HYPOCRISY

Anonym7 - Fair Enough

That's your experience with him. My experience with him has been different. He has accused me and many other people, on many occasions, of having a problem with him because he's a Muslim (which, incidentally follows that I should have a problem with my entire immediate and extended family because they are all practicing Shia Muslims as well!!).

I usually see the "you have a problem with me because...." argument coming out when he is stuck in an argument that he cannot win or justify. It's changing the subject by playing the "I'm the victim" card---the oldest trick in the book.

Just curious! (to a-observer/Mammad)

Anonymous Observer says: "So, can it be that it is the other way around, and you are the one who has a problme with Iranians who do not believe in Islam".

A.O., I am not a Muslim, and I have clearly stated that many times in my past comments, ...., and I have not found Mammad having issues with my ideas because of me not being Muslim! (and I have had a number of exchanges with him).
BTW, my respect for Mammad is not because I know him personally, but because I believe his ideas present the most sane alternative.

Mammad

May I ask you a simple question? It is in regrad to your accusing many people who disagree with you on issues, including me on several occasions, that we have a problem with you because you are a Muslim. I know that at least in my case, that could not be farthest from the truth. So, can it be that it is the other way around, and you are the one who has a problme with Iranians who do not believe in Islam--or in my case, in any religion? Can it be that you cannot imagine a non-Shia, or a non-Muslim Iranian, because that is the only reference point that you have about Iran's issues? Could that be a possibility? Have you ever given thought about a through self examination in that regard?

Just curious.

Anonymous from Iran

I agree 100%. While the Pahlavi dynasty was by no means perfect, it did afvance Iran into the modern ages, and what we see taday, in terms of cultural, social and economic progress are still results of those efforts.

I also agree with you that the people who you see overloading this thread with comments, such as this Mammad person, and also the author of this piece herself, are perfect examples of the Islamists ans leftists who orchestrated the 1979 revolution and brought this misery upon Iran and its people. Now, they try to justify it by throwing in the kitchen sink and making a million excuses and arguments about how things are still "better" from the Shah era, and how their revolution can still be salvagaed. They also try to deflect crticism by blaming everything on the "West", "Zionists" and "monarchists". What is abolutely astonishing is that they have the audacity to attempt to repackge themselves as the new "intellectuals", "researchers" and "academics" in an effort to convince the people of Iran to trust them and give them another opportunity to take control of Iran's destiny. They just can't let go. Simply amazing!!

Islamism and Islam

This is not the first time that the Islamists accuse anti-Islamists of being anti-Islam the religion and sure would not be the last time either. But you have on more that one occasion accused me of being anti-Islam and on at least one occasion I’ve challenged you to provide proof to no avail. This childish attempt at equating Islamism as in your long held ideology, as the ruling ideology in the Islamist republic, as in Ben Laden’s ideology as in a whole lot of aberrant cases is a political distinction.  It has as much to do with Islam the religion as Hitler did with Christianity.

Fred lives in a dream world

Fred, you are correct in your point. Let go of the nuke issue, and work to overthrow the regime to save Bush the money and the trouble.

I'm sure US and UK will gift wrap whatever national rights we now neglect and hand it back to us after a democratic government is established to their satisfaction. Their word is good!

There is no need to defend Iran's rights. These rights will be escrowed by the West for us until we are adults. No need to worry! Uncle Sam has your back. It's not like they have ever robbed us of energy resources before!

Just like all the land that was stolen during the Ghajar era was given right back when Iran became independent, so too will nuclear energy rights!

PS. I now officially cannot finish reading anything by you in your Royalty style without laughing!

Fred

You decide for yourself, and let others decide for themselves.

I, and people like me, do not have to prove anything to anybody, least of all you. I, and people like me, do not need to be told what to defend and not defend, what to criticize and not criticize.

The stench of your hatred for Muslims like me is too strong. 

Mammad

Jamshid

I do not believe you understood what I said to Kadivar. If you did understand, then I must say I do not understand your comments. Some of the things that you say are so strange, in my opinion. 

