that is the fact that other nations have moved on, and we haven’t. Again, I do think the 1979 revolution was a move in the right direction, but it was hijacked by the fascist regime which has taken us back way before 1953.

Shaha had strong ties with the U.S. The U.S has a global presence, whether we like it or not, but again, as we see in other nation’s examples, most countries do not ruin their country because or based on or blaming it on strong ties with the U.S. great examples are the ones I mentioned Japan, Germany, Singapore, S Korea, England, Australia, …are all there. The thing is since the fall of Soviet Union and the rise of Islamism and leftism, a distored view has emerged in media and among some elite college professors and leftist organizations, to fault the U.S for things that it wasn’t at fault for. This has become a part of pop culture even. U.S bashing is a sign of “intelligence” or “deep thinking” where as its not. Their main problem is with the U.S becoming the only superpower. The more and more a country becomes stronger, the more likely it will pay what it’s called the “fame tax”. Look at China, no one even mentioned its name awhile back, now, there are protests all over the world over its role in Sudan, Tibet and elsewhere. China is paying the fame tax. People are blaming China for Darfur, which is ridicules. The same way U.S is blamed for the 1953 coup. The fundamental mistake being made is how they connect the dots together. They make up this connection between strong ties between Shah and the U.S and the coup.

The leftist elite pre 1979 paved the way for Khomeini, but those people stayed home. It was those 60% who actually went to the streets and executed the revolution.

IRANdokht aziz, none of these leftists who bash us in this article and elsewhere care about Iran, trust me. I know their mentality. Iran for them is a mouse lab in their universal agenda to bring down the U.S power. That’s all there is to it. have you ever seen any of them mention a single word about the horrific human rights violation in Iran? Have you ever heard them mention a single word about what is really going on to the average Iranian on day to day bases? How they been oppressed? How their dignity been absolute crushed? How they’re murdered, exiled, imprisoned, tortured? And for what? Nothing. Irandokht aziz, not a single word., none of these guys , never, its amazing to me. I’m simply shocked that they don’t say a word. And you got this classless Q guy, who actually has the audacity to claim that “Khamenei is elected indirectly”!! I mean, how astonishing this is! OK, America is bad, fine, but when we mention or write articles about the human rights violation in Iran, the response we get from these people is that “You are a CIA agent, you are a Zionist, you work for FOX news,” So they actually deny it.How can you care about Iran when you don’t give rats about its people?

Regards.

Just cashed my check from

Just cashed my check from the IRI, thanks for unmasking me to the world as a paid agent, yet paid (they even pay in dollars you know)...being evil has never felt so good!!! 

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

Craig

If you are saying that you never advocated military attacks and sanctions on Iran then I stand corrected, and I do apologize for having accused you of it.

I am sure people who read these threads remember everyone's stands better than I do and can judge for themselves.

About your PS:

Please don't speak for me.

I never said the left was followers of
Mossadegh: I said everyone supported Khomeini based on the political
atmosphere created in the country since the coup. (left in Iran meant communist at that time)

I don't like my words twisted, please do not play games.

IRANdokht

Mashadi, PC and Sarzamine

Mashadi, PC and Sarzamine man, thanks for you guys’ support.

PS to IRANdokht

I was not there in 1953 and what I know of the events of the time is
mostly based on the CIA's publishing the 50 year old classified
documents a few years ago which included the plans and the amount of
money used for overthrowing Mossadegh and bringing Shah back.

That's how virtually everyone heard about it. Which casts doubts on your assertion that the events of 1953 were a catalyst for the events of 1979. If you are claiming the communists (not "Leftists") who supported Khomeini in 1978 were followers of Mossadegh, then Mossadegh wasn't a big believer in democracy after all, was he?

I will agree with you that the 1953 coup was a mistake though. The Soviets would have never allowed the IRI to come to power. And with the end of teh Cold War, Iran would probably have emerged as at least a psudo-democracy, which is a hell of a lot better than what actually did happen.

IRANdokht

It just amazes me that you and PC (who is a strong advocate of military
attack) saw my 1953 comment the same way and misunderstood the
reasoning behind the timeline.

If I was an advocate of a military attack on Iran, I wouldn't be here on this website. Let me assure you of that. I was apologized for saying you were an IRI agent without evidence. Will you do the same?

I assure you that if Iran was not in the political situation that it
was in during the years prior to 79

You have no way of knowing what Iran's political situation would have been in 1979, if things had gone differently in 1953. You are just speculating that everything would have been wonderful. My speculation is that Iran would have been on the other side of the Iron Curtain by about 1960, as most of iran's neighbors were. But we are both just guessing.

Khomeini or any other mullah would
not have enjoyed the support of all the people including the Jebhe
Melli and the left.

