What is Iran; is it IR


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


I have read arguments on both side of this. A number of people say IRI is Iran. Then have used that to blame Iranian people for actions of IRI. In my opinion a government is never the same as the people. This is specially true when there is no democracy. Or when there is a nominal machinery for democracy but it is broken. The only time a government may really reflect  WILL OF "the people" is in a direct democracy likte Swiss have.

But the government is never the same as a people. Governments come and go but great nations remain. Iran has gone from Curus the gresat to Arab invasion through good like Karim Khan and evil like Khomeini and many others. Therefore Iran is far greater than its government. The government is simply the people who at any given time have the reins of the nation in their hands who may or may not have peoples best interest in mind.

Of course a government greatly impacts the nation.  An incompetet or selfish evil government harms people a great deal. We have seen it from Monghols to IR. But that is like saying a bad bus driver hurts the passengers. The bus driver is not the same as the passengers or the bus. 

We may use the same argument for the USA. I do not even think that the US government is the same as its people. As NP reminds us USA government has done lots of bad thing. I can tell you most Americans are fine nice people who would not hurt anyone.

I want to know peoples opinions. Please be civil and respectful. No need to start throwing instulas around.

Let us learn from each other and work together.


There is also the issue of what is really Iran? Many of us believe in "Greater Iran". Parts of Iran: Central Asia: Afghanistan; Eastern Iraq; Azarbayjan; Bahrain; were forcefully taken from us. I would love to talk about how the Iranic people could reunite. But that is not the focus of this discussion. I plan to write another blog to discuss this.




Recently by Veiled Prophet of KhorasanCommentsDate
Threats of violence
Feb 14, 2012
Please bring back SamSam to IC
Jan 29, 2012
Regime change; democracy and high horse
Dec 26, 2011
more from Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

who is that cutie on the right? :-D

by Parthianshot91 on

That flowchild girl, ooooh. Fvck IC, I'm gonna go join Iranian personals dot com.


"They are not afraid of the ideology alone, but of the detemination and will of the men behind it"


Shaving your pubic ballsack in islam

by Parthianshot91 on

“The fitrah consists of five things: circumcision, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hairs and shaving the pubic hairs”
(Al-Bukhari and Muslim.)


Islam has got be the silliest out of all the 3 abrahamic religions.


"They are not afraid of the ideology alone, but of the detemination and will of the men behind it"


We are Persian

by siavash1000 on

Please someone explain for idiots who write comment in this site that we are Persian, NOT arab, so don't use the word ALLAH for Persians since it is Arabic, NOT farsi. This is Iranian.com NOt arab.com. We say : KHODA. These vatan forosh are lizard eater Arab lovers and try to mix our rich culture and history with arabic language and barbaric culture of Arabs. Shame on you...

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Simorgh Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

In fact I have said before that "I am a proud Islamophobe". The meaning being I am afraid of Islam. Reason is that according to Sharia I should be killed. Because I left Islam on my own free will. I would be crazy not to fear Islam so of course I am an Islamophobe.

As you say a religion that brought such death and destruction should be feared. It is the natural response of any sane being..

I also agree that Islam is not a race. One one hand Muslims brag about how they are on all corners of the world. Then claim to be a race. You cannot have it both ways. There are Muslims of any race so it is not a particular race.

But the racism charge is very powerful in America. So they use it for maximum effect not for accuracy.

The point is to use propaganda to further the Islamic cause. Did truth ever bother Khomeini. The guy lied pretty much on all his promises. He did so while being a devout Muslim. It is legal to lie to further the cause of Islam.

Therefore when it comes to Islam I do not believe what I hear from devout Muslims



by Simorgh5555 on

For a start since when was Islam a 'race'? do you even know what the word 'race' is and how does being Islamophobic fit into the description of being a 'racist'? Which race are we talking about? Maybe the learned hack from Los Angeles can shed light on the matter. 

I thought anyone can become a Muslim.

It just happens that the scripture and langauge of is Arabc but there are many Christian Arabs who hate Muslim Arabs as evident in the Shatila massacres when Christian Arabs raided in on Muslim Arabs and killed them wholesale. Not a lot of love there! 