1. So what if Ayatollah Khamenei or Hashemi Rafsanjani was one of those who were tortured? What kind of logic is this? At the time that this happened to them, they were political prisoners. Just like any political prisoner, they had rights that were grossly violated. What they have done or not done since coming to power has absolutely no implication, or provides absolutely no justification, for what happened to them in Shah's jail. This is a skewed logic, to put it extremely politely, to implicitly say, "it was ok to torture them THEN, because of what they did years LATER!"

2. Torture in Shah's jails was not exaggerated. It either happened or did not happen. Even if one person was tortured there (or now in the IRI), that is one too many. What kind of logic is this? Let me give you two examples with which I am closely familiar (I do not even talk about what happened to myself, a simple student):

(i) The brother of Hamid Ashraf, the legendary Cherik-e Fadaaei, was my contemporary and friend at Tehran University in the 1970s. He was arrested and jailed for 1 full year, and beaten badly, simply because he was Hamid's brother.

(ii) A classmate and my closest friend at Tehran U in the 1970s was arrested in 1975. He was beaten badly and, as a condition for his release, was ordered to spy on his classmate and others. He refused. He was arrested again and the same thing happened to him again. After he was released, he stopped going home, from 1975 to Fall of 1978 the guy slept in someone's house practically every night (he now lives in Los Angeles area).

3. Unlike what you say, the West did not stop publishing accounts of anything after 1979. Reputable international organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., have continued publishing the accounts. The European Union and the US, whenever it has suited their interests, have protested many things, right or wrong. You seem to invoke a sort of conspiracy theory that I do not believe in. 

4. If you think that Dr. Milani did the right thing by working with the SAVAK, be my guest. This is another facet of a skewed logic.

During Summer and Fall 1978 the SAVAK could not do anything, simply because the support for the revolution was just too wide spread, too deep. It was no longer limited to campuses. SAVAK's inability was not due to incompetence, rather due to depth of the opposition.

5. I do not believe any rational believer in Dr. Mosaddegh's work for Iran believes that he was a saint or flawless. This is only your opinion.

At the same time, yeah, let's rewrite history. One revisionist, Hamid Showkat, tries to resurrect Ahmad Ghavam as someone more important and useful to Iran than Dr. Mosaddegh, a totally ridiculous claim. Another "scholar," Ali Mirfetros, claims incompetency for Dr. Mosaddegh, in an attempt to make a name for himself in this "ashofteh baazaar." Dr. Abbas Milani casts doubts on whether the August 19, 1953 coup was really a coup! Others, who had never ever said anything about the 1953-1979 period and lived in total comfort during that era, have, all of a sudden, NOW, started casting doubt on Dr. Mosaddegh's work. I have a list of such suddenly-discovered historians in an article that I published in October 2007. So, admire the revisionists, if you wish.

6. I never said that all monarchists are charlatan. What I did say is that, monarchists are willing to do anything to discredit Dr. Mosaddegh, including use of charlatans. I stand by my assertion.

7. History, written 50 or 100 years from now, will judge whether monarchists gave to Iran of the period we are talking about more than any other group, as you claim. I, and people like me, do not see it that way, not that I believe nothing useful was done, but this is a far cry from your claim. Moreover, I suppose by monarchists you mean the Pahlavis, because the Ghajars were also mornarchy, but did much damage to Iran, including great loss of territory.

8. I did not say that Dr. Bakhtiar did NOT negotiate with Ayatollah Khomeini. To the contrary, as I said, he did, and did so extensively to the point of reaching an agreement with the Ayatollah. What I said was, he backed out of the agreement, fearing for his life.

9. What are you trying to say? That I fabricated what I said about Dr. Bakhtiar? What I said is well-known to anybody who has followed and read the history of the revolution. And, quite frankly, between you and Mohandes Bazargan, an honest, pais nationalist, I choose him every heartbeat.

