Defending Iranian Democracy

Your question is not factual based

  Why U.S. forces who were present in Ashraf Camp for days upon receiving the warning leave the camp just couple of hours before the attack and leave the PMOI without protection? Try to respond!

From my understanding the area was turned over to the Iraqi's.I believe they had controlled the area for a week or so before this massacre.Supposedly there were some American forces in the Area for a moment before hand.But The Iraqi's were in charge and there for sure and they have said they were trying to clear the land and give it back to the farmers who own it.

 People can't tell the difference anymore from newstorys that are fact or scenarios' reconstructed by media outlets.It's too the point where Rumour's may as well be the News.It's uncertain just what really happened so all the talk about this situation hasn't been factual,it's just been an opportunity for people to jump to conclusion and show where they really come from,who they really are if or not they really care about human life.They want revenge on people and it doesn't matter if they actually did anything or not.Anything relative to the PMOI is good enough for a Death Sentence.And they're very happy to lay blame at the United States for their own interest which I see just as jealousy.This proves their hypocrisy.They go to outrageous measure's and accusations to try to accuse the United States of whatever they can dream up.One commentor here who I had a disagreement with is so disillusioned she quoted this 'The American's' in reference to the ones doing the killing.As far as I'm concerned what is real and what goes on in her mind are two different entity's.Let's not end up like that..

To Sohrab and Escape

To Sohrab,  you are an allied mercenary of western governments who are pursuing y your boss’s desire in securing a moderate Islamic government in Iran. I have bad news for you; Iranians are demanding a secular democratic government based on the principle of human rights and nothing less. On the PMOI, I think they are beyond worse than IRI, in fact I have an article on that:

//tinyurl.com/3mma9gx

You can refer to it to see my views about them.

To Escape, you raised issues that were not even close to my standing and position on the matter,

1)     My motivation to accuse U.S. for the green light was mainly because of the second paragraph of my article, which I reprint it in my last comment. However you agreed that it might be a yellow light instead of green, I tell you what, there is a question in my last comment, I ask you to please go ahead and give me a direct answer to that question for me. I ask everybody else to do the same before giving me paragraphs of issues that are not reflecting my points in the article.

2)     And my ague over the U.S. motivation to commit such act was mainly to use and engage PMOI in the war against IRI, nothing else.

Dr. Rastani

  Dr. Rastani I will give you some reasons why and why not for a Green Light.I will conclude it's not Green,it's a very Dim Yellow if at all...

I have to disagree with you on your position of the US's involvement and intention in general.And if your position is proven to be correct I have to say I disagree with the position as a American.About puppets well there is no other way to replace a regime..But I don't want to go into some of the details you believe because the puppetshow is just done too fabulously well.

Reason Number One. I will tell you that I doubt there really was a Green light not only because these people were on the Protected Persons list but mainly because

Reason Number Two,American's don't see the MEK as the threat Iranian's and Iraqi's seem to see them.We see them as innocent people.And this goes for American's of both political parties from John Bolton to Howard Dean.So that is a wide range.Actually Howard Dean whom I totally disagree with politically gives them credit I would not even go so far to give,but I have to give them credit for simply not being guilty of anything but guilt by association.Which is certainly not death worthy.

//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/08/us-international-law-iraqi-attack

"Ashraf is part of a government-in-exile which is headed by Madame Maryam Rajavi. We should recognise the government-in-exile headed by Madame Rajavi," said Howard Dean, the former Democratic presidential candidate. "It is an outrage that the MEK remains on the terrorist list in the US. There is no legitimacy in this."

Here is Maliki's nice sleight of hand (ala I.R.I.) to satisfy everyone

Iranian Group Seeks U.S. Shield After Iraqi Raid
//www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/world/middleeast/14iht-iran14.html?_r=1
From the above article

The Iraqi Defense Ministry said Tuesday that it would investigate the claim that 34 people had died in the raid, Reuters reported. The authorities have said that three people were killed resisting an operation to return land from the camp to farmers.

Reason Number three and the Most important reason is that the US does NOT want Iraq to become a puppet of Iran.This attack as this certainly benefit's Iran and exhibit's their influence on the new Govt of Iraq.We did not remove Saddam Hussein only have a substate of Iran in his place.

So these are good reasons why the US did not Green Light these attacks.But honestly I cannot totally trust these reasons of a normal American perspective anymore with a Obamaized C.I.A. who had intention's of talking with the I.R.I.

It may have been Yellow.
Their are reasons from the American perspective,they would allow it to happen as I did comment here somewhere on the topic before.