 Fun Islamic Fact 1 : If you were to decide to divorce your wife by pronouncing 'talagh' 3 times you cannot marry the same woman again unless she has intercourse with another man. 



Simorgh is exhibit A

by Q on

of fossilized iranians completely consumed by hate, racism and bigotry, a little too brainwashed to be useful in this lifetime. What else is there to say when Simorgh has already admitted to supporting war and not believing in democracy?

Perhpas now people can see the direct link from bigotry to fascism. Never ever, will these people have the slightest influence in Iran again.

Thank Allah for that.


Lampoons and Mullahs

by siavash1000 on

I recently read an article highlighting the historical connection between Lampoons and mullahs. it is in Luna4freedom.com

 very interesting how these 2 parasites group feed each other on expenses of Iranian people throughout course of history. A brief look at lampoons like Tayyab, shaboon and their connections with Ayatollah Kashani till recent uprising of our people and the role of lampoons with knives and daggers on streets of Tehran in suppresing the voice of freedom.  The article (Az Bazarcheh Nayeb Gorbeh ta bate-e- rahbari) also explain the reason for  brutality nature of these stinky criminals who occupied Iran for last 31 years. It is very eductional and informative. I advise everybody to read this literature.





by Simorgh5555 on

What you should really be saying to the worthless hack from Los Angeres is that you are an Islamophobe and proud. A religion whose founder had married 9 year old Ayesha at the ripe old age of 55; a so-called prophet  basically copied the tenets of Judaism and then when they rejected him wholesale (quite rightly because of the lunatic he was)  he claimed to have been visited by the Angel Gabriel to slaughter all the males of a tribe and sell their wives and children into slavery and then evicting another tribe from their lands. You don't even need a Hadis to prove the Mohammed hated Iran from the very start look at the Surah 30 (The Romans'Greeks dependig on which Muslim terrorist you believe) 

The Romans are vanquished, In a near land [Persia], and after being vanquished, shall overcome, Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice.

Of course, the so-called Prophet delivered on his promise through his trusty thug and liutenant in command Omar Bin Khatteb  who famously delivered the 'peaceful' message of Islam to Yazdegard III that either he 'Pays the Jayiza (Protection racket in Islam), worhsips Allah or that he will deliver an army of death as much asyou  enjoy life'      Don't foget that even Saddam Hussein made it a clalendarday to commemorate the battle of Qadisiya during the war with Iran in an effort to boost Arab morale.  The rest is history: the campaign to destroy Iranian culture, civilisation and what only remained was absorbed into Islam with great reluctance such as Norooz. Cyrus's tomb  and 'Takhte Soleyman were all saved from destruction after the dumb Muslims believed the ruse the Zoroastrian created in  conncection between King Solomon and Persia. 

I'm sure you know all this but please do not ever feel the need to apologise or explain yourself to a Muslim especially a traitor like the hack Q. The only 'decent Muslim in the sense which we commonly refer to  who I know of was Anwar Sadat who was gunned down by terrorists the same way Ahmad Ksaravi and the Frood Fouladvand who exposed this death cult for what it actually was. 

To oppose Islam is to Love Iran. Pure and simple. If you call yourself a 'devout Muslim' you negate yourself of being Iranian. Whenever in doubt just think of the ominous words of Omar bin Khattab....An army of death. 

Islam an Army of death they were and an army of death they remain from the invasion of Persia to Ground Zero in NY. 


That's where your wrong VPK,

by Q on

That is how I feel. I know it is not a very pleasant thing but it is reality.

It is a total myth, VPK, not at all reality. Educate yourself. //iranian.com/main/blog/q/myth-islam-spread-sword

Don't forget to watch the video in Farsi, and read the quotes.

It all has to start with agreement on basic truth. Without that, there is little chance for peace and understanding. I don't know you personally, but if you are like 99% of the Iranian exiles I have met who have the same attitude, you are simply substituting your cultivated hatred of Islam (cultivated majority during the Pahlavi era through mainly social class clashes, and necessary allegiance to modernization ) for real, scholarly history. Making it an age old 'pedar-koshtegi' fantasy removes you from agency, gives you license to be a victim and hate the other without even considering today's reality, while romanticizing a pre-Islamic Iran fantasy.

