ACTIVISM

Jahanshah Javid, Hezbollah in Disguise!

Jahanshah Javid, Hezbollah in Disguise!
Hezbollah's Front Businesses in America!
Part one
//iranpoliticsclub.net/politics/shiite-season...
part two
//iranpoliticsclub.net/politics/shiite-season...

THERE IS NOTHING WORSE THAN BOMBING OF IRAN!

Foreign intervention has historically been the scourge of Iran, so much so that the modern Iranian mind is quite simply paranoid, combining true historical fact with a mythology of victimization,, a Karbala mind.

If ANY foreign intervention happens in Iran, THE FIRST THING, THE VERY FIRST THING, that goes wrong, Iranians will blame that foreign intervention for all their ills.  And they will be RIGHT but it will also FURTHER this destructive Karbala mindset.

BOMBING, or ANY foreign intervention, is the WORST possible option for Iran, politcally, socially and  psychologically.  Not that anyone is REALLY listening to any of us here, BUT it should not even be an option on this table for discussion.

My two cents,
Robin Jayne Goldsmith (hired agent of the IRI, the Israelis, the Pan-Turks, Rajavi AND the SUMKA).

If we let people like Rostam

If we let people like Rostam Pourzal, a more leftist communist than Lenin himself, or the Pro-IRI group NIAC, speak for us, the Iranian expatriate groups, our problems are far worse than the U.S bombing Iran. When will our people realize that it is the IRI who is advocating conflict against the whole world for the last 30 years? It has defied every single modern and international establishment and achievements and it is perpetuating the most dangerous threat that world has seen in modern years, Islamic Fundamentalism. With what face are we asking the world to sit still and watch the barbaric regime of IRI continue along this path? Isn't it enough that it led us to the longest war of the 20th centuries? The idea that Iran is not a threat to world community just simply astonishes me. Furthermore, many different parties or nations around the world might have benefited from the 1954 coup, that doesn’t mean they were involve in it. Plus, are you telling me that unlike most nations in the world where they recover from wars and revolutions within short times, we are still suffering from the 1954 coup eventhough that regime who was responsible for it has gone for the last 30 years? I mean does that make sense? And the ironic part is leftist like Sasha and Tinoush and Taslimi, just keep repeating the same claims without actual proof. How can you explain that almost half century later, we, the people of Iran, were not able to come together, after all we’ve seen, revolutions, wars, ….and unite, and work together, and take advantage of what the world has to offer, and open up our society, and take it to the next level, and think, for once, outside the box. 2 reasons : IRI and their leftist allies such as many people on this website.

Who is the real barbarians?

I believe that the mullagarchy in Iran will collapse under its own corruption and repression. It cannot survive the realities of information age.

However, anyone who think the USA-Inc and its allies are friends of the Iranian people have problem with memory and reasoning.

It was the US-inc and Britain that interrupted a democratic change in Iran in 1954, and it was the US-inc and its allies that unleashed its S.O.B. Saddam who caused great destruction and the death of so many young Iranians.

The US-Inc directly or indirectly caused the death of one million Iraqis, more than two million refugees in Iraq. The US-Inc care less about democracy, since it is the main supporter of tyrants and oppressors like Kings of Arabia, Mubaraks of Egypt, Generals of Pakistan, Zionists of Israel...

Iranian people in diaspora need to get involved in politics. They must start now. They should not underestimate the power of organized groups that are educated and passionate. Furthermore, the Iranian community in the USA is financially better than average Americans. So, it would be irresponsible not to get involved in activism for peace, progress, and human rights.

Peace,
Edip Yuksel
www.yuksel.org
www.19.org
www.brainbowpress.com

Ghormeh Sabzi

You got to learn how to do a proper Ghormeh Sabzi. There is no minced meat in there. You used diced pieces of lamb. Can be on the bone too. Never never use minced meat. Save the mince for Spag Bol !!!

Whoever thinks Bush bombing is a cure for Akhoonds...

ponder this one:

//iranian.com/main/blog/sce-campaign/un-p...

The current regimes of the IRI, the USA and China have too much in common to successfully combat each other. Please read, and read my comment to that blog, which was unfortunately not featured. I think it puts it all in a very "interesting" persepctive.