Why did Dr. Bakhtiar never mentioned what I said publicly? What do you expect him to say? "I reached an agreement with the Ayatollah, but because the Shah's army threatened me, I backed out?"! Would he not have been asked a simple question, "why did you not resign in the face of the army's threats?" And, what would he have had to say? "well, I liked to be the PM!" Would he have not been asked, "How did you accept the Ayatollah's conditions at that time, when you attack him so much?"

Your logic, if I can call that, is so convoluted.

10. I made no conclusion about Soraya, a great friend. All I said was, one cannot use the opinion of one person in order to reject another person's. I do agree with Soraya's article about the so-called "superpatriots."

Mammad

A ridiculous repeat story in different composition

Like story of Karbalaa, Mosadegh's legacy has become an excuse for some people to be repeatedly used in order to buy some attention and undeserved credibility for their arguments. In fact, there is no real difference between those who use Mosadegh to attack others and those who use Shah to attack them! Both of these groups who are stuck in their own fantasy world as far as realities of Iranian politics concerned, deserve one another. In recent decades, this matter also seems to have become an issue of interest for those who enjoy instigating an old fashion quarrel between these groups while attaching themselves to one side.

The issue for Iranians today, is not to mourn for what happened 60 years ago and try to blame it on this or that person or group. The issue is not even if this or that person or group was right or wrong. The issue is how could we make things work with all the differences because differences will remain possibly for ever but nothing could ever be accomplished if we are still arguing about the differences on what happened 60 years ago! Democracy is an idea to make things work while there are differences not to make everyone to think the same! Attempting to implement absolutism within the framework of democracy is failure to understand the basics of the idea of democracy! We may still get the same naggings that democracy was there but Shah ignored it from those who are after creating heroes for self interest and self promotion but the fact is that, no person in this world can be imune from making mistakes and people like Shah and Mosadegh were no god and they definitely had mistakes!

I see no difference between those who constantly yell the name of Shah but fail to see what he really was about and those who yell the name of Mosadegh and try to portray him as a god or superhero! These two people had both success and failures in their positions and that is normal from the point of a human being! Those who try to take advantage of either of these two historical figures to sell their own ideas and promote themselves, are no different than those who have been taking advantage of "shahide karbalaa" for centuries and made people cry to make a living! During primiership of late Dr. Amini, when late Dr. Sanjabi went to him to say he was "restarting" Jebhe MElli, he told Dr. Sanjabi to go and open his own "dokaan" because Jebhe Melli was Dr. Mosadegh's "dokaan"! About half a century from that day, we still have some people who try to capitalize on the name of Mosadegh or Shah to buy credibility for themselves rather than coming up with their own "dokaan"! Mosadegh's name has been overused so badly that many are now raising questions about his purposes in the politics! This is just a circle of doom that Iranians are stuck in and if they don't save themselves then nobody else will.

Slaying the Islamist monster

The expected little “for the first time “jab aside, to partially atone for their deeds the Islamists and lefties who are admittedly culpable in all of the Islamist republic’s doings now have to stop attacking all the opposition to the Islamist republic.

True there are undesirables in the bunch, but in the face of slaying the Islamist monster one, especially the Islamists and lefties who have proven to be wrong before, cannot be the final arbiter.

 All the nonsensical efforts about proving the compatibility of Islamism with democracy need to be redirected to overthrowing the Islamist republic not throwing it a lifeline and justifying it. The nuke-lovers too need to redirect their effort to overthrowing the Islamist monster and then in a democratic Iran advocate the merits of nuke.

Anonymous fron iran, I

Anonymous fron iran, I highly appreciate you posting these remarks. We keep telling these IRI supporter left wingers that this is what people in Iran think and want, but they don't wanna accept the reality.

Shamse vazir, good points.

Fred, Darius, jamshid,

Fred, Darius, jamshid, IRANdokht, Anonymousirooni, good points.

IRANdokht

I could not agree with you more. Thank you.

Mammad

Fred

For the very first time since I started commenting here, you said something sensible.