I disagree that Islam must necessarily be oppressive. That's a confusion with the ideas and the executives. It is remarkable that most people who think Islam as a religion is rigid, unchanging, backwards and incompatible with modern life are not fundementalists but Islamophobes!

I think Islam, even an Islamic government, can be very much tolerant and compassionate toward non-Muslims and perseve fundemental human rights for all. I reject that Iran must have a Western-style secular revolution, to be "right". That's another form of imperialism that says we can't find our own way without immitating Europeans.

However, regardless of what you and I think, the fact is that Iran is 98% Muslim. It's not just the religion. Islam is a big part of our culture. If you think you can just come in and "educate" people out of Islam you are mistaken. Look at Iraq and Turkey, both strictly secular and even anti-Islamic societies for decades, what's the result? They are now more Islamic than they have ever been, including their governments.

We did this thing when Shah was around. Muslims did practice Islam while seculars did not.

Oh no you didn't! Muslims practiced Islam, sure there was nothing Shah could do about that. But they were marginalized, insulted and ridiculed on daily basis. Shah's cronyism flowed the nation's wealth only toward people who dismissed and undermined Islam. He had decided that a European model was what was best (because those who controlled him wanted Iranian wealth and market), the best way to make people consume western products is to induce western attitudes. The best way to induce any of these values is a vast program of cultural and physical oppression. All public events, TV, Movies, and literature basically attacked, dismissed and oppressed devout Muslims every day, flaunted sex and Coca Cola in their face. SAVAK was busy destroying any islamic movements violently, and trying to control the clergy. Even the leftist targets of the regime had recognized the power of Islam and were conciliatory toward it.

Shah followed this program like a dutiful puppet, completely undermining a culture that had developed for 1500 years. Of course there was going to be backlash. Just like the backlashes in Iraq and Turkey, as well as the Russian Christian revival post Soviets. The size and excesses of the backlash is directly proportional to the force of the oppression.

Of course, the revolution was not about Islam. Islam was simply the vehicle that a wide variety of causes could be explained though.

You cannot talk people out of their religion, much worst methods than talking has been applied before and failed. You can only help them see universal values in their existing value systems like Islam, and even that can only work for a position of respect and empowerment, not hate.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Q I will

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


give you a straight answer. You are right I do have a deep contempt for Islam. It is probably not very healthy. But it is there due to many reasons. I feel very strongly that Islam was imposed on Iran at a huge cost. We had a perfectly good religion and they come; shove it down our throats; then berate us at every chance. That is how I feel. I know it is not a very pleasant thing but it is reality. Now I see the results of it: stoning; people executed as "Mohareb" and it just goes on. 


I also see some very good Muslims.As you say many Iranians are Muslims. Most of them like Tabriz_Balsi are very good people. I have to accept this because it is reality.

So now there is a dilemma: See the problem is that there is no place in "Islamic Republic" for my "liberal" views.Islam when written into law becomes very intolerant and repressive. Specially for the non Muslims and much worse on Atheists or Pagans.

What do we do now? I propose making a distinction between Muslim and Political Islam. I have no problem with Muslims practicing their religion. I will not refer to it in a negative way. I will be actively welcoming to them.

On the other hand I want them to guarantee no body will force Islam on me. No Sharia law; no being called najis; no fatwahs on my head if I do something they do not like. You get the basic spirit.

We did this thing when Shah was around. Muslims did practice Islam while seculars did not. No one got in trouble one way or other. What do you think of this idea?


VPK, bi roo darvasi,

by Q on

You have an inharent contradiction. Your nominally liberal and socialist values and democratic outlook is undermined by your self-admitted hatred for Islam literally Islamophobia.

Just think for a minute:

Can you imagine anyone who "despises Christianity" be elected to any high or low office in the US or any Democracy? Of course religion is unusually intertwined into politics in America, but the same can be said of Germany, UK, France, etc. Keep in mind that a majority in those countries may be atheist even. Forget being elected, you couldn't even be the leader of a minor party and espouse this. In the UK, the BNP only advocates against immigration, but everyone knows they are racist.

Why do you think Iranians should have a different standard via Islam? Your special insight into Iranian culture and history? That doesn't cut it. Your views are not any more valid than the person chest beating on Ashura.

