MOJAHEDIN

Axis of Evil. Mola Nasredeen has a good point

Stinky ruling mullahs in Iran and Jews and arabs are enemies of peace in Middle East. Axis of Evil.

تو اول بگو با کیان زیستی‌ پس آنگه بگویم که تو کیستی

Brother Mojahed,

who have you been keeping company with

since Rajavi's flight out of Iran?

Wasn't it Saddam?

You descended to become his little helper.

Saddam is dead and gone.

Look! 

who is pushing for your ascend now?

Isn't it Israel?

Ask yourself brother Mojahed,

Is Israel Iran's friend?

Saddam gave you tanks and guns

while Israel is giving you political clout

for another bloody try. 

Saddam or Israel,

neither are friends of ours.

Iran 2050

• 5) 30 years is not a long time and people do not change. Anyway they still want to call Persian Gulf "Arabian" do they not? They still want Iranian Islands in the Persian Gulf. Two small examples.
• I am no fan of IRI or Khomeini. But he did not start the war. If you do not know this your are ignorant of history. Or worse trying to rewrite it. Only MEK tries this to excuse their own inexcusabe acts.
• 6) By good I already said I mean the Gathas. That is the real essence of Zoroastrianism. It has nothing to do with the stories you mentioned. Nothing about Siavoush or a savior. 

Regarding MEK

• They will bring their violence with them. 
• They will try to become our voice.
• They will ruin the good name of Iranian Americans.

VPK,   5- When I say

VPK,

5- When I say they have gone pass that phase, I’m not talking about 1980, I’m talking about 2011. In 2011, most Arabs have moved forward, but most Iranians have not, and lot of it has to do with IRI’s anti_ancient Iranian policies. Iranians take their anger out on Arabs, whereas they need to take it out on Iranian Mullahs. Also, the reason the war started was because Khomeini wanted to turn Iraq into another IRI-style regime and that caused mad Saddam to panic and attack Iran. S o it was Khomeini who started it.

6- Not sure how you’re defining “good” and “bad” aspect of Zaroastianism but the basic concepts of Shiite like the Hussein Story (similar to Sovashoon), the Mehdi (Similar to Soshianes in Zoroastrianism) , are all Zoroastrian concepts.

7- You’re wrong all around. First off, what aspect of pre_Islam should we model after? I mentioned the very basic structure of Iranian pre Islamic society and you’re not saying not those. Do you want the cast system we had? Do you want monarchy? Do you want one official religion? Do you want denying and belittling anything non-“Aryan”? let me ask you this, do you have any idea how big of atrocities have been committed in the name of Zoroastrianism by Kings and Priests alike similar if not more than what happened in the name of Islam , Christianity, Hinduism and pretty much every other religion man created? Just look it up. Do you want to throw Christians in lion cages like they used to do in pre Islam Iran? Do you want to kill 4000 Mazdakis in one day like Anooshirawan did because they saw it as threat to Zoroastrian. So what aspect do you want to copy then?

As far as Cyrus, I really find it sad that you claim “Cyrus liberated Babylonians”. Seriously? Liberated them? So Greeks, Macedonians, Arabs, Monghols, Turks, allies in WWII liberated us? Maybe they did maybe they didn’t, that’s my opinion. But if we take your logic, they did!  

Like you said, we’ll move on to another thread!

With regards.

...

They're talking about 'resettling' Mojahedeen in the United States.

What does it mean to Iranian Americans here? It means a few thousand Mojaheds will be added to the rest of us. Straight from Iraq and everywhere else.

What a pretty picture it would be for the rest of us to look at. They will be pushed down our throats as our 'Representative' in front of cameras and in the centers of power.

This is what the article saying:

"Mukasey, in addition to calling for the MEK to be removed from the terrorism list, urged that MEK members be allowed to resettle in the United States.  Mukasey acknowledged that members of terrorist organizations are legally barred from entering the U.S., and suggested legislation be introduced to change the law for MEK members."

Rea

• Get high priced luxury for their top like Rajavis.
• Pay US politicians to get them de-listeed.
• Pay for their propaganda machine.

