The Lotus

O

that he should "keep" the comments of the "wrong people", and delete, or have deleted, the comments of the right people?!!!

What are you calling THAT?!

That's the second time in this thread you've completely misunderstood my fairly easy to understand English. Have you been drinking? You're always obnoxious, but usually it's at least possible to reply to you.When you accuse me of saying the exact opposite of what I did say, that's just way too immature to even bother with.

I hope you didn't trip over anything on you way to dinner... and back.

Haven't been to dinner yet, man. I appreciate you care enough to pay attention to my schedule, but it was the gym I went to earlier. Try to keep up!

Don't you worry your "little" heart out, koochooloomoochoolooo

The people you mentioned have not left this web site yet - check thier last post time and date.

Regarding your empty waring that "decent" people are leaving. OK, dookie...

I have news for you, efindi. iranican.com is neither a backwoods cult retreat nor a physical community - in case you missed that tiny fact. People are welcome to come, and welcome to leave if they please.

There is one little thing about iranian.com. And that is, where else would you be given the opportunity to let it all hang out with bunch of Iranomaniacs?!!!

Now, koochoolmoochool, stop whining and let it all hang out.

SK

thanks for that, but i wish you would stick around...

reason: if we can't make debating on an iranian web site work, we have little chance of making anything iranian work!

i agree with you about timing actually, at least partly. 

fwiw

i don't see any enemies here at all.

i see people with differing opinions, but with a shared goal: improving the lot of iranians.

some see alignment with israel and the US as the best way. some (like me) see iran's original 'third way' - na sharqi na qarbi - as the answer. others see islam or secularism or capitalism or socialism as the answer.

and none of these 'alternatives' are necessarily exclusive of others in actual practice. all have their merits and pros and cons.

surely there is a way of debating the issues without getting nasty...

Peace

Craig

What is happening is that decent people are leaving this webite, people who can make valid comments that one can learn from. Bijan, Souri, etc. I am beginning to think that it is best to move to another website like the Guardian or Enduring America - there are real discussions going on there instead of childish tit for tat stuff. Well informed Iranians discussing things and they seem to be pretty sharp about politics. No hostility whatsoever. It is not difference in opinions that I object to, but lack of manners and intimidation. I know it is a handful of people behaving badly here, using multiple IDs to pat each other on the back. One individual I suspect has 3 (of both sexes). I do not think JJ will do anything about this as he is too busy and not into silly stuff. But sadly he will lose his readers through the bad behaviour of a certain few.

PS: NP - I have nothing against you, in fact I had a decent and enjoyable discussion with you, informative,  and left happy, although we may have disagreed on a minor issue of timing . Thanks

FF

FF says: "Enemies of Iran are:.....2) Supporters of anything Islamic, reformed or otherwise..."

So, in your opinion supporters of reform are Iran's enemy. In my opinion AIPAC including its Iranian supporters such as Rob Sobhani are enemy.

Kharmagas

I didn't think there was any sugar coating in my post!  Pretty explicit if you ask me.

Enemies of Iran are:

1) Supporters of IRI

2) Supporters of anything Islamic, reformed or otherwise

3) People who put Islam ahead of Iran

Sag jAn, gogori magori

I said you guys are gogori magories, gogori magori does not mean Zionist!

BTW, Sag jAn, I know many respectable Zionists.

delete

delete

with Ostaad's permission (to Sag and FF)

Sag, and FF, I abhor the current regime in Iran, but I am not going to let you and other enemies of Iran to pull the wool over our eyes and feed us sugar coated poison candy so that you could stab Iran in the back!

Make no mistake about that,  gogori magories!

(*)  Ostaad, I liked your statement to tolleh sag, so I used it with minimal changes.Hope you don't mind.

delete

delete

For anyone interested...

sag...didn't you download the latest talking points?

"...if an erratic regime like IRI gets nukes and
then is able to intimidate or blackmail its non-nuclear neighbors". That canard was the second excuse to beat on Iran to bring her to her knees. The current excuse put out by the Likudniks that you seem to have failed to download goes like this, "if Iran gets nukes, then EVERYBODY in the ME wants one"! Meaning, Israel will lose its ill-gotten nuclear superiority and the last chance to dominate the region.

You can wrap your enmity with the Iranian people in the guise of lamenting about the "human rights situations", and that things may get "even worse for its own people", but I would like you, and other incognito Likudniks, to know that you guys are too transparent to fool anyone.

I abhor the current regime in Iran, but I am not going to let you and other enemies of Iran to pull the wool over our eyes and feed us sugar coated poison candy so that you could stab Iran in the back!