You call me an Islamist, but I would never be caught dead saying I hate Atheism, or Judaism. It's so silly and unproductive, only brings hostility and disunity, and for what? The the temporary satisfaction of having expressed your hate outloud?

What you really need to understand is that the thing you hate is spiritually valued by a huge number of people. It's exactly as if you said I hate "Norooz" or "Esfehanis". It is bigotry by definition because in a democratic framework, it doesn't matter what group you are targeting, the fact that you are targeting a group (and in your case the biggest group), makes you an intolerant person. I do realize that around IC, there is so much of this that it may seem normal, but that's not the real world.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

It is possible to not like either IR or American governments. There are millions of people who have that point of view. I am one. I am not a Muslims and despise Islam as Q likes to call me I am an Islamophobe.

I also dislike USA policy. Not just on Iran but also on Latin America, Middle East and specially towards its own people. Where American people are treated like cows to be milked for the rich. Being one I know what it feels like. When I was told in the 80s that I was supposed to save for my own retirement. I put away the maximum. Just to have it vanish because of "banking irregularities" aka being robbed. What happened? The bankers got bailed out with full bonus; I got fu***. My dislike of American policy has nothing to do with IR or Islam. You don't have to be a Muslim to not like having a banker stick his **** right up your ****.


oh yes

by Fesenjoon on

It is possible not to be an Islamist but actually support Islamists. Heres a picture of one

Notice the Sandis in his hands.

love it.


LOL! what exactly is a "hack" anyway?

by Q on

LOL You need to see a shrink and a career doctor when you get the chance.

LOL, you lost so badly on the substance this is the only thing you have left to say.

Funny you still have absolutely nothing. You must realize this now because you're not even trying to use facts or logic anymore!

First you mention that Hitler did not enjoy popular support and then deny you ever made the remark.

Yawn... He did not enjoy it, I never denied it (proof?).. We already went through this and you got spanked.

Now by some osmosis in your brain you claim the topic of the discussion was never the the events and laws enacted by the Nazis after the enabling act but before and then before again.

Wow you ARE confused. This is totally incoherent.

The analogy was between the Nazi regime and the Islamic Republic. Yes, that is a true statement that there is no comparison. As I proved from the beginning, IR did enjoy popular support, but not the Nazis.

The rest of your rant is pure BS and lies!

Which ever you cut it:

1. Nazis did not enjoy popular support, I.R. did

2. Hitler needed a coup and illegal acts to get to power, without them, he could not.

3. Analogy between 'rise to power' of IR and Nazis is BS, and forever done with.

4. You're a dishonest 'hack' that lies about my stance and continuously wastes time with irrelevant BS including: Fuller-Hart, my background, my previous statements, Mossadegh, etc. Why? Because you're a pathetic loser who can't handle being proven wrong.

great day's worht of entertainmen.

Oh no, trust me! Trust Allah. The "entertainment" has been enjoyed all on this side. Watching an illiterate moron guard his "ego" for hours is priceless.


I'll pray to Allah for you. 

maziar 58


by maziar 58 on

that's a logical statement just like 2+2=4,

but the akhoonds says if the god wants it will not be that.

that's IR (Islamic rep..).          Maziar


Q - More deranged rantings from a Hack from LA

by Simorgh5555 on

LOL You need to see a shrink and a career doctor when you get the chance.

We call ths moving the goal post in England. First you mention that Hitler did not enjoy popular support and then deny you ever made the remark. Now by some osmosis in your brain you claim the topic of the discussion was never the the events and laws enacted by the Nazis after the enabling act but before and then before again. 

All along in your chalf-crazed sense you lose track of the central point you were trying to make: The Naziz came to power unconstitutionally and this is no comparison to Ahmadinejad yet you concede that the election was a fraud and that he  has usurped the office of president by deception something close to Hitler. 

Which ever you cut it: The IR and/ or the Ahmadinejad are in power illegally even by sthe standard of the wretched constitution you embrace. Also you are not denying Mossadeq came to power unconcstitutionally by the rationale you put forward. 