No real change may be expected from them. The other option is what Mamad said: an attack on Iran. Followed by a huge loss of their troops. After which they will beg the West for "help". With the goal of creating a civil war in Iran to gain power over some region. You are familiar with the results of that. No good will come out of them under any situation. Those putting their hopes in them either are fools or hate Iran. 

VPK

As a matter of principle, I understand what you're saying.

However.

Whatever their financial sources, it may bring them a few more followers. Let's say few more thousands. Money works when people are poor. 

But will it bring them enough followers to change anything, be it in or out of Iran ?  Doubt it.

PS. out of this blog, otherwise, oktaby will accuse me again of abusing medicinals herbs. ;o)

Reality Bites

You are of course right. The IRI lacks the credibility to judge anyone. They have destroyed any impartial group in Iran. Therefore a group must be made outside Iran. By diaspora with help from Iranians inside Iran. NIAC is not going to be it; so I would say give up on it. We need a unified opposition without MEK. Including all opposition without blood of Iranians on their hands. I am open to any ideas. 

On a more

OY

Can we please get away from labeling and making derogatory remarks about each other please?

VPK is most definitely NOT an IR supporter, or, as far as I know, a NIAC member. If you'd followed his views here, you'd know he is very much against the IR and everything that regime stands for.

VPK, the idea of a separate organisation, acting as concerted opposition to the IR and publicizing its misrule is a good one. However, partly because of IR's murderous brutality in wiping out nearly all credible opposition figures and partly due to in-fighting/disunity among Iranians, the idea of an opposition organisation that upholds principles of true democracy, freedom, respect for Human Rights and putting national interests before religious ones, while opposing the IR effectively, has never got off the ground.

How can this happen? And this is an open question to all. 

Sure Oon Yaroo

Reality Bites: Agreed..

Reality Bites: Agreed.. NIAC, needs to address the issues on both side of the conflict if they truly want to avert a war against Iran and if they want to get their lost clout back in the halls of Congress.

You are belligerent and a charlatan, VPK!

Your statements are extremely provocative, poisonous, and antagonizing to the level of being confrontational.

Your account of historical events is basically false to the point of distorting the facts in order to prove your misguided and self-serving agenda.

You keep accusing people being MEK while at the same time denying that you are indeed an IRI disguised behind NIAC.

This kind of mud slinging is simply childish and you need to grow up and out of it. It would do you good!

VPK that makes sense.

I came up with the name... you handle the rest.

FCUK ISLAMI

Freedom Committee from University of Kentucky

of Iranian Scholars for Liberation And Monarchy in Iran. 

Reality Bites

• I never said US wants IRI in power. On the opposite I think Obama has regime change planned. For his second term since he is busy with Afghanistan and Libya right now and Syria is next.
• I already said NIAC is sympathetic to IRI what else should I say. For those reasons they keep IRI criticism to a minimum. Not to mention they are always going back and forth to Iran. Any serious criticism means getting in trouble with IRI. Besides many NIAC members go back and forth. They do not want their members to get in trouble in Iran. That is why we need a separate organization dedicated to criticizing IRI. Membership in one does not mean not being in the other one. Two organizations with different charters. NIAC to oppose war and MEK. Another one to criticize IRI.

Does this sound reasonable to you. 

VPK

You (and others too) say that:  "NIACs' main focus is on USA policy. They strongly oppose USA intervention in Iran. Given the results of American interventions I would say they have a point".

Let me first say that I'm opposed to American intervention in Iran too. Iran's problems can and should only be resolved by the Iranian people. I hope my stance is clear on this issue.

But I find the suggestion that NIAC's focus in US policy to prevent US intervention incomprehensible. How on earth can anyone hope to prevent conflict between two sides by constantly attacking/criticising one side, while totally ignoring the other? It take BOTH sides to have a conflict.

In fact, anyone with common sense and clear-headed objectivity could see that the primary cause for any potential US intervention in Iran, has been the Islamic Republic's hostile actions and policies over the past 32 years against the US.

With it's "marg bar Amrika" and stars and stripes flag burning rituals setting out it's philosophical stall from the very start and with the US embassy staff hostage taking affair, funding/arming Shia terrorists in Lebanon blowing up US marines and taking Western journalists hostage in the 1980s, funding/arming the Shia militia in Iraq, continually threatening Israel, Refusing to openly cooperate with the IAEA and hiding nuclear facilities from their inspectors etc etc, it is the IR that is responsible for the status quo.

