وبلاگ افشاگر حقیقت

prophet

The Arabs are dozens of countries now a days. I suggest dividing the converts from the actual Arabs. The North African berbers, egyptians, Syrians, lebs, Palis, Iraqis etc.. aren't Arabs but converts. I always refer to them as converts and not true Arabs. Our best choice would be to remove the arab influences from these countries and encourage them to go back to their true roots, and at the same time focus on the main Arabs from the Persian gulf regions and Saudi Arabia.

 --------------------------------------------------------------

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

fesenjoon, you have failed miserably

Yet again you have been proven wrong. Stop your emotional ranting, cause trust me, I could do one about America, both politicaly and socially, 100 X worse that would make your cry for months to come.

 --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Americans ARE Idiots, Iranians aren't the only one's who say so

 The whole world, including many educated Americans admit to having the dumbest population in the world. This is what happens when you surround yourself with material possesions, obssesion with money, and think the world revolves around you etc... you lose touch with reality.

 --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Your points are valied. Thank you for enlightening me.

VPK

I did not even click on whatever insult he wanted to dish out on top of his immature response. Paykar is my name, but it does not mean I fight every insecure low life  that gets a kick by spewing hate. 

Happy holidays and thanks for your support.

Peykar is 100% right

Peykar you are 100% right. Please do not take this abuse from Fesenjoon. Peykar is not a hypocrite and calling him names is wrong.

We have one among millions of Iranians. Now let us take a peak at the general American population:

• Jihadjane: American terroris: //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
• Oaklahoma City Bomber: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
• Shoe Bomber: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)
• Unabomber: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
• Abortion Clinic Bomber: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph
• American Cannibal used to eat his victions: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
• Shooting at Planned Parenthood in Boston: //news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/d...
• Bryant Neal Vinas: American Al-Queda member: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_Neal_Vinas
• Michael Finton: American wanted to bomb a Federal building was caught by the FBI: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Finton

There are many more like this. But you will never hear them mentioned by Fesenjoon. My point is that all human populations have nut jobs. Therefore having one terrorist out of millions of Iranian Americans is not any different from any other group. You cannot hold a group to a higher staadard than other people. We are all humans and have flawed ones amonst us.

Fesenjoon, is so filled with hate he is not objective.

Peykar

Not even remotely, eh?

Here, go chew on this. Hah, what a bunch of delusional hypocrites.

Delavar

I am not so sure of the numbers. SP is not really much of an authority on anything. The invasion of Iran in ~600 worked because of Sassanid problems. The nation was in trouble already. There was a lot of internal strife. The Arabs were united under Islam. We were divided in the space of 4 years we had NINE rulers! Not until Yazdgird III was there any stability restored. The Arabs took full advantage of this. 

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid_Empire#Decli...

They caught us at a low point and hit under the belt. I suggest we return the favor: when the time is right. I do not see us embracing Arabs. Not my family anyway. I

Parthianshot91

It does not matter how people voted in 1979. The vote was based on LIES. Khomeini lied to people. He promised them lies. So even people who DID vote for him DID NOT  vote for the IRI hell. IRI has no legitimacy no matter what the 1979 vote was. The only document with any legitimacy is the old Constitutional Monarchy.

I am not even going to waste time counting the votes in 1979. It means nothing.

Well said Paykar

I have lived in America over 30 years and met many other Iranians. Not ONE of them is remotely like the one Fesenjoon talks about. I do not know how long this guy has lived here. I know people in high tech, I know rug merchants; I know a guy who owns a gas station; I know a guy who owns a Store-24; all of them are good respectable people. I know engineers and professors. All are good people. 

You are absolutely right about this being a projection of self inferiority.

Khoresht

I don't know anyone that comes remotely close to your description/caricature as a whole- not at least where I live. Is this an exersise in self gratification? There are more pleasurable ways to just do that( for you however, the choice might be limited to one!).   I think you are actually projecting your own sense of inferiority to the whole Iranian community. I concede that there are some Iranians who are racist, hate the jews...but your "comical manifesto" is absurd and not even funny. As for me, I like America as an evolving notion/ideal, it's the americans* like you that I can't stand.

*I do not call you Iranian-American  because you are ashamed of being Iranian, your name on I.C. not withstanding.

Delavar

Can you give me un-biased proof of Most Iranians voting for this regime in 1979?