As much as I cannnot bear to mention the word 'Allah' there is some wisdom in your most precious holy text:

Whomsoever Allah guides, for him there will be no misleader and whomsoever Allah misleads,

I thank Allah for making you a fool and prividing me with a great day's worht of entertainmen. Its always a pleasure debinking Islamic frauds and exposing Muslims for the true hyprocrites they are! You are the best of them as well as text book definition of a lazy hack. 



What is Iran; is it IR?

by Abarmard on

To the outside world Iran is its government and to the Iranians inside Iran is a land with a government that is Islamic Republic.

To demonize Iran (Islamic Republic of) in the outside media is to demonize Iran and Iranians.



by Q on

sometimes I make educated guesses about people (like they use any opportunity to attack me, even in discussion they are not involved in, probably out of oghdeh)

But you don't have to go prove it immediately with your substance-less distraction. You know what I'm saying?


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Simorgh Jan

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


This dude Q is obviously suffering from lack of sleep. It affects the brain in a bad way. I know several good doctors who specialize in sleep disorders. What do you say if we start a charity fund for Q!

We can get him some sleep treatment. In fact the effects of sleep deprivation may result in Islamism.We must be merciful to those who are ill and suffering. 

There may be a mind behind all that yawning. But it is hard to tell given his condition. One of the biggest problems is known as "Sleep apnea". Thanks for modern medicine there is hope:


Have mercy upon him!  

If all else fails a bottle of scotch whiskey will do the job!



Yawn... (I wish this was any kind of an education!)

by Q on

yes, I did actually read. The article is not definitive about it, the way you would like to pathetically portray in a sad attempt to save face.

This argument that "it could have been" therefore it was constitutional, is a 3rd grade fallacy. We don't know for certain anything that would have happened without the Reichstag coup. We just know that it did happen, and it did hamper the vote.

However, the other major point (that Hitler dismissed his own superior office) is lost by you (and on you), as usual. This was even against the enabling act which specifically preserved the office of the President. At this point, it would be more informative to cut and paste my own analysis from before, since you seem about as responsive as a sange-pa.

Once again, it's proven you have nothing.

(Thank Allah people like you are gone forever from Iranian affairs).


Q- You've yawned all your way through your college education

by Simorgh5555 on

Hacks should read the entire article:

"Never in the existence of a German Reichstag has the scrutiny of public affairs by the elected representatives of the people been stifled to such an extent as is happening now and as will happen even more under the new Enabling Act. The effects of such government omnipotence will surely be made all the more disastrous by the fact that the press is also bereft of any freedom of action.” In spite of these plain words and the clear depiction of the intended consequences of the Act, only 94 deputies voted against the bill compared with 444 who voted in favour. This means that there would have been a sufficient majority for a constitutional amendment even if the Communist deputies had been able to take part in the vote. Even today, however, it remains a moot point whether the adoption of the Enabling Act was actually consistent with the provisions of the Weimar Constitution."

Hacks should read the full article and not selectively pick and chose what they like.  


Mutual Impact

by siavash1000 on

Just by reviewing our rich history, we will see that nation(people) and goverment have had mutual impact on each other throughout history. At one time, we had weak king such as Shah Soltan Hossaine that brought us down and from that desperate time in history one man arised by the name of Nader. Nader as a wise military commander and brave king was true nationalist and promotedd our nation and glorified our country.

it is human nature that we dismissed those weak gov. as being not representative of our people and accept those establishments like Nader as true representative of Persians.

But one thing for sure that we all have in common.

That is the fact that our history has been comingled with "Monarchy". No agrue about that. we take a great pride that our ancestors introduce monarchy to history of mankind for the first time. As an Iranians we should respect and honor of our ancestors.  