It is the IR that, through its hostile and intransigent policies and actions, has made Iran a potential target. The last thing US would want to do, given its stretched military and dire economic situation is to intervene in Iran (some of you people believe the US is happy the have IR in power anyway). And here we are with the NIAC constantly moaning about US this and US that. What has NIAC done to address the other side of this potential conflict, namely the IR? Zilch, that's what.

If NIAC is so concerned about preventing US intervention in Iran why on earth does it not lift a finger and say anything to try and convince the Mullahs to change tack and stop making Iran an international pariah? Why on earth would anyone in the US administration would seriously contemplate listening to an "Iranian" lobby group that is totally silent on IR's role in all of this (not to mention IR's gross abuses of Human Rights violations in Iran and its misrule of the country)?

Like I said, you can't prevent a conflict by only criticising one side and staying totally silent about the other, especially when the other side is the main perpetrator of the problems.

I think you and many others here, are good people who care for Iran and I salute you for that. But, sorry, I just don't buy this "NIAC focusing only on opposing US intervention" line, anymore than I would buy MEK as an organisation that has changed and now espouses democratic values and should be the main opposition to the IR.

ham

NIAC and Bavafa, helped me change my mind about MEK to positive.

At least MEK is able to claim they matured politically and idologically, but IRI, is not. In the past 32 years, IRI just moved one direction, WRONG. From bad to worse.

I used to have a totally negative opinion of MEK, now that I see NIAC has turned so ani American and has shown their real goal . It's IRI that they want to protect at any cost. Then, MEK may have been given a worse image , because of bad by IRI's agents. 

This week we should have been talking a lot about 18TH. of Tir, not de-listing of MEK. 

Hamid,

Iran 2050

• Regarding 5: Arabs have not gone past pan-Arabism. Just some 30 years ago they attacked Iran. Many Arabs supported that. Including Palestinians who owe so much to Khomeini.
• Regarding 6 : I have written about the similarities myself. I am very familiar with both Sassanid Zartoshti and Shia. I am just saying that Shia took the bad parts and left out the good.
• Regarding 7: No one is saying we should go back to Sassanid government. I said pre-Islamic Iran is a good model. In many ways we were an advanced; independent and civilized nation. Islam has done us harm. We need to get back on our feet. Iranian people need a model and we have: West; Islam; or pre-Islam. Out of the three I pick the last. Most here don't want an absolute Monarch not even the Monarchists. We want the self reliance of pre-Islam. As for Cyrus I have not heard he enslaved anyone. He liberated babylonians. His declaration of human rights is well known. He opposed slavery. But still I am not saying bring back Cyrus. I just want to honor a great man (for his time). Great kings are few and far between. Karim Khan was another great one. Very similar in many ways to Cyrus. Kind to his subjects and to his opponents. But to be a leader you sometimes need to be harsh. It goes with the territory. Whomever becomes the next Iranian leader will have challenges. One is to deal with enemies. 

I have said my part on this. So we probably should move on or to another thread. This is about MKO not pre-Islam Iran :-) I will be happy to discuss this more in a more appropriate thread. Maybe at a future time & thread.

Dear Rea

Mehrdad & Oon Yaroo

• Mehrdad is right; Oon Yaroo is wrong plain and simple. I posted American law on treason in another thread. Just see what the Americans did to the Rosenbergs. The main thing is loyalty. The MEK do not owe loyalty to America and hence are not guilty of treason to it. They are supposed to be Iranian and are guilty of treason. So they must stand trial and if convicted face punishment. The guilt to be decided by an Iranian court.
• It is not my place to pardon them and I would not if it was my job. The acts of Khomeini are irrelevant; that is a different case. The fact that Oon Yaroo tries to excuse MKO proves his sympathies.
• In other words he says he is not MKO. But his writings betray his loyalties.

oktaby

It's rather hard for an outsider to understand, simple as that.

Did my homework, read about MEK and atrocities committed by them.  Yet, if they have no following except some middle aged (as Roozbeh G. said) die hard folks (and no financial support can change that), why so much fuss ?

They'd been already delisted in Europe. Has it changed anything in Iran, for better or for worse? Has it changed anything in the way IRI is perceived in Europe? I doubt it.