Absolutely, those who supported the revolution, and in particular those who have ruled Iran for the past 30 years, are also responsible for whatever that has happened to Iran. There is no way around it.

Mammad

"if you break it, you own it"

Provided the logic used is not selectively applied, a logical statement cannot be disputed. For instance this statement by an Islamist: “Colin Powell told Bush, "if you break it, you own it," meaning that the U.S. will be responsible, as the occupying power, for whatever happens in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.”

 Now lets apply the same logic to the Islamists and lefties who personally, like this particular Islamist, participated in the revolution ending up with the Islamist republic.

Per the sound logic of “you break it, you own it” they bear responsibility for all that has been and is being done in the Islamist republic.

For the time being forget about all Iranian national interest that are gone with the wind, they have to own up to the last rape, chopped limb, gouged out eye, stoning, hangings and the rest of the Islamist goodies.  

And wanting the Islamist republic to have the nuke only adds to the long list.

Lets not get side-tracked please

This article is about people who are trying to ruin Dr Mossadegh's character and advocate a war on Iran.

We have two groups of proud Iran lovers who are articulate, educated and well informed about the history and the politics in Iran, attacking each other, throwing labels and insults at one another and forgetting the subject of this article which is the group that's trying to provoke military attacks on Iranian people. 

Lets accept that Mammad, Q, Jamshid and Darius and the rest of the people who agree with any of these folks are speaking with the best interest of Iran and Iranians on mind. I believe none of these gentlemen wants Iran destroyed, we all have a common goal: to see Iran as a free and sovereign country. Lets accept that we just have different means for this liberation on mind, and that none of us is hoping for a foreign-occupied Iran.

Why do we always make this a black and white issue. Just like USA, we can have the right conservative and the left liberals running the government together. Even when we debate over the US policies we get too wound up into trashing the other side more than these parties and their American followers do!   Even the republicans and the democrats who campaign so harshly against each other during the months prior to the elections, learned that they have to work together to accomplish results.

Why can't we respect one another and not fly off the handle when we have minor disagreements? Why can't we discuss politics without name-callings and put-downs? You are probably all more educated than many of us and you have strong dedication to your ideals. Instead of throwing words at each other, why not discuss the common goal? why not try to find a way to find a solution?

Ms Sepahpour is not saying anything derogatory about Iran! She's trying to bring to light a very disturbing problem that some of the Iranians are trying to encourage the west to bomb our country and they are smearing dirt on Dr Mossadegh's name.

Why is this article making any Iran lover angry? why can't we read it and say: we now have a common enemy who wants Iran destroyed? Why would we attack her for saying Dr Mossadegh was a great patriot?  Did Dr Mossadegh belong to me and not to you?

I see in these comments that most of us respect Dr Mossadegh and want what's best for Iran. Ok we do not agree what the "best" solution would be, but without coming to an understanding we will never achieve anything.

Please do not take away all hopes we have for the future by getting tangled up in trash talking. I look up to you gentlemen, I respect you all and it really hurts to read some of these comments. 

Respectfully

IRANdokht

Enki, I disagree with most

Enki, I disagree with most everything you said.

1-     Explain to me how did the U.S “kill over 1 million Iraqis”??? When you’re using that term, you are stating that U.S directly and using American fire, killed 1 million Iraqis. Are you saying that’s the case? Are you saying the U.S military directly “killed 1 million Iraqis”? The most convincing argument regarding that is that U.S since its an occupying power, has the responsibility to police Iraq. And I agree. That being said, A – Iraq is a sovereign country that has a democratically elected government with its own police and army.  B- If U.S is the police, you can accuse it for incompetence ( I had), but, when a crime is committed by a group of murderers, who is to blame? All you have to do is to read any news media in the world on daily bases that reports Islamic groups mass murdering Iraqi civilians in a civil war. The same groups are killing U.S soldiers too, so hows that possible? If we accept that argument, as a whole, and believe that since a foreign government has 100% responsibility since it has substituted the native government and since the native government had “policing” responsibilities, then, all of the following examples should be true:

- The IRI regime is responsible for the death of close to 1,000,000 Iranians during the Iran – Iraq war since it wasn’t able to “police” the country and “protect the people” from harm (Of course I believe the regime IS responsible for those deaths, but not for that reason and logic).