REPLY : Subhuman and CIA

I think we must regard the following: the propagandists which do have a paymaster - so I think - do an honorable job. But the matter of fact is. Most propagandists do not have even any paymaster. Now the question is: why do then they leak the mauth of strangers just after they have vomitted? can it be because - living in a society which handeld them fashisticaly force them to speak just the words those fashists use to say against IRI? The IRI has today 70 Million citizens. these are all "Mullahs" and as we have had the apprtunity to admire since nearly 30 years all those Mullahs are very very "fanatic". Obviously they do not want to be rescude by the powers of free world society. In contrary: they sent the representative of the free world back to the free world. so that all these barkings and gruntings have only one effect: The Dogs and the pigs get sore throat. It is a curable disease. The danger is: it can be degenerated to cancer. so lets let them keep barking and grunting and lets have our pleasure studying all these light Reading with a high entertainment value. Greeting

REPLY : TO THOSE..........

I think it is superfluous to discuss the boombing. because of the following. Please acknowledge:
Warmongers are allready stranded over Iran attack
US President George W. Bush in a meeting with visiting Japanese Premier Yasuo Fukuda warned Iran that international pressure 'must, and will, grow on the Islamic Republic' in order to intimidate Tehran into abandoning its nuclear activities.
Earlier, he claimed that the world would be engaged in World War III if Iran does not comply with Washington's illegitimate demand. Vice President Dick Cheney warned of bombing Iran and the Senate passed a resolution that critics say is a blank check for war.
However, this is one side of the coin, as Democratic lawmakers have warned that the Bush administration is 'beating the drums for war', and vowed to use constitutional powers to thwart any US military strike.
"It's an open secret that Dick Cheney is agitating for a preemptive attack on Iran… It would be disastrous to the United States, disastrous to the region, disastrous for our armed forces in Iraq," said Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio.
If in fact this is the Cheney camp's opinion, we should take a moment to consider that it was the Vice President who unequivocally and repeatedly assured Americans in 2002 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and was on the verge of producing nuclear weaponry.
Cheney is also the hardheaded geopolitical realist who, according to Robert Draper's semi-authorized book on Bush, assured the then-House Republican leader Dick Armey that the Iraqis are "going to welcome us. It'll be like the American army going through the streets of Paris. They're sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms that we'll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two."
That may have been one of the most flawed assessments in modern American history.
Last month, the London-based Oxford Research Group issued a report on the problems facing the US in Iraq.
"Going to war with Iran will make matters far worse and adding greatly to the violence across the region," warned the author, Paul Rogers, a professor at the University of Bradford.
Unlike 2002 when the neoconservative war hawks, led by the Pentagon and the vice president's office, were dominant, other leading figures in the administration -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Admiral William Fallon, the head of Central Command for the Middle East, and probably Condoleezza Rice-- all think military engagement with Iran is a recipe for disaster.
Denouncing Cheney's warmongering ambitions, the head of US forces in the Mideast declared that an attack on Iran "is not in the offing," and more or less urged the Vice President and his political allies to shut up.
In a front-page interview published on Nov. 12 by the Financial Times, Admiral William Fallon spoke in diplomatic tones, as top military officers usually tend to do when they make strong political statements.
While Iran certainly poses a 'challenge,' he said, US policymakers must engage Tehran to encourage changes in the country's behavior.
"It seems to me that we don't need more problems. It astounds me that so many pundits and others are spending so much time yakking about this topic (of war against Iran)," he added.
The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, who assumed office on October 1, has also expressed deep concerns about military action against Iran.
"I think we have to be very mindful of risks associated with follow-on steps which would engage us in a third country in that part of the world in any kind of conflict," he recently told an audience of defense experts.
Like Mullen, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls for international efforts to economically pressure Iran, while making clear that the military option offers little appeal.
"At this point we're focused on diplomatic and economic sanctions," said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell.
Democratic Representative Jim McDermott, whose remarks came hours after Bush's new rhetoric on Friday, accused the Bush administration of saber rattling against Iran.
"We, under the Constitution, have the right to declare war, to send troops into battle, not the President. We are the ones, the Constitution in Article I gives us the power. That means we have to look at what the options are," McDermott said.
While in recent months Bush has made a series of predictions including a so-called 'nuclear holocaust', Secretary Rice denied on Sunday that the United States was bent on war with Iran.
Top US military leaders have noted that military action against Iran is 'a last resort,' which would create enormous complications for the US forces already trapped in the Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires.
Moreover, analysts say that the military, economic and political climate for action against Iran is infinitely less hospitable than five years ago, when the US was preparing for war with Iraq. The prospects for an attack on Iran in the final 14 months of the Bush administration are somewhere between slim and none.
A major military action of choice isn't usually done without a consensus, and certainly not in the final months of a presidency.
As for President Bush, if we are to believe the only logical words issued from his lips regarding Iran's nuclear issue, he has also decided to pursue the diplomatic option rather than engage in a reckless bombing campaign. And now have a happy evening by reading the latest News:
Hypnosis successful IBS treatment
Oil price near $95 after OPEC summit
Kidnapped reporter freed in Baghdad
Chavez: Dollar empire crashing
Syrian FM is due in Tehran, Monday
France will not wage war on Iran
EU defense budget increased by 30%