PS. like your weedy sense of humour,  he,he.

Bavafa, small mod to your historical account!

Before Iraq invaded Iran:

1) Khomeini instigated Iraq, Egypt, and other Arab countries by threatening them with the export of his Islamic re(de)volution,

2) He and his terrorists followers invaded and occupied the US embassy in Tehran on 4 Nov 1979,

3) Number 3 frustrated and angered the Americans and in retaliation, they supported (encouraged) Sad'dam to attack Iran,

4) Although America did support both sides during the war, Khomeini prolonged it for his own grips on power in Iran. 

It's very common amongst Iranians, that's historical amnesia, but please don't be selective in your recollection of history. 

Mehrdad: Thanks...

Mehrdad: Thanks...

Dear oon Yaroo: I will simply not going to have that discussion

Trying to whitewash MEK treasonous act during the war with Iraq and blame it on Khomeini's criminal act by extending the war.

The established facts by all historians and UN resolutions are:

- Saddam was the aggressor by invading Iran

- Khomeini was the criminal who stubbornly continued the war beyond what it was needed

- MEK kissed Saddam's hand and became his mercenaries

- Saddam used chemical weapon on Iranians and his own people (MEK was glad to help)

- West happily gave Saddam the chemical weapon that was used to slaughter innocent civilians

No one here is denying Khomeini's role in extending the war, but to whitewash MEK role in that criminal war is to try to make a fool out of those Iranians who lost loved ones in that war.

'Vahdat' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

P.S. Some dear members on this site (without mentioning the name) have lost family member in that war, to deny MEK treasonous role is to insult their loss.

AI: thank you for reading

AI: thank you for reading and noticing my comment...I do think I nailed it...lol

VPK,   4- Agree with

VPK,

4- Agree with you completely.

5- We more and less are coming to an understanding on this. This ultra nationalism movement started during the beginning of 20th century as reaction to colonialism in many parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Pan Arabism was invented during those times just like Pan Persianism. They collided. Both are at fault but it seems like we as Iranians have taken it to another level where as Arabs have moved on. This whole concept that Arabs “hated us” and “still hate us” is as bogus as it can be. Any ultra nationalism movement denies others, whether it was Pan Arabism or Pan Persianism. At this point in history, we have to move on and drop this racist and uncivilized beliefs and behavior.

6- I am familiar with Zoroastrianism, what you need to do on your end is to observe the similarities and the origins of shite and how and why it was created.

7- We tend to forget that Cyrus freed the Jews but enslaved the Babylonians. Did Cyrus attack Babylon just to free the Jews? What about the Babylonians? Do they count as humans or not? What about the Lydians that Cyrus invaded and murdered? What about all the other territories? Look. Is he a “good” king, NO. He might have not been as bloodthirsty as let say Attila the Hun, but nonetheless, a power monger king. And that’s 90% of kings throughout world history. Again, we have to look at it as 21st century humans with developed intellects, not live in the past and think as we live in Cyrus’ era. And honestly VPK, that’s the problems with Iranians. Let me put it this way:

Iranians tend to look at things from an ancient “lens” not 21st century “lens”. We live in the history and that’s devastating for building a civilized 21st century Iranian nation.

Bavafa: It's a well established and understood fact!

That the most treasonous person that sent one million Iranians to their death was Ayatollah Khomeini.

Do you remember the key to the heavens around the necks of the youth prescribed by that evil, Khomeini?

He was also the very reason the MEK gravitated towards Iraq and Sad'dam. To survive, Iraq was the only sanctuary the MEK had!

But, I do agree with you that the monarchists are the most favored of the oppositions amongst the Iranians.

Dear Oon Yaroo: The fact that MEK has no support within Iranians

Compared to Monarchs, Reformist, JB, or any other group should be a clear sign that Iranians have not forgotten nor should forget the betrayal of MEK during the war when they sided with Saddam.

For many of us, that is a line that one should not cross and they gladly did and continue to do so.

However you have a valid point in that America does not see nor care about their treasonous act, in fact that very same act qualifies them for their pick as they have proven they can and will commit treason to their mother land. Perhaps that is why other groups such as Monarchs have not been courted so warmly by the Neocons/AIPAC.

'Vahdat' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad