Trahison

Share/Save/Bookmark

Jahanshah Rashidian
by Jahanshah Rashidian
28-Aug-2008
 

La révolution islamique engendra une confusion au sein de l'intelligentsia iranienne qui suivait une série d'erreurs fatales en s'alignant à côté des mollahs. Nos intellectuels croyaient que la lutte " anti-impérialiste " de Khomeiny s'approchait de leurs idéaux. Dans l'esprit de Khomeiny et son entourage, cette " révolution " fut contre la modernisation, les droits de femmes, les reformes agraires du chah et non pas contre son caractère dictatorial ou dépendant à l'impérialisme.    

Khomeiny a profité de cette naïveté, sinon trahison, de l'intelligentsia iranienne pour installer un régime d'obscurantisme, obscurantisme très marqué dès les pratiques initiales ainsi qu'une manière écrite dans la constitution de son régime, la République Islamique d'Iran (la R.I.I).   

Non seulement les intellectuels laïcs, mais plus étonnant, une partie de la gauche iranienne ne savait pas comment réagir face à ce qu'elle considérait depuis leurs acquis idéologiques comme une doctrine réactionnaire. Les mollahs, jouissant d'un succès parmi certaines couches les plus pauvres de la société, ont bien pris un bon ticket chez certains intellectuels laïcs et même gauchistes. Les gauchistes qui comportaient des déviations idéologiques sont aujourd'hui encore discrédités par leur soutien à la R.I.I.   

Le parti Toudeh, ainsi qu'une partie de l'Organisation des Guérilleros Fédaïs du Peuple d'Iran, appelée " Majorité "--majorité des membres du comité central après la scission de 1980, l'autre partie, Minorité, refusa de soutenir la R.I.I et rejoignit le camps de l' opposition--, influencés par la politique dominante de l'Union Soviétique, ont soutenu le régime " anti- américain " de Khomeiny pendant les premières années de répression sanglante.    

Cette partie de la gauche iranienne ne savait pas ou bien sous-estimait le fait que les mollahs, avec l'aide des bazaris avaient dès toujours, pour but, de forcer la société iranienne à un retour au stade primitive des traditions islamiques avec des enseignements coraniques. La base de la R.I.I, pendant et après la révolution était les bazaris qui soutenaient Khomeiny contre le chah, ils étaient plutôt des riches capitalistes frustrés et traditionalistes qui ne pouvaient pas s'adapter au rythme de l'économie libérale et la modernisation, menés par le régime du chah dont les conditions favorisaient ceux qui étaient proches de la couronne. Les bazaris sont probablement anti- " l'impérialisme culturel ", mais par leur nature traditionnelle, ils sont des capitalistes traditionalistes et très anti-socialistes.    

Le Parti Toudeh et la Majorité en cohorte avec les bazaris s'inclinaient aux intérêts du régime et même ceux des plus réactionnaires et plus brutaux mollahs du régime comme Khomeiny, Beheshti, Khalkhali. En abandonnant leurs militants de base, ainsi que des couches intellectuelles, étudiantes et ouvrières, femmes et les minorités nationales, le parti Toudeh et des Feddayins continuèrent à soutenir " Imam " Khomeiny et son régime, la R.I.I, même dans les années sanglantes de 1980-83.    

Cette partie de gauche, entièrement déraillée des normes socialistes,  donna au régime islamique le nom d' " anti-impérialiste " et pendant assez long temps collaborait avec toutes les mesures de répressions, l'identification des dissidents ainsi que toute politique anti-socialiste du régime. Le régime a adopté cette approche généreuse qui l'a bien aidé à la consolidation de plus en plus dictatoriale des ses institutions.    

La trahison de ce soutien était qu'il fallait accorder à Khomeiny un soutien quasi-inconditionnel tandis que le régime continuait ses arrestations arbitraires, ses exécutions sommaires jusqu'à ce que celui-ci ait pleinement consolidé son autorité, c'est-à-dire que jusqu'en 1983, époque à laquelle il se retourna contre eux et a éliminé tous les " infidèles ", y compris beaucoup de membres, militants et sympathisants de ces deux courants.    

Cette gauche pro mollahs avait oublié ou mal compris que les communistes égyptiens avaient une fois adopté momentanément cette position de compromis à l'égard des Frères musulmans, les enjoignant de s'allier à eux dans " une lutte commune contre la "dictature fasciste" de Nasser et ses "alliés anglais et américains." Ces deux bavures ont causé une perte définitive de l'influence de gauche dans ces deux pays.    

Le couple, Toudeh / Majorité, qui reste toujours complaisant  aux " réformistes " du régime, a drôlement failli à analyser qu'une approche à un mouvement islamique était idéologiquement anti-dialectique et anti-socialiste.

Le Parti Toudeh croit toujours à la légitimité du régime et même n'hésite pas à faire appel à participer aux élections truqées du régime et pour élire aux élections présidentielles les architecteurs " modérés " du régime comme Khatami,  Moein, et Rafsanjni.    

Cette approche a fini par une mauvaise réputation, assez irréparable pour l'ensemble de la gauche iranienne. La crise de la gauche en Iran ne se décolle pas seulement à cause de la chute du communisme mondial, mais plutôt à cause de la trahison du Parti Toudeh et son imitateur, Majorité, au peuple iranien ainsi qu'aux idéaux de gauche.   

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Jahanshah RashidianCommentsDate
Journée Internationale des Femmes
-
Mar 08, 2010
Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery
13
Feb 04, 2010
Iran Fails United Opposition
5
Jan 20, 2010
more from Jahanshah Rashidian
 
jamshid

Rashidian

by jamshid on

Thank you so much for the translation. I agree with your points. I defintely agree with your comment that Iran's left needs a paradigm shift and a redefinition of itself based on the lessons learnt from the past.

Again, today's leftists should reclaim the left ideals from those who sold it out 30 years ago. I think such redefined and independent left would be welcomed by many.


Souri

Observer 2

by Souri on

No I didn't avoid carefully all your points. Here again, you are too pessimistic my dear. I know exactly who you are. We have had many encounter before and as you, yourself has stated once, there are many registered people here who post anonymous comments, but we always recognize them by their writing style. I have no problem with your willingness to stay anonymous, this is your choice, your right given by the editor of this site. I just don't like to answer to the anonymous comment and yes I avoid them, and this is my choice.

About me being as anonymous as you, maybe you are right too. Who knows ? My picture could be from 3 years ago (2005) or as you said could be 30 years ago, who knows ? This is also my choice.

About your point which you think I had avoided carefully, I must say : I am very careful choosing my words, even if this is very very hard for me given my level in English.

Now, let see what I had said in my first comment:

" This party, as long as I remember, do not support any violence and "mosalahaneh" revolution . They don't approve blood running for the change of the regime."

I said "as long as I REMEMBER" and also I said "They don't approve" ...why I didn't say "They have never did"...?

I can not answer to the mistakes which have been committed some 60 years ago. I liked their ideology and supported it only 28 years ago and changed my mind about that 2/3 years later....and to be honest, one of my main reason among others was also "Khalkhali"


default

Souri khanum

by observer2 (not verified) on

You carefully avoided all my points but one thing was the funniest remark of all. Are you saying that I am anonymous and you are not? All we know about you is a name, which could be anybody's and a picture which even if it is yours, it may be from thirty years ago!

Sorry Souri, but you are just as anonymous as I am.


ebi amirhosseini

Mr Rashidian aziz

by ebi amirhosseini on

sepaas


default

Dear Mr. Rashidian, I am

by Mitra from khuzistan (not verified) on

Dear Mr. Rashidian, I am glad you translated the article! I was reading it and could only understand in bits and pieces! Thank you for taking the time to enlighten us with different issues. I look forward to yur writings everytime eventhough I do not comment on them. It takes one line at a time and one day at the time towards freedom. Thanks for all you do. Sincerely yours, MITRA


Souri

Observer 2

by Souri on

Thanks for your comment. First and far most, I must repeat for the 100 time, that I am not a CLOSET anything ! Wether you want to believe it or not, it belongs to yourself.

Second : I hope this would be the last time, I reply to an Anonymous person who prefer to stay in the CLOSET to be able to pronounce their statement. As a usual base I NEVER comment anonymously nor I do like to answer the
anonymous/closet person.

Third: My point here (again for the 3rd times) is that, I do not believe that Toudeh Party is/was a Traitor to the people.

They have an ideology, they have a strategy, like all other parties. Now,
is their ideology wrong ? or is that their strategy which is wrong ?

They have an ideology similar to many other leftist movement in the world,
yet the strategy is different, much different than others, which is
quiet understandable, as each country, each situation should be taken
independently and not mistaken with any other past or actual example in
the world. (Re: Egypt)

Were they wrong ? I think yes, they were.

Are they still wrong ? I don't know, because I am not involved nor exactly informed about what they are saying today.

All I know is, according to Mr. Rashidian, the Toudeh party still invite
the Iranian, to participate in the Iranian election by voting.

This, is something I can understand from the Toudeh's point of view. Because
they always value people's right. They insist that people use their
natural right to participate in the decision making for their country
and its future.

Now, some other ideology/strategy refuse to see this action as a solution. For this group, the action of voting in this constitution, is an act of legitimization of the regime, and they boycott this idea.

This, also is another point of view. some people accept the former idea while some other accept the latter, hint the difference between the political ideology and movement.

Therefore (again in my own opinion) this, should NOT be a reason for calling the opposite party, a traitor.

Now, we are all FREE, to think, believe (naively or wisely) and accept an
ideology regardless of WHERE we choose to live. FYI, many American had
and still have social/democratic ideas or/and believe in the Materialism/Dialectic theory. Are they all hypocrites ? Maybe.

Depends on how we describe this word.


default

Yesterday's Communists, Todays' Capitalists

by observer2 (not verified) on

Souri khanum,

You mentioned that the Tudeh party has never advocated or participated in acts of violence or armed struggle. You may choose to forget but there are wide a well established records of the Tudeh party’s Military Organization that back in the 1950’s was created precisely for this reason: an Armed, and no doubt bloody, takeover of power, a coup d’etat, which was foiled by the scurity services of that period. Tudeh party has never shied away from violence. Their assassination attempt on the Shah in 1946, and their support for the secessionist and brutal military regime of Azebaijan under Pishevari are only two publicly known examples of this fundamentally anti-Iranian party’s activities. Their lowest point in opportunism was indeed their support for the Islamic republic, calling for the execution of all the previous regime’s politicians and the MKO and choosing Khalkhali as their candidate for the presidency of the Islamic regime. Now, do I need to say more?

I wished you wouldn’t ruin your fresh capitalist identity by bringing your communist past into it and defending it. For your information, we have socialism and we have communism and then we have Tudeh-ism Three different things. You may have (naively) joined the Tudeh party thinking that they would realize you dream socialist/communist ideals and were disappointed to see that they were a far cry from either. But because you made a mistake and are not prepared to admit it, you don’t have to defend the appallingly dark and disgusting record of this instrument of terror and espionage, otherwise known as the Tudeh party. You are now living in the capitalist state the Tudeh party was and is fundamentally against. You earn your income from and pay taxes to this capitalist state. Unless you are a closet Tudehi, you can’t remain loyal to your old communist/socialist ideals and at the same time benefit from the privileges and the comfort that the most outstanding symbol of capitalism, the USA, has afford you. There is a name for this type of attitude: hypocrisy!


Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Anonymous

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

From 1980 on, the IRI veered to its totalitarian nature. It imposed a new social order with restrict bIslamic moral code of behaviour.

Opposition , including the Islamic MEK, could not tolerate it, therefore were brutally curbed. The Toudeh Party and Aksariat were however supporting the established order. During 1980, on a daily basis of 50 to 100 executions, circa 3000 thousand dissidents were executed. The Toudeh Party and Aksariat were still supporting the regime.

The Toudeh and Aksariat requested more iron fist against "the elements of imperialist", according to their publication-archive.