 --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Good points. At that time Iranians also believed that they saw Khomeini's picture in the moon. I remember that BBC also reported that. btw, Majority of Iranians voted for this theocracy (92% as per Sargor Piirooz in another discussion forum). Many Iranians also embraced the Arabs when they invaded Iran 1400 years ago. The thing is though why have we remained stupid and simple minded to embrace those who have abused us for the past 1400 years for 1400 years and still voted for them in 1979?

AO Jaan

At some point, we all must set aside our arrogant belief that the world revolves around Iran, and that everyone on this planet must, and should, pay attention to the needs and the welfare of the Iranian people.  

We all have our worlds. My world revolves around my family and Iran. The world of another person revolves around their loved ones. There is no "one" world. So with all due respect my world DOES revolve around Iran. And I do pay attention to the welfare of Iranian people. There is nothing arrogant about me caring for my people. Do you propose my world revolve around something else; then what. Other people are welcome to pay attention to what they want. 

It is one thing to be wishful for that wonderful universe where we are at its center, but it is totally a different endeavor  to make that happy world a reality.  Nations are out for their best interest.  

Of course USA is after its own interest I expect nothing less. So what? This is not at all my point. I said nothing about fairness.  I describe my point in detail in my other blog:

//iranian.com/main/blog/veiled-prophet-kh...

Regarding US Military: I am not debating US military superiority. I have asid so many times myself. So I am not even going to debate it. 

But remember military option is not just throwing a few or a lot of bombs. I am not going to redo the analysis that many others did. Air power by itself will not work. Rumsfeld was wrong. As you saw even GW figured out he needed a surge. So does Obama. Remember Iran is bigger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Taking on IR means TROOPS. Do not kid yourself. If not then they will fail. War is not done on the cheap. Putting too few troops means embarassing losses. It will cost tanks; ships; planes  alll those things will cost money.

Delavar

Very good points. Yes I think that there is a lot of antisemitism being taught to Iranians. However we break out of it pretty easily. For most of my college one of my best friends was a Jewish American fron NYC. 

One of the big problems is the concept of "Najis". It created mistrust and hatred. My father has a great Iranian Jewish friend. He said when it rained people would keep away from him because he was "Najis". This kind of crap is what makes hatred and racism. Unfortunately it taught to us from the minute we are born. The good news is that it does not seem to sink into the Iranian soul. Somehow when Iranians get to the West they don't seem so worried about it !! I have never seen an Iranian man refuse to kiss an American woman because she was Najis! Nor do they refuse to work with Jews or Christians! So maybe there is hope.

Regarding the revolution:. People did not overthrow the Shah to hate Jews. They did it to gain freedom. I KNOW that I was there. People wanted freedom of politics. They thought that Khomeini was some kind of God sent Imam to free them. They thought Khomeini was gonna keep out of politics;  give them free electricity! They were lied to. So I would not put the blame of this on Iranians. It goes on Khomeini and the zealots who run IR. Normal Iranians I know have no hatred of Jews. 

VPK

Doctor Mohandes Jan

Of course I am happy to be friends with you. Argument and discussion is a part of life. I also apologize for any postings that offended you; and I look forward to many lively discussions my friend :-)

delavar

Islam is not a religion. It is a political philosophy.

That is why it's causing so much trouble.

Fesenjoon

Check your email.  

VPK Jaan

At some point, we all must set aside our arrogant belief that the world revolves around Iran, and that everyone on this planet must, and should, pay attention to the needs and the welfare of the Iranian people.  It is one thing to be wishful for that wonderful universe where we are at its center, but it is totally a different endeavor  to make that happy world a reality.  Nations are out for their best interest.  Now, with that in mind, in the unfortunate event of a military conflict between Iran and the U.S. (which the IR and its supporters have been hoping for in the past 31 years), this is what is likely to happen:

First, neutralization means taking the opponents military capabilities away and making it incapable of posing a threat. 