- The Spanish government was responsible for the deaths during the Madrid train bombing since it wasn’t able to “protect” people from harm.

- The Clinton administration was responsible for the deaths during the first world trade center bombing since it wasn’t able to “protect” the citizens from harm.

- The governments of Philippines, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Pakistan, Afghanistan, S Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, England, China, Russia, ..and others, are all responsible for the “deaths” of their citizens since they did not “protect” them during the attacks by Islamic fundamentalists.

As you can see, that does not make sense. (Hopefully you understand that it does not!). You have to blame the murderers for their murder, and, secondly, blame the “police” for its incompetence. But undoubtedly, the ultimate responsibility lies with the people who committed those violent acts and the people who inspired and brainwashed them.

You guys will find any possible means to drag U.S’ name into any possible news event anywhere in the world, and you love to be creative and tie the U.S to any news event in the world. But that doesn’t change reality.

U.S should be out of Iraq, I’ve said it all along, and I disagreed with the war from the beginning, but to claim that U.S killed “1 million Iraqis” is an ideologically-driven attempt to bash the U.S.

2-     What solid proof you have to show that U.S is after Iraqi oil, besides “opinions” and “miss reporting” and “twisted reporting” by anti Bush and in many cases, anti U.S media, governments and individuals? How can we determine why U.S went to Iraq? Cause the reality is that strong cases has been made on all sides to come up with reasoning for Iraq war, including that it was for oil, although that argument is weaker compare to others based on collective data, strategic outlook and political analysis. You can make the argument that U.S has a long term strategic goal of securing oil root supplies, but that does not proof that the war was over oil. Saddam did not possess a threat to oil supply when U.S attacked Iraq. Iraq in 2003, was at its weakest it has been since Saddam took power. and there was no threat to oil supply at that time. So why did the U.S spend so much power, resources, reputation, and the Republican costing their reputation and electibility for a long time to come, to engage in such adventure? How did “Haliburton” convince so many politicians in a complex political system like the U.S to sell the Iraq war? How in a free and open society like the U.S, “Oil people” so brilliantly hide the reasons for going to Iraq?

The Iraq war was a strategic mistake, nothing more nothing less. And certainly, whoever and whichever “group” responsible for it should be held accountable and if broken any U.S and International law, punished. But rests assure, people of the world are not naïve to believe whatever anti U.S forces claim.

"The days of special,

"The days of special, one-sided treatment, imbalanced power relationships and one-way communication as examplefide by the LA TV stations) is OVER. We will not stand for it anymore."

Say this to those in charge in Iran. To think of the audacity and hyprocrisy of such statement...

Soraya, This was wonderful. Good connections drawn in here

Roxanne Ganji, is high school or college aged, and while that alone doesn't dismiss her, it is strange to hear someone her age dismiss a man like Dr.Mossadegh as if she lived and experienced in his era and then as you say, quote Gandhi in an e-mail signature. Almost clownish, given that Gandhi opposed colonialism.

These kids aspire to be "great Americans" and supporting an American group who wants to get the glory for ending this regime (and it's definitely an ugly, bad regime, so quit accusing people of being pro-regime, KADIVAR) DEFINITELY earns you bonus brownie points and maybe even a job.

Monarchy

Under the Pahlavi monarchy Iran advanced from the middle ages into the 20th century. Sure the Pahlavi's were dictators but they were benevolent. The Shah did have a big ego but it was deserved. He had made Iran a very strong nation both economically and militarily. Plus Iran had powerful allies and weak enemies. Iraq would have not dared attack Iran while the Shah was in charge. Iran had some 9 billion dollars in foreign assets in America. Value of Iran's currency was over 100 times what it is now. Iranians were respected all over the world. Many got to go to the west for education. It may have not been perfect but was a whole lot better than today.

None of that was good enough for the left wing. They had to get their pound of flesh to get even over the Mossadegh debacle. It is called "Cut off your nose to spite your face". Without the left wing the revolution would have never happened.

Thanks a lot guys :-(

Too many antique minds around here...

There seems to be way too many iranian experts here who still think like 1975. Those days are long gone. Even mosaddegh is viewed with suspicion and an excuse to discredit the achievements of the shah, achievements that everywhere we go, even today, stand out, albeit barely due to 30 years of neglect. Those who brought this IRI disaster to iran are followers of left and islam, yet do not want to take responsibility for their actions. We were lucky to have got rid of mosaddegh or else we would have turned into an afghanistan after a short period of time. I bet very few of you knew in 1978 that we had such monsters like khomeini and rafsanjani and rajavi amongst us. The same people were well and alive in 1953 and would have grabbed power at any cost.

Wake up: islamic republic has changed culture of iran. Thanks to revolutionaries of the 70's, they have destroyed iran and turned it into a business for a few and a flea market for the rest. Greed and the same lack of understanding of the real world brought us here, to realize that amongst all those who were crying wolf for decades before revolution, we did not have a single decent person either on the left or intellectual or islamists. They all turned out to be thieves, murderers, and cowards, well deserving of whatever savak was doing to them. That is why the ideologues of 70s, frozen in time, idealize mossaddeq on the left and shariati of the right, simply because they had no chance to prove themselves. Alas that they were of the same cloth as the rest of iranian ruling and mulla class: self-serving! And besides, you should be really naive to assume that a country like iran could be put on the path of progress by a single man or two when Dracula's like khomeini or Rajavi were hiding in the shadows to bring us 30 years of oppression.

give peace a chance! (Fred Nassiri video)

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GkaOhQsErU

Re: Mammad

"when others were either being executed, tortured to death, or given long jails"

One of those others you are referring to was Khamenei. Many of those "others" are the criminals who are in charge today. Also, do not buy too much into this "torture" thing. Just like everything else, it was fantastically exagerated to entice the people against the regime.

Have you wondered why the West stopped publishing "torture documentaries" in 1979, eventhough far worst has been going on ever since?

You criticized Millani for colaborating with Savak. I don't criticize him for this. I think he did the right thing. If there is one I could criticize it is Savak itself for being such an incompetent organziation towards the end and allowing all these state enemies who are butchering your countrymen today to freely roam around in those days.

Additionally, changing of political views should not be considered a flaw.

I also want to note that some of those you named are not trying to discredit Mossadegh. For far too long, Mossadegh has been pictured as the perfect flawless politician. I admire those who stand up to this "emaaz zadeh zadegi" syndrome. I appreciate their work and the new light they have shed on what the truth really was in those days.

Additionally, you cannot discredit their work simply because one of them was funded by a monarchist. The picture you want to paint for Monarchist, that they are all charlatans and not to be trusted, is false. I know many of them who love their country just as much as you or I do.

Despite all the lies and false accusations, the truth remains that Monarchists gave to that country far more than any other group had in the past 200 years. All the lies that were made about them and all those who made those lies stand exposed today.

You claim that Bakthiar did not negotiate with Khomeini because he feared for his life since the army threathen to kill him if he opens direct talk with Khomeini.

The absurdity of such claim is hidden right in between the lines. Let's anaylize this.

The army was willing to kill Bakhtiar, but was not willing to force the Shah to stay, or kill Khomeini, or if not him, kill a few dozens of the revolution's leaders. Sorry but it does not make sense.

Somewhere else you said khomeini rejected Bakhtiar's request, unless Bakhtiar was willing to resign. It is more sensible to believe that the army had nothing to do with this, but it was Bakhtiar himself who did not want to relinquish his post. Again, your claim does not make sense.

Lastly, there was no reason for Bakhtiar not to mention this anywhere. Throughout his exile, he slammed the army for declaring neutrality. Why did he not ever made any reference to this? Are we to believe you or Bazargan, but not Bakhtiar himself? Sorry Mammad, your claim is just too fantastic to believe.

Then based on this unsubstantiated claim, you went on and made some conclusions about Soraya. If the premise does not stand, nor would the conclusion.

You seem to be a reasonable person, so you should avoid making such statements before having them analyzed.

Mammad

I respect your writing as well. And for the most part, I also don't had a problem with Mr. Kadivar or his advocacy. His flaming Monarchism is not a secret to anyone on earth.

But his grandstanding, this time, against Soraya and the personal attacks against me for being "anonymous" was just a bit too much to take. Still I respect him enough to consider him a worthy opponent in a discussion.

Jamshid is in a different league altogether. Conversing with him is a truly useless exercise.

The question remains how one should treat some of these people. This is a much deeper discussion that the Iranian community has not come to terms with as of yet. In this particular case, anyone can see that the vicious personal attacks and belitteling insults started against Soraya. It's typically like this.

You say you wouldn't use strong language in retaliation.

I'm not sure that works.
Believe me, I'm keenly aware of "getting into the gutter with the garbage" but the vicious conduct of some of these authoritarian character assassins manifests itself in people being turned off and afraid to speak their minds.

This is the way it was in the pre-Internet era in the 80s (and even most Internet forums today). The laughable LA-based "TV" stations and a handful of Monarchist rags and the MEK were the only representatives of the Iranian community. Thus for years, if someone wanted to say something reasonable -- like for example: US is supporting Saddam Hussein against the IRI -- one would feel like he was going against the wishes of the ENTIRE Iranian community abroad. If these people manage to intimidate others from speaking even on a website, than it will be the same exact story. Already, if someone makes an obviously factual claim like -- "Sanction hurt ordinary Iranians" -- it is instantly considered blasphomy and a green light for fanatics to try to shut you up by labeling you an IRI agent.

So, in a sense, I'm trying to show that no one needs to be afraid of these people. If someone slaps you, you can slap back. They do not have a monopoly on the truth and they do not represent any significant group of Iranians. If they use strong langauge, they will be hit back with strong language. The days of special, one-sided treatment, imbalanced power relationships and one-way communication )as examplefide by the LA TV stations) is OVER. We will not stand for it anymore.

Coincidently I have seen first hand evidence that people inside Iran are light-years ahead of all of us when it comes to tolerance and understanding in diversity of political views. Today It is Tehrangeles that is mentally stuck in the 70's not Tehran itself.

I can't follow you

sorry but I can't follow you anymore, maybe it's too late and I am too tired :O)

I have respect for all of you, with a special respect for 3 of you, Mammad, Q and Mr. Khadivar, regardless of your political views.

I have been following this thread from the beginning, but now it seems to me that it is going like no where. some how getting too personal.

Everybody put aside his own belief and is more occupied with analyzing the personality and motivation of the "other "....I have been in this site long enough to know that when Mr. Khadivar says he is against war and sanction, he really mean it, in the same way as everybody else in the opposite group, does.

We are observing the respectful and true people here who have their strong conviction, and as dear Manesh said, if everybody try to calm down a bit and not take and make personal accusation, maybe, we can reach some good and useful (if not peaceful) conclusion. For my part, I need to rest and sleep and I come back tomorrow to follow up. Maybe we should all do this for now :O)

Q

Let me first say that, I always enjoy reading your comments in this site. I often find myself to agree with most, if not all, the things that you say. I would not use the strong language that you sometimes employ - because that only distracts from the actual message - but, in terms of substance you are right on the target and to the point.

Kadivar is an ardent monarchist, and at least the majority of everything that he posts on this site have to do with "Shahbanou," i.e., Mrs. Farah Pahlavi, Reza Pahlavi who advocates sanctions against Iran and fantasizes about becoming the King, and other related things. I have no problem with such things that he does. In my opinion, all of his advocacy of monarchy for Iran, directly or indirectly, is useless, because monarchy in Iran is dead, finished, gone. 

But, I take issue with how he attacks anyone who has the most minor criticism of him; labels them, and acts in a totally inappropriate way. He also seems not to have anything of his own to say, so he just uses this or that to "prove" his point, if he has any, which often he does not. 

Mammad

Dear Mr. Kadivar

I consider you a respected Iranian and your love for Iran comes through with every post.  I feel the same about Ms. Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich.  I wouldn't give a strand of either's hair for a 100 timmermans. 

Your criticisms of Ms. Soraya has a personal dimension to it which takes away from your point.  It is because you distrust her motives- not uncommon among Iranians.  

What happened in 1953 is the same as what is ahppening today.  The liberals and conservatives in Iran are suspicious of each other and actually consider each other traitors.  If Shah and Mossadegh had realized that they are the ends of a normal political system, i.e., conservative and liberal, they wouldn't have wiped each other out to the benefit of the Islamists. Saying you are a 1979 Iranian and not a 1953 Iranian is childish.  It's the same history.

Today is the same.  Nothing will change so long as you, a monarchists, let's say, and Soraya, a liberal, let's say,  can not come together, unite, and struggle against IRI.

AnonymousBystander

1. You are, of course, correct that I should not defend Soraya, if she actually needs defending.

2. I have no problem people criticizing others, including myself. We all make mistakes. We all are subject to criticism one way or another, at one time or another. My only point to Jamshid was, he could make his points without some of the strong languages that he had used, which I found to be unfair. This is, of course, a generic statement, applicable to all of us, including myself.

Mammad

Re: Mammad

Mammad, I understand you. But read Soraya's article. Your observations apply to her as well. The only difference is I am a mere commentor, not a regular writer.

Mosaddeg, Iran's failed attempt at democracy

Unfortunately, Mosaddeg’s second year in the office unravelled all the gains of his first year! He proved to be much better as the speaker for opposition than the leader of government, and much more resourceful in weakness than tactful in power. His emotional and authoritative style (my way or no way) soon upset and aggravated most of the nationalist and Islamist allies, who gradually turned into sworn enemies. He lost most credibility in the Majles and undemocratically dissolved it, in order to prevent the parliament from voting him out of the office! He stubbornly refused any negotiation with the British over the oil industry, on any terms but the full nationalization. In UK and US, this changed his image from a peculiar but respectable nationalist to a dangerous adventurer, or even worse a possible communist sympathizer. Mosaddeg’s unrealistic, sentimental and stubborn style of government gradually united all his old and new enemies around the single goal of his dismissal. By summer of 1953, his only remaining allies were a minority in the National Front and a fraction in the still illegal Tudeh party; even though he still enjoyed a personal popularity among many emotionally charged Iranians.

 By summer of 1953 Mosaddeg had dissolved the Majles (through a controversial referendum) and was ruling by decree. He had gained a near complete control over the government and the security forces, but at the cost of aggravating some very powerful political players inside and outside Iran! To the Shah, conservatives, Islamists and even the moderate nationalists, he was an out-of-control autocrat. For the newly installed rightwing governments in Washington (Eisenhower) and London (Churchill), he was a communist sympathizer. That is how an improbable coalition of the likes of Kashani, Bagha’i, Shaaban Jafari, general Zahedi and Shah became united around a US/UK sponsored coup-d’état that toppled Mosaddeg in (28 Mordad) 1953. A small segment of the security forces fought for the premier, but after half-a-day of street battles and some 300 casualties, the coalition of the street thugs, religious zealots and the royalist army prevailed. The Tudeh party leadership was divided and stayed on the sidelines, and Moscow was too confused during the bloody power struggles following Stalin’s death.

//cid-467325a610d9ddd4.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Farsinameh%20-%20draft%20copy%202008 

Arash M-K