The first one would be to remove any more friction of the MKO between Iraq and Iran.

The second one is if the MKO is still active in terrorism it is in Iraq and there is alot of terrorism directed at Iran and Iranians inside Iraq.Despite the majority of united Iraqi's and Iranians.It's such a cluster mess of terrorism...But I don't believe the MKO is active in Iran at all.I think the I.R.I. is just out for revenge.

3.The decision of keeping the MKO hanging over the head of Iraq is like a rock and hard place with the U.N. ensuring that the problem endure.They want to keep it hanging it over the head for as long as possible..Noone else like's that.Just sick people who just truly wish everything possible that can go wrong in Iraq,Go wrong..And god are they are everywhere..

Dear Dr. Mansur

Dear Dr. Mansur Rastani,

Your intersting analysis is very much inline with known tricks of the trade that have been employed by US government many times since early decades of previous century. It is called "False Flag Operation" and a well known example of that is the attack on American naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin which resulted in escalation of the conflict and full intervention of US forces on the side of South Vietnam against North Vietnam. This conflict brought a big fortune for military industrial complex at the expense of misfortune for tens of thousands of American service men who lost their lives there. Interestingly enough, Mr William Sullivan (American Ambassador to Iran 1977-1979) was an advisor to General McArthur during some period in that conflict.

Iran is a great country with invaluable resources of all kinds. Beliving that westerners have no influence over the current Islamic ruling system in Iran is simply naive. The issue is that the illusion of animosity between Islamic rulers and westerners which has been carefully played by both sides of the story does not seem to be working and profitable any more and Islamic Republic has not been successful in presenting itself as unquestionable represntation of people. The revolutionary steam has been lost and the system has been rejected by people. Recent attempts to renew the system's legitimacy by giving it a new revolutionary face through so called green movement and bringing back the "golden days" became a failure due to smart participation of people inside the country who chanted patriotic slogans like "jomhuriye irani" and "na ghazeh na lobnan janam fadaye iran" which were dismissed by Mr. Mousavi.

Mr. Mousavi and his green movment and his friends are now a lost cause while MEK/MKO/PMOI present a more realistically revolutionary alternative which, if given the opportunity, could probably establish itself (at least for a period of time) as a representative government in Iran. There is no question in my mind that in such event, we will witness a lot of same kind of attrocities as early days of Islamic Revolution in Iran which of course is not a significat matter in the view of defenders of human rights in western world and do not deserve more than making some noisy useless complains about them. Speaking about low popularity of MEK/MKO/PMOI among Iranian people is misleading here. Not many people even knew Khomeini just a few months before Islamic Revolution in 1979 therefore popularity should not be a very significant issue in reality. Moreover, MEK/MKO popularity could very quickly improve when they can present serious challenge and inflict serious damages to current Islamic regime which is hated by almost all Iranians. The result would be Islamic Republic of a different kind.

All that matters is to keep the "Islamic identity" of Iranians and strip them of their true Iranian identity and culture by dissolving them in the melting pot of so called "Islamic world". Why? There are many good reasons for that. A "homeland" that has bonds with a person since the time of birth, can be a strong motive for any individual to fight for its protection against an invader while Islamic or any ideological views do not bind themselves to any territory. Today, it has been sicentifically proven that any individual's DNA molecular structure is affected by the water from the place of birth which creates invisible bond between a person and his/her place of birth. Is this a conspiracy theory?

These days, it has become very fashionable to use the term "conspiracy theory" specially when we are unable to see the relations in a subject the way that another person can view or if it is ebyond our sense of pride and ego to indicate that our eyes were opened to something that we did not think of before. Being opposed to a view is something but making personal attack for one's view is a different thing which has nothing to do with any real debate over a subject. Some hypothesis is put forward and it would be more logical if we presented our opposing view in an understandable manner without making a big fuss out of anything.

We are not good readers

I always said that we are not good readers; we read what we want to read not what is written. For example, on my last comment I mentioned that two views can be implied, which refers to a possible scenario not a done-deal one.

I recommend for those that is hard to believe that U.S. has given the green light, read the article one more time with depth. As a sample I have reprinted the following paragraph here for you and ask youto pay attention to the sentence that is bolded and underlined:

Justcouple of hours before the attack on Ashraf Camp by the Iraqi soldiers on April8, American forces that have been previously dispatched into the Ashraf to monitor the recent-days incidents in the Camp, left their sites because of the issued warnings! As a result U.S. forces on the ground did absolutely nothing to prevent this homicidal attack despite the warnings! Couple of hours after the attack, the U.S. secretary of Defense who was in Baghdad stated that he was worried for the news received from Ashraf! One day after the beginning of attack, there were reports that the US forces have refrained receiving the wounded individuals to their medical facilities nearby!

Here is the question for you: Why U.S. forces who were present in Ashraf Camp for days upon receiving the warning leave the camp just couple of hours before the attack and leave the PMOI without protection? Try to respond!

Keep in mind both regimes in Iraq and also in Iran are the puppets of U.S., they will never do anything without the permission from their puppeteers. Within the last few years U.S. has made enormous military uses from IRI in both Iraq and Afghanistan by having them to utilize their improvised explosive devices to kill many of freedom fighters in both countries. Besides they have used them politically in Iraq, Afghanistan, and also in Lebanon and Gaza to strengthen the Hezbollah and Hamas to make a stronger resistance against Israel, as you may know it has been for few years now that U.S.are trying to demote the political power of Israel in the region toward a better balance for Arabs. They have also strengthened the IRI in the region to make the Shia a strong rival against the Sunni faction. But again as I said before U.S. will not remain loyal to its mercenaries.

Please before you jump and just write something in response, go and read the article and my comments in more depth. Also For those who are not familiar with my position on IRI, I recommend them to go over my prior articles to know me first and then come back here, otherwise their remarks would not worth anything to me.

I kept reading all the comments

to see if I can find a point in any of them I disagree with,

nope

The only one's comment that I could not find logical and that is a refelection of reality was  by Dr. Mansur Rastani.

If roughly 3500 middle age, half starved people could over throw IRI, then we all would have been leaving comments here from our homes in Iran.

Mehrdad

Doctor Jaan, it was actually BBC/CIA/Mossad/Kurds who did it,

In fact the same jewish/Kurdish/Sunni BBC cameraman  who shot Neda, killed all the Iranian  nuclear scientists, went to camp ashraf, and single handedly killed all these monafeghs , just to give maliki and khamenei a bad name! 

BTW, Doctor, what do you precribe to cure a bad headache induced after reading a whole load of nonsense of a blog? You are a doctor, right?

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

...

i think that iran gave iraqis the green light to attack the mojahedin because it doesn't make sense for the u.s. to send humanitarian aid to an organization which they designated as a terrorist group.

by the way, didn't sadam's government claim that the u.s. gave it green light to attack kuwait? 

"Dr." Rastani forget something in his 2nd post

RE: "American politicians have come to an agreement with PMOI leaders to let their people be used to achieve the goal of overthrowing the IRI regime.

Ah, another hilarious conspiracy theory. 

Rastani forgot to include the regime's other usual claims regarding the Greens--that they are working for (pick one: The USA, the West in general, Israel or its Mossad, the MKO, a masonic conspiracy?

Does he really believe that anyone--even regime supporters--actually believes such nonsense? 

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR "DOC" RASTANI

--Do you haver a degee in a REAL subject or did you get your degree in religion (specifically Mesbah Yadzi-style Islam?  

--Did you acutally attend attend a real university or did a regime figure simply print your degee off and hand it to you, as with other top regime figures? 

--Do you think your degree impresses anyone inside or outside Iran's borders--especially since no honest thinking man could possibly support this regime or offer such nonsense as above. 

--Do you think Islamization of education will take Iran  even more backwards under the mullocracy (Iranioans, who are intelligent and sophisticated--could easily had first-rate universities). 

--How do you explain how OILLESS, RESOURCE POOR South Korea, where people were eationg the bark off trees as late as 1955, now has 20 times the per capita income of oil-rich Iran? 

--What does the above stat reveal about the economic ompetence of the Islamic Republic? 

--Do you imagine that Iranians don't know how they've been left "third world" in an economic sense.  Surely they must be asking how Korea, Turkey, China, etc. could leave them in the dust if the so-called Islamic "republic" is a model anyone would want to emulate?  

Re:"Regime propagandist relies on ..."

FG points are  valid.   Based on how the question is posed, one can even go here and indict U.S and not Islamic Regime for the crimes committed.

In basic logic, once you start with the wrong premise, you can reach ANY conclusion.   This write up is the same.

The fact that U.S has the largest embassy in Iraq, is supposed to indicate that U.S is in full control of the situation.   But then every week or so someone blows himself up in Iraq, is that supposed to be done by U.S, when the target in many cases are U.S troops?   So the fallacy starts by trying to say:

A:U.S is in full control of Iraq (which is incorrect)

B:Because of (A) it was U.S's green light and not Islamic Regimes pressure on Iraq that caused the masacare.

C:Try to insinuate that to support the fundamental principle of human rights of people not to be attacked by a well equipped army, we are actually siding with the bad guys!?! (in this case the victims!).

D:The conclusion is the most interesting though:  U.S is aware PMOI has no basis among Iranian, so by this action they are trying to make them popular!?! in a bigger plan to use Mojahedeen in a final ground assult on Iran!

Rastani writes: "The result is the no brainer empathy and kindheartedness of naïve Iranians for the PMOI as we see it now. "

So what is the author really trying to suggest?   Iranian should not have empathy for people at this camp getting masacared?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Noticbly absent from the above is the roll of Islamic regime in all of this.   Did Iraqi forces suddenly get the urge to attack the camp?   As they say people who lie also become forgetful.

The official story of Iraqi government was the people inside threw rock at the guards.   So how could U.S instigate someone from inside the camp to throw rocks which presumably caused the masacar to start?

So reading this article, I came up with more questions than answers:   What are the real motivation of Mr.Rastani on writing this?   Personally I see a thick line of "Islamic Regime"  Khodee-Nakhodee reasoning in all of this.

Base on this, killing Mojahedeen is ok and people should not have empahty.  This is the same mind set that can not comprehend, I can support and stand by someones human rights 100% without agreeing with them even 0%.

That's where the true nature/motivation of above article becomes clear.

May we all have good dreams.

Two views can be implied

  Two views can be implied:

1)      History has shown that anytime American imperialism has used its own mercenary or puppet at some corner of the world to achieve some goal, after the mission is completed whenever due to political circumstances a change in their foreign policy is required they have easily dumped their puppet. PMOI is not excluded from this rule.  British imperialism on the other hand has always remained loyal to their allied puppet for good.

2)      American politicians have come to an agreement with PMOI leaders to let their people be used to achieve the goal of overthrowing the IRI regime and any future political fate of the PMOI will be left for the people of Iran to decide.

Regime propagandist relies on "begging the question" trick

DEFINITION: "Begging the question"

The tactic of sneaking in an unproven premise, hoping the other party won't notice, then using it to support a false conclusion.  Providing you accept the premise (you shouldn't without proof) you must accept  the concluision.  Otherwise....

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW IT WORKS:

"Are You Still Beating Your Wife?  

Notice the intrinsic trap in the word "still", so that the person targeted looks guilt whether he answers "Yes" or "No."  The best response is to challenge the premise and demand proof.

Now consider the original headline: "Why did the US give Green light to attack on....(some Iranians).  Note the similarity to my example.

REBUTTAL USING LOGIC AND EVIDENCE

1. The writer asks us "why" the US "approved" the attack and hopes you won't notice what is missing. We are asked to assume, with NO evidence whatsoever and considerable contrary evidence (both US protests over the incident and Maliki's constant feuds with US are carefully not mentioned), that the US gave a "green light."

2. Consider the subtle overtones in the headline.  Green has becone bad, as in the "green zone" in Baghdad and  'greens" in Iran. 

3. Equally bad are any foreign governments who complain over the human rights situastion in Iran.  Thus the clever appeal to Iranin nationalism in the headline (gotta stick together folks!)

Never forget that the regime's strategy of  "divide and conquer" is applied both to the opposition within Iran and to any nation which might support it ourside Iran.   

In this case Iranians are supposed to notice only that the victims of the attack are Iranians (nationalistic) and the ALLEGED endorsers of the asttack are non-Iranians (the USA).  What they are supposed to forget is that the victims were MKO (unpopular since their ties with Saddam duiring Iran-Iraq war).

4. Motive.  Motive.  Motive.  Who has it? Who doesn't?  Before accepting that unproven premise, ask the orignal author two questions.  First, how in the world would the USA stand to benefit from such an attack? Secondly, who would most obviously would stand to benefit by an attack on the MKO?

I agree with COP

With POMI we are screwed worse than with IRR/IRI.  Believe me Rajavis are worse than akhoonds. 

As absurd as this sounds

I wouldn't put it past the Americans to actually believe that Iranians would fall for it!

All this aside, and as I have note before, if MEK is the future of Iran, we are all screwed.

Whatever happened to secularism anyway? Are we that dumb to fall for the promise of religious-based governance again, this time with a Marxist twist?

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

I agree ....... That is

I agree ....... That is probably the case .....

 So what should we do?  Be smart and do not fall for it ......