If Iran had become a Soviet vassal, there wouldn't have been any Iranians on "the left" by 1979.Iranians would havehated and despised the Soviets, as the citizens in every other USSR vassal state did.

Dear Mr Kashani

I understand your view on moving on beyond the past problems, but I have a hard time finding out what the accepted time limit for moving on and moving forward is...  I guess somewhere between 30-50 years, we should change from holding a grudge to moving on....

I was not there in 1953 and what I know of the events of the time is mostly based on the CIA's publishing the 50 year old classified documents a few years ago which included the plans and the amount of money used for overthrowing Mossadegh and bringing Shah back. So in other words, I am not going by any rumor or gossip, but by the actual CIA documents.

You are right and a big percentage of the people was and still is iliterate, but they were just used as "siaahi lashkar" and the decisions on who gets supported and who will be included in the decisions during 1979 was taken by the group of not-yet-too-old elite and intellectuals we had left. The support they showed for Khomeini was the key, not the groups of people who would yell out what they were told to.

I have watched you gentlemen discuss, argue, insult and rip each other apart on many occasions. I understand that you have different point of views. But I also understand that you all love Iran and want what you think is best for the country (except for PC, and Zion who have publicly announced no interest in Iran and Iranians well-being)

What is really bothering me is that people who are so passionate about Iran are wasting their time and energy to argue with each other and put each other down, trying to convince they know more than one another and that they're always right.

What does this attitude and the aggressive put downs accomplish? Are we better off now after 50-100-200 comments on a blog where we just chewed everybody up and spit them out?

Why would you call people dangerous? All they're doing is arguing with you. What is the danger besides being too preoccupied with labels and slander than to actually do something for Iran?

I hope I didn't offend anyone here, I am just trying to understand what we think we're accomplishing by this constant rivalry, why don't we listen to what others think and say: "that is your opinion, I have a different opinion,I respect you and lets see how we can help our country together"

why does it have to be so hard to show tolerance for other people's opinions? how are we supposed to promote and fight for democracy if we can't see anyone with a different point of view?

Cheshm hara bayad shost... jooreh digar bayad deed

respectfully

IRANdokht

Farhad, You are a Patriot!

Thank you for confronting this corrupt mentality with such clarity. We will remember who supported the criminal IRI when our land gets liberated from these Islamic Thugs and their supporters.

You’re a hypocrite

You’re a hypocrite because you call anyone who oppose you a Fox news contributor, where as if someone calls you an IRI propagandist, you call that an “insult”, where you clearly have started the insulting. But, again, its not like I’m surprised or anything. Sadehgh, I know all you guys’ tricks! Believe me! Its over! You can tell that to your master Khamenei!

Everyone is welcome to inquire about where I stand on different issues and they are most welcome to make their own conclusion on where I stand, with Fox news, or moveon.org, or Keyhan newspaper! We all know you stand with the latter!

IRANdokht, the whole world

IRANdokht, the whole world knows no Iranian is advocating for military attack. However, I’m not gonna let these IRI apologists use this excuse to victimize the Iranian regime. Siding against military action against the Iranian people does not in any way, shape, or form, means victimizing the Iranian regime. These guys are clearly attempting to do that, to victimize the regime. IRANdokht, please understand that these people are some of the most sneaky people you would meet in your life. Trust me on this. I seen it, felt it, experienced it and learned form it.

The coup was an Iranian coup. At some point, we need to mature as people and take responsibility for our own shortages like most successful nations have done. Japan after getting nuked about few years before the coup, is a super power now. Vietnam 30 years or so after a bloody war is growing rapidly and democratic principles are slowly but surely taking hold. India after getting independence about the same time as the coup, is becoming another super power with a democratic system. Even Mauritania, for god sake, who had legalized slavery till few years back and suffered numerous soups in the last20-30 years just had a U.N approved democratic elections (Well, maybe not the best example since they just had a coup!, but you get my point!)lol.

IRANdoht aziz, at the time of the revolution, 60% of our population were illiterate. Not to say they are bad people, but you really can’t expect form a such population to make sound political decisions, can you? To them, the clergy was the politician. They didn’t know what a political party is. So, please let’s dissect the issue and look at the bigger picture. The shite clergy has been trying to take over our country since the end of Safavid empire, before the United States was even established.

With regards.

I called you a "hypocrite"

I called you a "hypocrite" which you are, and have explained why below...I said you should be on Fox News, not because of your views (I think you're a little too extreme for them), because of your bland, insipid and really quite grating punch line, which you never tire of repeating...

You have no "true" face, it's obvious to everyone how nasty and slanderous you are...

Ba Arezu-ye Movafaghiat, Sadegh

sadehgh, I'm not trying to

sadehgh, I'm not trying to fool anyone my dear friend !