Second, what passes for an Iranian navy, which is a collection of antiquated 60's and 70's equipment will be destroyed in probably 24 hours, along with all the coastal defenses.  The most challenging items there will be the 4 Kilo Class Russian submarines.  But the U.S. has been training to find and destroy those for decades, and they are probably tailing the Kilos in the Persian Gulf as we speak.  So, I'm sure that destroying those wouldn't be much of a challenge.  Once that is done, the U.S. will have total control of the Persian Gulf and Iran's coast line.  And trust me, the Strait of Hormuz will be just fine. IR's threat of wreaking havoc on the Strait (LOL) will be laughed at.  Do you really think that the U.S. does not have a plan in place to safeguard one of the most strategic waterways in the world?  They will probably pulverize everything within a 100 miles of the Strait of Hormuz just to make sure that it remains open.

Third, Iran really doesn't have an air force.  It has a bunch of antique F-4's and F-5's that it parades out once a year for Basijis to salivate over.  So, its aircraft are non-issues.  The only threats will be ground based air defenses, which will probably be taken out within 48-72 hours--max.  Plus, at the same time stealth bombers can do their work.

Fourth, at the same time that the air defenses and the navy are being destroyed, the U.S. will launch cruise missile attacks on every nuclear facility, airport, army, IRGC and basij base, command and control center, fuel supply line, ammunition storage area and may be even oil refineries.  And when the air defenses are taken out, the assault will continue by air.

All of the above will be enough to set Iran back about a century.  Now, what is the IR going to do in response?  Fire a bunch of Scuds and Nodongs at Israel and Saudi Arabia?  Big deal (in strategic terms).  Most of those missiles will either be intercepted by Patriot or Arrow defense systems, and the ones that will get through will cause minimal damage.  And that's before their launchers and batteries are taken out.  The IR may also try terrorist attacks in other places, but the damage caused by that will be limited too.

Now, this is reality.  The U.S. does not care about what the IR will do to the opposition, nor does it care about the welfare of Iranian civilians.  It's a cruel, cruel world out there.  At the end of the day, the U.S. will control the Persian Gulf and the oil supply, and that is what matters to it.  Some people may call this unfortunate potential reality "wanting Iran attacked."  But I much rather talk about this reality than live in some fantasy world where Iran and Iranian people are the center of creation and every nation on the planet makes its decision while it takes into account their welfare.  I also live in the real world where I can see that--notwithstanding IR's big mouth--the most powerful nation on the planet cannot be challenged by a weak nation without the weak expecting a beating. That's how the real world works.  It's neither "fair" nor "pretty."  But it's real. 

Fesenjoon

Therefore it is also My take that the muslim's animosity toward the Jews, comes from Muslim's  displeasure that arose from their "refusal" to accept what its proponents felt to be a 'better' religion.The Jews at that time were so adamant to keep their religion even more so than the Christians. This also explains hatred of Israel by some muslims(including the Iranian muslims) In some instances the Arabs and the Prophet took the rejection rather very personally. Please correct me if I am wrong but from my readings in 627 AD Almost nine hundred Jews of a Medinan tribe named Banu Qurayza were massacred for not believing in Islam. Those who escaped death were taken captive by Muslims and sold in slave markets. This genocide is known in history as the Banu Qurayza incident.  and since  Iranians currently share the same religion as the Arabs , some of them share the same feelings as the Arabs. However despite all that mentioned I can say that

What the 20th century muslims can't stand is the fact that the Jews actually think they have the same rights as muslims. They got their country(Israel) back and they even fight back when the muslims try to push them into the sea and this is a new Phenomena for the very religious muslims and in particlar mullahs running the Islamic Republic theocracy in Iran. One thing I have come to realize is that

In effect, the Republic of Islam in Iran remains a theocracy of the Dark Ages.  It is one of  the most violent,brutal and intolerant regimes that has ever been presented to mankind!  An example of the insanity found within this  fascist government  in Iran is the, war like notion of "Jihad". Apologists for the Iranian Republic of Islam  say "Jihad" is one personal struggle to obtain a higher moral standard. But what it really represents is either a violent action against non-muslims or even muslims, or suicide bombings , stoning to death, or  even raping political prisoners who do not agree with them. So next time you see an Iranian or Iranian American flaunting his own ignorance, realize that the Iranians have been subject to "rape, torture and killings and the destruction of their culture and identity at the hands of those responsible and therefore this kind of behavior is expected from a supressed and confused nation. I really mean this. Iranians are confused. Look for example at the comments of the Iranian American individual who calls himself "Sargor Piirooz". He always keeps saying that Iranians opposing the terrorist regime in Iran are "anti Iranian".  You see they don't understand what it means to be Iranian. To him being Iranian means believing in Velayate Faghih blindly and support the islamic Rebublic's cult of terror,mayhem,, murder, vandalism, rape and pillage. He thinks and condones stonings, executions and raping of students and political prisoners in Iran. He  believes in the cult that was created by the mullahs. The cult does not really represent the real Islam. In his mind those Iranians who are againts this cult are considered "Anti Iranian". btw, To me all religions are false. Although I am an athiest and believe in no religion, I don't think what  any religious fundamentalist of any faith does in the name of religion reflects the true nature of that particular faith. In Islam as with any other religion there are good, bad or fundamentalists who will interpret the religion the wrong way and in their own way and that unfortunately has happened more within the faith of Islam. I do hope, perhaps I should say I wish, that the Islamic Republic in Iran that is now synonymous with Terrorism itself would somehow experience a radical change or be toppled in the direction of a secular democracy and true freedom for millions of Iranians. If not, the forecast remains for a very turbulent future for the Iranians and even for the world. 

Gentlemen

You're Welcome Mr. Mehrdad:)

I agree with Mehrdad. I find myself more in agreement with VPK's take on the situation here.

AO jaan.

I can not say that i don't buy your version a 100% since anything in region is possible literally But if we think about it a bit vpk is presenting a little more realistic picture here. It is just that for me it is hard to imagine a scenario where US can go on to carry on its own plan of attack including making future decisions on fate of PG and things of that nature.

I think this little cyber-spat between you and Mehrdad is totally uncalled for . COme on Guys. We maybe Ideologically on separate turfs but strategically in the same boat. You know what i tryingto say. I mean let's face it, This is such a sensitive and such an important matter to all of us, that we can't help at time misjudge one another's pov and take it the wrong way.

I wish Vpk would forgive me for my comments in the past about his posts and blogs and we could be friends again:)

Thanks DM for clarifying what I am saying.

You see AO, in the context of this discussion, where you have or at the minimum seem to defend a military attack on Iran by US and make almost bragging remarks about how many nukes US has, how they have used it against another nation with no repercussion, how easily they can destroy Iran and that in such event many around the world would rejoice that and you still think I am off the mark for my suggestion.  (These are all part of your comment starting from your comment to NP and on.  If you like I can cut & paste them.)

You call me a liar for this?  I ask you if I was making such remarks, as you have done here… would you have come up with any other conclusion.  Honestly would you have?

If the honest answer (and I will take your word at face value) is yes then I will apologies to you for misunderstanding your meaning. 

VPK:

This (your version) is a much more realistic analysis in my opinion of what will happen if war breaks out. Of course we are all talking in the context of war because of nuclear dispute and not in case of any act or aggression by IRI, specially on US soil.  But we all know that such thing will never happen as it would be a sure death sentence for all Akhoond and they never do that.

Mehrdad

Responses

I read AOs post and he did not advocate a nuclear attack on Iran. So let us be fair and not blame him for something he did not say.

 Let's say that the U.S. decides to "neutralize" Iran.  It can obviously do so with very little effort, without putting a single boot on the ground and without using nuclear weapons.

No it can not. It will need LOTS of boots on the ground. Air power has been proven ineffective when used alone. Now if US does attack it will not be Armageddon but will be a lot of trouble. What is the meaning of "neutralize"? Does it mean regime change? Does it mean take out the Sepah. Or blow up some centrifuges. USA is good at blowing things up. But they better know what their goal is. Military success has never been a problem for US. It is what to do afterwards. 

Say they leave the IR in tact but just hit them. The first thing IR will do is to crack down on internal opposition. The Iranian people may well back the IR as people often do when attacked. The IR will then kick out the IAEA inspectors. It will withdraw from the NPT and redouble efforts to build nukes. It will succeed. Then USA will have a nuclear and pissed off IR to deal with. Not to mention they will let loose their dogs in Iraq; Afghanistan and Lebanon.

Say the USA decides to go all the way and remove IR. That won't be that simple. It would require a land invasion and lots of soliders. Based on Iraq I would say 500,000 soliders minimum. Will people support that? I don't think so. People want jobs; not another war. Most Americans I know do not want another protracted; costly war. In fact it may dent Israel support in the US as they are blamed for it. That is why we have not seen a USA attack on Iran yet. They are not ready.

Most American presidents {not GWB} have learned to pick fights wisely. They run many simulatins to figure out possible outcomes. I have read some of them. If America attacks IR it better go all the way. Otherwise it will backfired big time.

Well for once

I think I agree with DM.

• Yes USA is a superpower. What is new? 
• Yes it will be a disaster if it were to use its full power against Iran; IRI or anyone. I don't know about an "Armageddon" but it will be pretty bad even if it does not go that far. We had enough deaths in our region. 
• Yes the USA naval officers treat the locals like shit and look down at them.

Bragging about Military power is not helping anyone. The problems in the region require other solutions. That is one of the reasons I refused to commit to "siding" with the USA or anyone in a war that will bring more devastation.

But doctor Jaan - Look at it from the devil's advocate's

point of view.  Let's say that the U.S. decides to "neutralize" Iran.  It can obviously do so with very little effort, without putting a single boot on the ground and without using nuclear weapons.  Now, from the U.S. point of view, how can there possibly be an "armageddon?"  The IR in that case will make LOTS of noise, fire a few missiles here and there that will probably be intercepted or cause very little damage (and that's before the missile batteries are taken away in about 24 hours), and blow up a couple of things with South Lebanese terrorists.  How is that Armageddon?  If anything, the U.S. will be even more emboldened.  It will have an excuse to take total control of the Persian Gulf for the foreseeable future and control the flow of oil.  How is that to its disadvantage?

PS-  Bear in mind that the U.S is not in the business of using nukes.  If it was, it would have done so in Vietnam to finish the job or in Afghanistan to make sure Bin Laden was dead after he attacked the U.S. 

  Whether it was Japan

Whether it was Japan who threw the first shot or not is way besides the point here. The real deal here is that US is a superpower and it would be totally rediculous for it to go all out and pulverize a nation or a part of  that nation's teritory just because they can, Not to mention creating a mass of Individuals with a whole set of incurable radiologically-induced diseases.

 I can't believe there are those who keep on Reminding us of the Ultimate Destructive power that the US possesses. It takes a Bullish mentality to even go near that topic.

Frankly, It worries me to death when i read stories on how US commanders in their visits to all those "shit" neshins around the gulf keep their leaders hopes alive that YEaa... You dumbass SHeeikh, We've got your back don't even worry about a thing and you just go and F... all the women in your harem.

What mehrdad is saying here and seems to go way beyond everyone's head, or so they pretend, is that if The US overexert its power and might in the region and makes a move, that will be the start of an armageddon that will ultimately result in more devastation and catasrophies.

AO & Mehrdad

The analogy with Hitler and Genghis only goes so far. But if you want to get technical:

Yes USA is no where near Hitler. AO is right; Hitler would not have hesitated to use nukes in a first strike against both USA and Russia. USA thought long and hard before the Japan attack. Plus they were attacked first so it was not a first strike. And they have not used it ever again. It does not make it good but no question it is very different.

Regarding Ghingiz Khan: He was a brutal animal but the moral of the story does not follow. He lived his full life and died while still in power. So that is hardly a fate that would deter other would be mass murdering dictators.

That's a low blow Mehrdad - because I never said so

but I didn't expect anything else from you.  You've lost the logic in the argument and are now resorting to personal attacks and low blows.  I was correct in ignoring you before--when you were trying to desperately get my attention-- and will now continue to do so.  So, go ahead and rant on all you want.

PS- in order for you not being proven the liar that you are, show everyone where it is that I have called for a nuclear attack on Iran. You're a liar If you cannot show it.

AO: from the looks and sound of it, you will rejoice if such

event takes place. 

Now what had baffled me, some may even call it  hypocrisy, is that for some one who often reference Iran as Meehan, my hamvatan, Irani or similar type sentiments, why would call for a nuclear nation to attack a non-nuclear nation which he calls Meehan.

Mehrdad

Not really so

Actually, my point was not just about Iran.  The point is that the U.S. is far beyond this petty anti-Americanism that we see day in and day out on this site.  The United States gets its influence in the world through its economic and military power.  And I think you're wrong.  The U.S. nuked Japan almost 60 years ago and it's nowhere near a "goorestan."  The sad fact is that because of the image that the IR has created for Iran, if the U.S. destroys Iran tomorrow, no one will shed a tear.  In fact, the majority of people in the world will probably rejoice.