Current situation in Iran is crystal clear to any reasonable and rational person who is NOT on payroll by these criminals who are in charge. No need to argue. Some of the supporters are on payroll and some of the supporters NOT on payroll. They are sincere and in simple language they "retarded". We can help the retarded ones. We can help them to see the reality. To see what other rational and reasonable person can see. For example, we can educate them how these Islamic monsters masacred our brothers and sisters during summer of 1988. Such a masacre never happened in history of Iran. Neither during Pahlavi dynasty or during any other dynasty. We can educate them that they were masacred according to law of lizard eater Arabs. The name of that law is FATWA. we can educate reatrded people that law belong to nomad tribe of arabs over 1400 years ago in Arabian peninsula. That law killed about 30,000 of our country man and women. Needless to say that virgin girls were being raped the night before their execution. NO need to talk to perople who are on payroll because they are doing their job and they know what they are doing. They are well informed but money they're receiving is more valuable than lives of our brothers and sisters. No need to enlight them. It would be waste of time.     



by Q on

well, noone needs to take advice from a desperate loser about "integrity" or "talent", that's for sure!


You. have. nothing.

since the mandates of
the 81 deputies from the Communist Party of Germany had been rescinded under the Reichstag Fire

LOL! Not only do you (now) agree that the content of the enabling act was against the existing Weimar constitution, but you yourself provide proof of why the outcome was only possible because of the Reichstag Fire coup that I covered 40 comments ago!!!

Has your bruised ego completely blinded you, or do you just not understand basic English?

It was illegal, and unconstitutional. Secondly, as I explained (and you had no intellectual capacity to understand), even without this obvious point the enabling act itself (that you pathetically assert was legitimate) was itself violated by Hitler when he collapsed the office of the President -- in violation of the enabling act.

Without this illegal act, Hitler could be dismissed by the President. Do you understand these words?

So, even if you're right, you're tragically wrong! There's no getting around this, and if you want to keep embarrassing yourself, you will continue parroting the BS you have been!

Irrelevant points like Mossadegh, and my background will not save for you. But it's nice to see that after a few round of spanking you do in fact end up dropping your own BS points you made earlier (for example the Hart-Fuller debate).

there might be hope for you afterall, but it's a long long process!


(Thank Allah once again)

PS. Have you admitted you lied about my position on the elections? OR does a big macho boy like you not bother with these trivial things? Sad and pathetic.

PS2. You are a sad violent human being that support war, sanctions and do not believe in Democracy. The textbook definition of a traitor. Trust me, you calling me "unpleasant" is not going to lose me any sleep. 


Q - VEVAK money cannot buy integrity or talent!

by Simorgh5555 on

The failed hack from the the 'central Los Angeles area' writes:

'That's literally uncostitutional: so much for your pathetic claim otherwise.

In addition, even the enabling act was violated when Hitler dismissed the Presidency. So even if you argue the enabling act was "legal", it was violated!' 

His source for all of his scholarly research: A-Level school History - for the uninitiated the hack Q, from 'Central los Angeles Area'choses a secondary source for school children in the UK. (Of course, he would - that's what makes him a total hack!).

The problem with Q is that he deliberately ignoes the fact about what I said that even though the powers bestowed by Hitler were unprecedented as a Chancellor it was still within the confines of the constitution because the majority of the German parties gave Hitler this constitutional right which would override the limitations imposed on his office as Chancellor.

Let's look at some proper German secondary sources for our psuedo-Histrorian Q fromt the actual Bundestag

"Since the Act entailed an amendment to the Weimar Constitution, its adoption required both a twothirds
majority in Parliament and the presence in the Reichstag of at least two thirds of all its
members. The prospects of achieving the requisite number of votes were good, since the mandates of
the 81 deputies from the Communist Party of Germany had been rescinded under the Reichstag Fire
Decree. Moreover, many Members of the Reichstag had already fled or been imprisoned or murdered.
In order to secure the remaining votes, however, the support of the Centre Party was particularly

www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/.../history/factsheets/enabling_act.pdf - Similar

The only disclaimer I will add, Q, before you try to raid in on your donkey is that the author categorically puts the Enabling Act as a 'moot point' as to whether it was constitutional or not but concedes that any amendment to the Weimar constitution would have required a 2/3 majority of approval from the Reichstag which was exactly what Hitler achieved.

Agan, your defeating your own argument: you now seem to agree with the majority of the sane world that Ahmadienjad had usurped the election and therefore his position is unconstitutional just as you believe Hitler was too.  The inconsistencies in your arguments is glaringly obvious but to your blind self.

Finally, if you still contend that Hitler took power by the Enabling Act unconstitutionally then (1) how do you justify Mossadeq's unconstitutional demand for more powers beyond the 1906 constitution and do you agree he was appointed as Prime Minister by popular vote but by the 'corrupt cronies' of the Shah's parliament. (2) On what basis could Mossadeq demand emergency powers beyonf the constitution without formal ratification even if the bogus 99% plebicit was true?

I'm not making a judgement call on Mosadeq as a good or bd person but the claim he was 'democratic' as the myth surrounding him.

P.S. Finally, on an unrleated  matter your use of the word 'Allah' instead of 'Khoda' makes you more unpleasant than you already are  in the eyes of Iranians. But hey, I never heard of the name 'Qussam' used by Iranians before I read your bio and thanking 'Allah' confirmed my suspicions that you actually come from the other side of the Persian Gulf. You don't mind me saying that do you? 'Persian Gulf'? Or would you prefer me to say the 'Islamic Gulf' as suggested by the 'hanging judge' Sadeq Khalkhali. 




Veiled Prophet of Khorasan


by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


There are no valid ways to measure directly the popularity of IRI. I do not take foreigh "poll"s as legitimate. If as I and many others believe people either do not respond or lie fearing for their lives and limb.

The indirect way is to see how many people move away. People are voting with their feet. It is like if people refuse to buy a product. That by itself proves it is not popular. I used to think IR was popular; maybe it once was. But not any more.

The other indication is the use of military. A popular regime does not need so much military force. Popular regimes are not afraid of their people. IR is and makes it clear by its actions. So IMHO IR is not popular.

The IR is the government of Iran no question there. It is very much hated by most other nations. The proof is how they get treated. But they have control for now. So they get to send ambassadors; etc. 

Anyway, enough said on this. Thank you for a clear response. At least we agree government != nation. That is a good start. Now let us see what others have to say.

Thanks VPK


Persify Iranian islam

by Parthianshot91 on

 I admit, it would be better if Iranians became Zoroasterian again, but I don't think religion is a problem, nor do I have any problem with any kind of religion, whether it's mainly good or bad, as long as they don't try to force their garbage on others by force, meaning that you don't fuse it with politics or at the cost of the countries benefit. Now, if Islam is going to stay in Iran, and I'm sure it will as a majority for years to come, even though I see many people (20-30%) changing their religion after the collapse of this regime, whether the people are religous or moderate fake muslims, it should become Persified. No more arabic words or arabic quran. Do like what turkey did, but to a far greater extent. Get any of the tribal arab influence out of islam and modernize it. No muslim should have any issue with this, whether religous or not, cause no real religion is supposed to be based around one specific ethnic group. Now if the muslims do start causing trouble, then they themselves will show everyone that islam is an Arab religion. I see it as a win win.


"They are not afraid of the ideology alone, but of the detemination and will of the men behind it"

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

if we take modern democracy as the measure, then of course we 'never' had legitimacy in iran. but that's mere semantics. in iran, legitimacy has gone by other measures. usually they revolved around the question of power. the mere power to rule conferred legitimacy. the overthrow of the shah was supposed to put an end to that. well it didn't, though there are some signs of improvement like uninterrupted, regular, more open and competitive elections; an explosion of NGOs; a relatively freer press (yes i know all are 'subjective'...) etc.

so the goal post for legitimacy has moved in iran. last year the boundaries were pushed further, and this incremental trend looks set to continue.

coming back to the original point: it is a little too easy to scream 'illigitimate' at the iranian government. we need to be sure that we are in tune with what the majority inside iran believe - assuming majority opinion to be the measure for conferring legitimacy. remember that the greens were not questioning the regime's legitimacy.

those of us who left iran because of the regime certainly do not consider it legitimate from a personal perspective. but in the wider world, this opinion matters very little. iran still has one single government that rules the country and represents her in all her international engagements. no country would dream of not recognising iran's government unless they were sworn enemies.



Of course "Simorgh"!

by Q on

So having lost on your first set of BS arguments, now you have new ones? Where are your experts now?

It's ok, more public spanking is always good for a laugh! :)

In Farsi, we have a saying for people like you, lost so badly, they pretend to be stupid:

Khod be khariat zadan!

remember that one!

The exercise of emergency power by Hitler as Chancellor was compeltely within the framework of the Weimar Republic

Nope! I told you to hit Wikipedia harder, and you are still on the first paragraph!

The Weimar Republic's constitution gave emergency powers to the President not the Chancellor:

Article 48 of the constitution allowed the President to rule independently of the Reichstag in the case of national emergency and; The President had the right to call referendums.


The enabling act literally gave Hitler powers "beyond the constitution". Article 2:

Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

That's literally uncostitutional: so much for your pathetic claim otherwise.

In addition, even the enabling act was violated when Hitler dismissed the Presidency. So even if you argue the enabling act was "legal", it was violated!

that's how far gone you are in a pathetic pursuit to save face!

Once again, everyone can see the proof that you have nothing!

Bringing Mossadegh into this, just like the Hart-Fuller debate, is irrelevant, just a another of the aforementioned pathetic attempts.  

the gretest proof that you are make no sense at all is in your avatar.

Ah... thanks for this. Now at least the audience can laugh along, at your pathetic logic.

You claim there is no evidence of electoral fraud in the Presidential elections of 2009

When did I claim this???

See, what I mean when I say "blinded by hatred" Simorgh? In addition to your well-established pathetic desperation, you are completely operating outside of the realm of reality. I'm not sure you are going to be cured in this lifetime, but I thank Allah everyday that you and those carazies like you are completely irrelevant to the future of Iran.





It's spelled "bufoon".


Q, give it up man

by Parthianshot91 on

The true muslims, the sunnis, consider you shiites (who kiss their dirty arses) as heretics. Most Iranians don't want your islam nor your mutta islamic whore culture, now that's a fact buddy, you'll get the message by going to any Iranian's house. Religion should not be mixed with politics, and the government should always be secular for the most part. Get that through your thick skull,  and stop acting like such a paranoid baffon.




"They are not afraid of the ideology alone, but of the detemination and will of the men behind it"


Q - The Historian from the school of David Irwing

by Simorgh5555 on

Which hack in the central Los Angeles wrote this if you jdeny saying Hitler did not enjoy popular supprot? 

 IR had the support of the overwhelming majority of the people while Nazis never did

I am sorry for the amount of money wasted in you by your IR sponsors in the Islamic Republic. All these years of training by VEVAK and sending you off to the USA for a college education and you have nothing to show for it. What can I say from a hack who suppors a regime whose leader calls the Holocaust a 'myth. 

You could not imtimidate a speacial needs child in kintergarteb let alone me. The exercise of emergency power by Hitler as Chancellor was  compeltely within the framework of the Weimar Republic and was passed with the approval of the majority of themembers of the Reichstag. There were absolutely no constitutional restrains on the Chncellor from enacting such powers. Emergency Powers are exercised frequently by many government in one shape or the other whether it is the Prevention of Terrorirsm Act in the UK or the creation of the Department of Homeland Security which gives Federal powers unprecedented powers to control civilian activities but this is by no means uncostitutional.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the Weimar Republic  did not allow for the Enabling Act which I am using as an example of how the Islamic Republic deserves to be overthrown regardless of any legitimacy it had in its establishment. Put your money where your mouth is and admit it. 

But of course, when it comes down to it, Mossadeq who demanded powers to be taken away from the Shah, the legal sovereign of Iran and be given to him was not uncosntitutional and neither was his outrageous 99% public approval  as a result of a plebicit to give him emergency power (also not mentioned in the constitution) a problem so long as it measures up to your Chomskey and the other looney Left wing anarchists you champion. 

Fianlly, you did not address Hart - conveniently left out because you know nothing about him and then the gretest proof that you are make no sense at all is in your avatar. You claim there is no evidence of electoral fraud in the Presidential elections of 2009 but yet you still call Mousavi 'the President'.On the one hand you are acting the sore loser you are and on the other you lavish praise on the integiryt of the electoral system of the terorist occupying regime. President of where? You are too thick headed to realsie you have defeated your own argument.

So you see, Q, there is only so much propaganda the Islamic Republic can buy and I am afraid their money has been watsed on you. You started off as a hack for your college paper and you will remain a hack for your college paper to your dying day. You are khali band Q justl like your master Ahmadi - always runnign on empty.