Spotlight

Reports
French FM less confident of Lebanese consensus on next president
Suicide rate high among US veterans

US deaths in Iraq top 15,000
QUICK VOTE:
Given the new IAEA report on Iran, the US will -----
try to impose more sanctions
reconcile with the situation
resort to military action
Results:
try to impose more sanctions (47%)
reconcile with the situation (34%)
resort to military action (18%)
NOW: as you see there will not be a war against IRI. We all can enjoy happily our ghorme. Afterwards we can "study" the light Reading with high entertainment value. Greeting

To those few so-called

To those few so-called Iranian pigs: You are so dumb that you think American bombs are so smart that can pick and choose only mullahs and their families to destroy. You animals, don't you see what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's easy to sit outside comfortably and say lengesh kon! You useless pigs are so selfish and arrogant who think the US will go and topple the mullahs (and kill thousands of innocent people in the process) just for you jerks to go back and run (rob) the country?
As long as we Iranians have such a stinky attitude and hate each other, we deserves dictators like Shahs and Khomeinies or to be refugees around the world. Why can't we learn from history and other people like Jews, Chines, or Indians? Shame!

REPLY: IS GHORME MORE IMPORTANT?

Surly YES. because bombing iran is only an american dream, actually an american nightmaer. Not more not less.. But the Ghorme is objective and comparatively very very actual. you know. Now please be so kind and acknowledge the following:
Iran attack, a disastrous 'last resort'
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:05:46
By Davoud and Maryam Taabbodi, Press TV, Tehran
US President George W. Bush in a meeting with visiting Japanese Premier Yasuo Fukuda warned Iran that international pressure 'must, and will, grow on the Islamic Republic' in order to intimidate Tehran into abandoning its nuclear activities.

Earlier, he claimed that the world would be engaged in World War III if Iran does not comply with Washington's illegitimate demand. Vice President Dick Cheney warned of bombing Iran and the Senate passed a resolution that critics say is a blank check for war.

However, this is one side of the coin, as Democratic lawmakers have warned that the Bush administration is 'beating the drums for war', and vowed to use constitutional powers to thwart any US military strike.

"It's an open secret that Dick Cheney is agitating for a preemptive attack on Iran… It would be disastrous to the United States, disastrous to the region, disastrous for our armed forces in Iraq," said Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio.

If in fact this is the Cheney camp's opinion, we should take a moment to consider that it was the Vice President who unequivocally and repeatedly assured Americans in 2002 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and was on the verge of producing nuclear weaponry.

Cheney is also the hardheaded geopolitical realist who, according to Robert Draper's semi-authorized book on Bush, assured the then-House Republican leader Dick Armey that the Iraqis are "going to welcome us. It'll be like the American army going through the streets of Paris. They're sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms that we'll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two."

That may have been one of the most flawed assessments in modern American history.

Last month, the London-based Oxford Research Group issued a report on the problems facing the US in Iraq.

"Going to war with Iran will make matters far worse and adding greatly to the violence across the region," warned the author, Paul Rogers, a professor at the University of Bradford.

Unlike 2002 when the neoconservative war hawks, led by the Pentagon and the vice president's office, were dominant, other leading figures in the administration -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Admiral William Fallon, the head of Central Command for the Middle East, and probably Condoleezza Rice-- all think military engagement with Iran is a recipe for disaster.

Denouncing Cheney's warmongering ambitions, the head of US forces in the Mideast declared that an attack on Iran "is not in the offing," and more or less urged the Vice President and his political allies to shut up.

In a front-page interview published on Nov. 12 by the Financial Times, Admiral William Fallon spoke in diplomatic tones, as top military officers usually tend to do when they make strong political statements.

While Iran certainly poses a 'challenge,' he said, US policymakers must engage Tehran to encourage changes in the country's behavior.

"It seems to me that we don't need more problems. It astounds me that so many pundits and others are spending so much time yakking about this topic (of war against Iran)," he added.

The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, who assumed office on October 1, has also expressed deep concerns about military action against Iran.

"I think we have to be very mindful of risks associated with follow-on steps which would engage us in a third country in that part of the world in any kind of conflict," he recently told an audience of defense experts.

Like Mullen, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls for international efforts to economically pressure Iran, while making clear that the military option offers little appeal.

"At this point we're focused on diplomatic and economic sanctions," said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell.

Democratic Representative Jim McDermott, whose remarks came hours after Bush's new rhetoric on Friday, accused the Bush administration of saber rattling against Iran.

"We, under the Constitution, have the right to declare war, to send troops into battle, not the President. We are the ones, the Constitution in Article I gives us the power. That means we have to look at what the options are," McDermott said.

While in recent months Bush has made a series of predictions including a so-called 'nuclear holocaust', Secretary Rice denied on Sunday that the United States was bent on war with Iran.

Top US military leaders have noted that military action against Iran is 'a last resort,' which would create enormous complications for the US forces already trapped in the Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires.

Moreover, analysts say that the military, economic and political climate for action against Iran is infinitely less hospitable than five years ago, when the US was preparing for war with Iraq. The prospects for an attack on Iran in the final 14 months of the Bush administration are somewhere between slim and none.

A major military action of choice isn't usually done without a consensus, and certainly not in the final months of a presidency.

As for President Bush, if we are to believe the only logical words issued from his lips regarding Iran's nuclear issue, he has also decided to pursue the diplomatic option rather than engage in a reckless bombing campaign.

Now? As you see Ghormesabzi is for the iranians living in IRI is the most actual matter. although it may not be for "IRANIAN" abroad. Greeting

Islamist shenanigan

After almost thirty years of this Islamist regime Iranians are wise to their shenanigans. NIAC & CASMII are Islamist Republic fonts and that is why Iranians are not participating in their lobbying efforts.

Reedam be Iranian Patriot

With patriots like you who make no mention of the anti-iranian shits known as IRI, we don't need any enemy. In your gibberish against 2+2=4, you didn't attack the greatest enemy of Iran, i.e. the Islamic Republic even once. Why? Because you are one of their supporters. So once, again, Keeram to your patriotism.

2+2 =4 is a parasite subhuman and CIA propagandist

54 years ago, animals like Shaban bi Mokh worked for the garbage of the U.S. and U.K. to overthrow Mosaddeq. These same animals, like that vermin posting under the name 2+2=4 and the Rajavists, are putting put propaganda for their American, British, and Israeli paymasters. Now amount of U.S. bombs will be able to prevent the Iranian patriots from shoving your heads up your own arses. White Trash Animals of the U.S. military are being "martyred" in Iraq, and the same will happen to you, you subhuman scum. Have a very nice day, traitor.

i think why no one realy

i think why no one realy intersted in this is beacuse these gathering have zero effect in decision making in tehran and washington. if you see america does not bomb iran, it is not beacuse of iranian civilian or the antiwar opinian. it is beacuse it does not want to or it is not capable to do it. beacuse if america want to attack it does not ask for permition like iraq. so going to this anti war gathering is useles and actually i think it is sort of a propaganda that scare iran. it just want to show it is realy serious.anyway thanks for the concern but i think if there is no bomb falling is beacuse america can not figure out the retalition.

Amazed and digusted...............Gholi you want to educate me..

It is very easy to go saying bomb Iran and kill all the Mullahs when you don't live in Iran.