Main main aim of this article is not to rememer of these two bankrupt IRI's inner lobbyists, but to learn a lesson that must remind us of such a trap. Today, this opportunistic attitude--a legacy of toudehist influence-- is represented by the new IRI's lobby groups who attempt to prolong IRI's life at any costs. 



Jahanshah Rashidian

points

by Jahanshah Rashidian on






Normal
0
21


false
false
false







MicrosoftInternetExplorer4




/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

 

 

از خوانندگان اين مقاله خواهش ميشود لينکها ئی را کد در کامنت خانم سوری
فرستاده ام مطالعه تا بخشی از حقائق سالهای اول انقلاب روشن شوند.
شالگونی، از رهبران قديم سازمان راه کارگر، ميگويد،"نگاهی به حرف های نگهدار
ترديدی باقی نميگذارد که وجدان و
 

مسئوليت فردی برای او مفاهيمی کاملاً بيگانه است." و بنظر من اين
همان
درسی است که بايد از تاريخ اموخت تا امروز توسط لوبيها و مدافعان ج.ا تکرار
نشود. ما در برابر رژيم جهل و جنايت راهی جز بران
دازی نداريم و راه توده ای راه
مماشات و تسليم پذيری است. اين راه غير معقول فرهنگ سياسی است که توسط حزب توده درفرهنگ سياسی ما القا شده و ما بايد انرا دفع کنيم. همانطور که در کشورهای غربی به احزاب دلخواه رای ميدهيم بايد بياموزيم که حق انتخاب امری بدوی برای مردم
ايران  است و دليلی نيست که زير بار اين رژيم زورگو و يا فراکسيونی
"رفرميست" از اين رفت. تغير اين پارادگم سياسی روانی نياز به دفع فرهنگ
مماشات دارد و اين اولين در
س دمکراسی است.

همانطور که شالگونی ميگويد،"  امثال نگهدارها ميکوشند با بی اعتبار کردن
چپ سوسياليستی و انداختن همه تبه کاری های گذشته شان به دوش آن، بار
ديگر همان بازی های قديمی شان را، اين بار زير بيرقی ديگر، ادامه بدهند."

ايدال من و بسياری از بقايای چپ يک جمهوری پارلمانی، سکولار و دمکراتيک است و
نه نوعی ديکتاتوری کمونيستی. ولی توده ای ها که هنوز خود را کمونيست ميدانند
از تداوم ج.ا. که يکی ازراست ترين رژيمهای معاصر است حمايت ميکنند.
رهبران چنين بينشی خواستار نابودی مخالفان ج.ا بودند. حتا ازطولانی شدن محاکمه
عباس امير انتظام نارا

ضی بودند و خواهان برخورد قاطع با او بودند و عملاً
اعدام او را ميخواستند. از نظر اين طيف هر مبارز که در خط امام نبود"خائن"
به انقلاب و مردم
است  بهمين دليل خواستار برخود قاطع رژيم با
مخالفين"عوامل امپرياليسم" بودند. کافی است به ارشيو نشريات انان نگاه
کنيم تا اين مطالب را ببينيم.
من
دليل ادامه مماشات توده و طيف  انرا در يک مقال تشريح خواهم کرد ولی به اختصار بايد علت را در رفلکس های گذشته و قطب بندی های جديد جهانی ديد.

البته در
اينجا بحث روی سياستهای اکثريت و حزب توده است، چپ روی های ديگر سازمانها هم بايد مورد نقد قرار گيرند. اگر چپ  ميخواهد جنبش سالم و پوينده ای داشته باشيد
بايد خود ا از مقول
ه هائی مانند ديکتا توری پرولتاريا، مبارزه طبقاتی, حکومت شوراها،
ديسپلين اهنين و... خلاص کند و واقعيات ملموس را دياليکتيکی بازشناسی کند منظور اين نيست که منافع ملتی فدای ايده و مذهب خاصی شود. وگر نه قبض جريمه را همهء ما با هم می پردازيم

 


Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Jamshid / Ebi

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Here is a quick translation of the article.

 

The Islamic revolution brough about a confusion within the Iranian intelligentsia who followed a set of fatal mistakes by aligning with the mullahs. Our intellectuals believed that the anti-imperialist " struggle " of Khomeini would approach their own ideals. In the mind of Khomeini and his people , this " revolution" was against the modernization, omen's rights, land reforms of the shah and not against his dictatorial or dependent character to imperialism.      

Khomeiny took advantage of this naivety, if not treason, of the Iranian intelligentsia to install a regime of obscurantism, obscurantism very marked from the initial practices, and clearly written in the constitution of his regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran (the IRI).    

Not only the secular intellectuals, but more astonishing, a part of the Iranian left didn't know how to react facing what it considered since their ideological acquirement as a reactionary doctrine. Since mullahs were enjoying a success among some poorest layers of the society could receive support from these leftists who are still discredited for their support on the IRI.   

The Toudeh party, as well as a part of the organization of Guerrillas Fédaïs of the People of Iran, named " Majority "--majority of the members of the central committee after the split of 1980, the other part, Minority, refused to sustain the IRI and joined the camps of the opposition--, influenced by the dominant politics of the Union Soviet, sustained the regime " anti - American " of Khomeini during the first years of bloody repression.     

This part of the Iranian left didn't know or underestimated the fact that the mullahs, with the help of the bazaris always had for goal to force the Iranian society to a return to the  primitive stage primitive of the Islamic traditions with Koranic teachings. The basis of the IRI, during and after the revolution, was the bazaris that sustained Khomeini against the Shah, they were rather of the rich frustrated capitalists and traditionalists who could not adapt themselves to the rhythm of the liberal economy and the modernization, led by the Shah's regime whose conditions encouraged those that were near his crown. The bazaris are probably anti - imperialism in culture, but because of their traditional nature, they are capitalistic traditionalists and very anti - socialist.     

The Party Toudeh and the Majority in cohort with the bazaris was involved for the interests of the regime and even those of the most reactionary and most brutal mullahs as Khomeini, Beheshti, Khalkhali. While abandoning their militants of basis, as well as of the intellectuals, students, working class, women and the national minorities, the Toudeh party and some Feddayins continued to sustain " Imam " Khomeini and his regime, the IRI, even in the bloody years of 1980-83.     

This part of left, derailed entirely from the socialist norms, gave to the Islamic regime the name of " anti-imperialist " and during long time collaborated with all measures of repressions, the identification of the dissidents as well as all anti - socialist policies of the regime. The regime adopted this generous approach that helped it to further its dictatorial system through its political institutions.     

The treason of this support was that it was necessary to grant to Khomeini a quasi - unconditional support while the regime continued its arbitrary arrests and summary executions until this one fully strengthened its authority, that means that until 1983, time to which it turned against them (Toudeh / Majority) and eliminated all its infidels ", including a lot of members, militants and sympathizer of these two currents.     

This pro mullahs-left had forgotten or had badly understood that the Egyptian Communists had adopted this position of compromise once momentarily with regard to the Muslim Brothers, enjoining them to ally to them in " a common struggle against the " fascist " dictatorship of Nasser and his " English and American " allies. These two blunders caused a definitive loss of the left influence in these two countries.     

The couple, Toudeh / Majority, that always remains complaisant to the " reformists " of the regime, failed funnily to analyze that their approach to an Islamic movement was ideologically anti - dialectics and anti - socialist. 

The Party Toudeh always believes in the legitimacy of the regime and even doesn't hesitate to call on to participate in the rigged elections of the regime and to elect in the presidential elections the architects  of the regime like Khatami, Moein, and Rafsanjni.     

This approach ended by up a bad reputation, irreparable for the totality of the Iranian left. The crisis of the left in Iran doesn't only come because of the fall of the world Communism, but rather because of the treason of the Party Toudeh and its imitator, Majority, to the Iranian people as well as to ideals of the left.    


jamshid

Rashidian, I read your

by jamshid on

Rashidian,

I read your article but my French is not as fluent as it used to be. But I could figure that there are so many important facts in your article that you should share them with the rest by translating your article, even in a summary format.

In the same way that the mollahs have damaged Islam, the leftists of the 70s have damaged the left in Iran. I find many of the left ideals attractive, but I think today's Iranian left must reclaim their ideology from those who sold it out 30 years ago.


ebi amirhosseini

جناب جهانشاه خان عزیز

ebi amirhosseini


حالا دیگه طاقچه بالا میزارین!

How about  readers who donot understand FRENCH!!

Thank god for me,my secretary translates for me.

sepaas


Souri

Mr Rashidian

by Souri on

I'd talked about the 2 points that I wasn't agree with.

First : the point that the Toudeh never identified other dissident of the regime, to the regime for being executed.

Second:
you said that they were traitors BECAUSE they had supported the regime
and this, Because they had another agenda and they were taking their
lessons from their BIG BROTHERS. and you say they are traitors today
too, BECAUSE they STILL support the this regime.

I said: Today, there's no BIG BROTHER in the world neither any Toudehi active in Iran,
then why should the Toudeh continue same politics as before, while the
regime has already repressed and killed all their leaders and many of
their Supporter ?

As I said before, I don't believe in Toudeh's politics, neither I do believe in any other actual political movement/ideology. This doesn't mean that I STILL believe in a solution in a Toudeh's manner. I am observing the fact and trying
to be objective. If someone (Toudeh) did something in the past which
has proven to be wrong, then they still continue doing same thing despite
all the damage they did to others and to themselves, could you call it a "
Treason" ?

And if your answer is : yes, then please give me one reason why they do this ? What is their motivation now ? Why do they still support the regime according to you ? What's the catch ?

I just want to understand your opinion better.


default

Toodeh khianat-kar

by Anonymoushe (not verified) on

now that's a group of anti-Iranians who need to be held accountable for selling out our country to their bosses of USSR.
What bothers me is that even now they're still trying to have a voice and "az roo nemiran" they're all brainwashed and serve the foreign interests.

our people are smart enough to know that.
Thanks for the article.


Jahanshah Rashidian

Blundre vs Treachery

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Anonymoushe:

I share your point that JM acted stupidly, but had no agenda while the Tudeh Party along with its proxy, Majority, just followed the commands coming from the Big Brother.

 


default

JR you got it right

by Anonymoushe (not verified) on

Toodeh was the traitor. The only opposition party that had real history and members besides Jebheh Melli and they both were traitors.
JM was acting stupid
Toodeh had an agenda for its treason.

kheili khoob gofti damet garm!


Jahanshah Rashidian

سوری خانم شما

Jahanshah Rashidian


سوری خانم
شما تحت تاثير انگيزهائی که اشاره کرديد منصفانه به مقاله من جواب
نداديد.
حتا به مطالبی که انتخاب کرديد هم جواب کامل نداديد. من تحريف نکرده ام
شما جواب کامل و غير مغرضانه تداده ايد. و شايد هنوز هم به يک راه حل توده ای معتقديد
و با مخالفان ج.ا. مخالفيد.
خيانت حزب توده و اکثريت  نظر اکثر مورخان و فعالان
سياسی است شما هم اگرعمل کرد توده و هم گامش, اکثريت را بيغرض برريس کنيد متوجه
خيانت انها خواهيد شد.
عمل کرد انان خيانت به مردم ايران و ارزشهای سوسيا ليسم
بوده که به ظاهر معتقد بوده اند. در شرايطی که مردم ما هزاران قربانی داه و ميدهند
نميتوان عمل کرد انها را در حد اشتباه تخفيف داد . کلمه" خيانت" چه مفهومی داد؟
توده هنوز هم ازفراکسينها و يا لوبيهای رژيم حمايت ميکندايا اين هنوز اشتباه است؟ .

رهبران حزب و اکثريت با مرتجعينی مانند بهشتی، لاجوردی، خلخالی و... ارتباط
نزديک داشته اند. ميتوانيد لينکهای ذيل را ملاحظه کنيد که از يک سری
بحثهای
هستند که بين علی اکبر شالودی، راه کارگر، با فرخ گهدار که در راس کميته مکزی
سازمان اکثريت ان زمان بود صورت گرفته. حتا نگهدارمجبور به اقرار شده که يکی از
اعضائ سازمان خودش را به لاجوردی تحويل داده که بعد منجر به اعدام او شده. ايا اين
خيانت نيست؟ يا نبايد مسببين مرگ و فاجعه را خائن ناميد؟ در ضمن من رهبران توده و
اکثريت را خائن ناميدم و نه اعضائ و هواداران ساه را که بسياری از انان نيز قربانی
رژيم شدند.

من برای انتخان اين تتر, trahison, برای مقاله لغت ديکری نيافتم.
برای نسلهای جديد اين يک لغت سنگينی است ولی نسل ما شاهد کشتار بيش از از۴۰۰۰ "
عوامل امپرياليست امريکا" در سالهای اول انقلاب بود. مماشات و همکاری توده با رژيم
و چابلوسی برای ملاها و "امام" خمينی برای کسی پوشيده نيست.
وقتی کانديدای رئيس
جمهوری توده خلخالی و رفسنجانی باشد ايا اين خيانت يه ارمان خود نبوده است؟

Message

//www.roshangari.net/as/ds.cgi?art=20070824093609.html

//www.roshangari.net/as/ds.cgi?art=20070824093609.html

//www.roshangari.net/as/ds.cgi?art=20070314080518.html


Souri

Tahrif and Demagogy

by Souri on

Mr. Rashidian

Usually I don't comment your posts, because we two, have fundamental differences of view. Here I just make 2/3 little remark. I have to
reply in English as I do not have a French keyboard.

1) little remark as to the French spelling of " Shah" is always " Le Shah" and
not " Le Chah". This is of course a minor misspelling which occurred a few
times here and there.

2) The problem with you is that, you always take a part of the history which everybody already knows, then you slide one
or more things which are not true at all, inside of your story and show
it to the people.

Everybody knows now that the Party Toudeh had supported the regime. this is nothing new and I don't think anybody here
is really interested to chow again the same old story. But you slide a
lie here between the lines, very viciously, so the readers will read
and assimilate it as a fact between some other true statements:

" pendant assez long temps collaborait avec toutes les mesures de
répressions, l'identification des dissidents ainsi que toute politique
anti-socialiste du régime..."

I was a Toudehi at that time and I know that the Party Toudeh, did NEVER
participate in those " Identification and repression" of the
dissidents in no case. Even Kianoury had always stated publicly that
they were against the mass killing and execution of our young
compatriot. This is a " tohmat and eftera" and lie that other political
movement always did against the Toudeh. That was not true. Yes, it is
true that the Toudeh was wrong in supporting the Mullah, but so did the
other political movement, each one for a while, less or long period. I
am not a Toudehi partisan anymore. I don't support nor defend them
since a long long while. Don't mistaken my words here, please. I know
they did wrong in politics and also toward the people of Iran, but as
I always said, I am only for the " truth and only the truth".....and
what you just said here, only in this case I enumerate as # 2, is
not the truth. It is an absolute lie. This(what you do) is the real " Trahison"
means Treason to the people, not what the Toudehi did. Because at least
they have been honest to say always what the were thinking and they
were doing always what they were saying.

3) You say they were traitors, because at that time when every movement
was against the regime, they still supported the regime......and
you say that even today they are "some how" supporting the regime by
inviting the people to participate actively in the vote and election in
Iran. here you say:

"Le Parti Toudeh croit toujours à la légitimité du régime et même
n'hésite pas à faire appel à participer aux élections truqées du régime
pour élire les architecteurs " modérés " du régime comme Khatami,
Moein, et Rafsanjni ..."

Then, if a political party, which have been bashed and banned and
repressed in Iran, say always same thing today, that they have always said
before, then you can not call them the " Traitors" ...it means that
they have an ideology (which can be wrong) but they are following that
same ideology which I would like to call it a " reformist ideology".
This party, as long as I remember, do not support any violence and "
mosalahaneh" revolution . They don't approve blood running for the
change of the regime.

Now, they maybe right or wrong (I believe their main ideology is right but the way they take themselve in this regard is wrong) but you can not call them the " traitors" ....That is not what they believe, cheating and betraying their own people, is not their purpose.