I am amazed and disgusted at the same time. How can you go saying that you love the Iranian people when you say bomb them? You are aware that the so called "Mullahs" will be just fine because they will evacuate with plenty of time. However, the men, women and children that are not so called "Mullahs" will not. Iran will be devastated. You think Iran is not what you left behind. What makes you think it will even resemble it after the war breaks out. Everything you knew and loved will be destroyed.

Now, tell me if the Monarchy in Iran was so wonderful. Why was it over thrown? It has been years of outside interference by other countries trying to manipulate Iran that has brought it to what it is now.

Iran was on the path of modernization but it was cut short. Iran was a great nation once and I believe that it still can be. However, bombing whatever is left of it is not the answer. There must be another way.

If Iran can get back on its own two feet then the US and other countries can not manipulate it.

You who claim to know the history so well. The US has failed to keep many promises with Iran in the past. Do you honestly think it will keep them now?

Don't get me wrong the US has a lot of good points but I refuse to wear rose colored glasses on the abuses the US has done and continues to do.

Gholi here is the link

//iranian.com/main/2007/something-better-do

The Iranian nation has to shed some blood to get

itself rid of the barbaric Islam and its advocates (i.e., the mullahs.) Now, it has two options:

a) Do it itself, or
b) Have it done by a third party (i.e., USA).

No nation on the face of planet Earth that has suffered from its barbaric regime/ideology has ever been able to rescue itself without one of the two options enumerated above!? In fact, there is only one option and it is not (a) since I threw it in for the sake of argument!

Germany, Italy, France, Japan, South Korea have all been bombed by USA and all are part of the 1st class countries!

USA occupied Iran during WWII and the conditions in Iran improved 100 times more. USA left Iran and gave it up to the Soviets/Mullahs in 1979 and see what happened to it!

Nobody wants Iran t be bombed, but if bombs are going to be fallen on the heads of the mullahs, their families, their supporters, the IRGCs, the Basijis et al, I would say God bless America and please drop more bombs.

America doesn't bomb innocent people unless the Islamic Regime hides its nuclear activities in the middle of residential centers!

The regime of mullahs cares about its survival and doesn't give a damn about Iran nor Iranian people.

Now, those of you who happen to be benefiting from the Islamic Regime and its continued existence, I understand your opposition to US bombing of Iran. Your life depends on it!!!!!!

Ghorme Sabzi or Bombing Iran

The delusions of the "war is better than IRI" crowd is comical if we were not talking about the dropping of cluster bombs and plutonium tinged bunker busters on Tehran and Isfahan and some other precious corner of the very vatan that these individuals "worship." You would think that after four years of chaos and bloodshed and the disintegration of society next door, the LA "nationalist" crowd would wake up and smell the coffee. Yes, there is something worse than the IRI. Just like there was something worse than Saddam. Just watch the news (and I don't mean the latest episode of paranoia on Persian satellite).

Mullah Apartheid State

//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1400868686...

Thank you

Thank you for making us aware of the organization you mentioned and their efforts in preventing a US-Iranian war.

It is true that many on this website as soon as you don't want Iran bombed will call you everything they can think off rather than deal with the real issues.

Best wishes

Parusa that was a bunch of nonsense

So none of that stuff exists in places other than Iran? Why don't you just say "stop rape in America. stop molestation in America/Europe". The truth is, that is something that people in Iran are fighting. It's easy to argue against anti-war people in US, especially when you say nonsense like you just did!

May be you are right! but

May be you are right! but have you thought about other people's feeling and ideas, people whom actually been throught the hell with IRI? It all seems so rosy to you to throw a big gathering to stop war agaist Iran, but let me tell you my friend, The Iran has been through a hell worse than war. If you had lived in IRI , you would undestand. If you really love Iran, throw these "Bastardo"s out of Iran. Thirty years of sorrow, hate, murder, torture, humiliation, being bullied and oppression. What have you done for this kind of Iran? Go fight my brother, go fight. HOld the hand of a orphaned kid with an abused and addicted mother. Fund a family of eight with who have nothing but poverty and tears in their daily lives. Stop the rape and killing of innocent young women. Stop the child malesters. Stop this humonguds cancerous tumor from growing. This should be your rally!
Payendeh mehre izadi