Make no mistake about that, homie.

delete

delete

Yes Vildemose. this is the

Yes Vildemose. this is the art of propaganda. It can demonize peace seekers as traitors. I've been there. I know. But the art of propaganda doesn't need to have a specific hate-mongering message. It can also have a peaceful humanist massage when people are stampeded by hate-mongers. By reactionary thoughts. Anything goes, as long as it works!

My 'chat' is in the same public forum as anybody else. Mine is toward formation of a political organization, representing secular democracy alternative to the IRI. I keep doing this to spread the idea, and in that sense, I keep 'chatting', because it worked so far. For creating any political organization, spreading the idea is the most important part. I'll be out of here as soon as I see inertia. I can't stand stagnation.

I suppose Niloofar, being condescending is in the eyes of the beholder but the written words are here to stay. I must admit I sometimes get jumpy seeing the same nonsense that I saw 15 years ago, when I left political debates. I can't believe such inertia. Although I should.

FF jan

if i get you right, you are saying that those who are expressly critical of the west should not enjoy the benefits of living there. rather they should move to places that they are defending against the west.

this opens up many questions. would you tell Chomsky to move to iran too? if not, is it because of his place of birth? so the right to opinion is determined by the place of birth?

how about seeing it like this: your neighbours are fighting. you observe the fight and may decide that one side is more justified than the other. do you then not speak your mind if the one that you do not really like is in the right on this occasion?

do you only ever speak in your own interest, or do you express what you think is right?  (i don't mean just you, but all of us)

Peace

All you IRI lovers, get the hell out of the "West"

I don't understand this; Hijab wearing halal eating najes practicing Muslims come to live in the West (U.S., U.K., Germany, Australia ...) in droves.  Like herds of sheeps/cows.  Then they get here, and a few  months after their welfare checks kick in, they become the mouth pieces of Islamic dictatorships and repeat, like parrots, their talking points about the injustices of the West and the Zionist blah blah.  We know these people as ShahGholam, Ostaad, Q, JalehO etc on this site.

Well you know what, get the hell out of the "West".  Go wear your hejabs, attend Mosques, call everyone who is a non Muslim najes and infidel in Islamic countries.  Don't do it here.  

Go make some positive contribution to the Islamic heavens you want to change the West to.  No one likes you here, no one wants you here.

If the U.S. or the U.K. are so bad, what are you doing living in those countries?!

ex...

I know we were attacked, but by Iraqis?!!!

Well

I'll just go to the gym and wait for John to come up with some juicy propaganda for me then. I do enjoy arguing with people who can't think for themselves so much, after all. It's almost as much fun as yelling at the television. I'll check back later.

delete

delete

John

well said. i'll leave him in your good hands!

Peace

Kharmagas

i am not going to ask you again :)

NP

If you are such a reformist and such a moderate, why is it that your posts always attract so many of the most disreputable IRI supporters on this website?

John

This is typical American myopia and ignorance. 

Thanks for the input, but I don't think anyone who limits the discussion to what happened on 1 day and excludes everything that happened for decades before has any right to talk about myopia and ignorance.

Yes we noticed that
America was attacked, but the attacks were not done by Afghanistan

Yes they were. That was al Qaida's home. And it still is, though they are moreon the Pakistan side of the alleged border these days.

nor
by Iraq

True! Iraq was innocent. As far as I know, Iraq never sponsored an act of terrorism against the US.

nor by Iran.

Untrue. In fact, Iran was the first country to begin sponsoring terror attacks on the US. Context, John. Context. It was teh IRI that set the precedent. The hostage crisis stunned the whole world. And then when it was followed up by Iranian sponsored mass murders, embassy bombings (2 of em), hostage taking/torture/murder, plane hijackings and etc against the US that kinda set a precedent that terrorists can attack the US at will and the US won't do anything about it except run away. We don't run away any more. And guess who is complaining about that?

yawn pt 2

...it is the weaker party, so it cannot try to threaten other than in the context of self-defense.

NP, "self-defense" is a pretty broad concept. Didn't OBL feel he was protecting Islam when he declared jihad on the US? And didn't HAMAS feel it was defending Palestinians when it embarked on a suicide bombing campaign against innocent Israeli civilians in the 1990s?

You say IRI is the weaker party... IRI is stronger than AQ or HAMAS though, wouldn't you agree? Yet HAMAS attacks Israel in the name of self defense, and OBL attacks anyone who opposes him in the name of self defense.

Is this the kind of self-defense we can expect from IRI? And aren't we (the west) acting in self defense when we attempt to prevent that?

The only valid legal concept of self-defense amounts to "taking reasonable actions to defend against an immediate threat". On an individual level, that means that if an intruder breaks into your house you can use physical violence to protect yourself. That's self defense. If he robs your house and gets away, and the next day you find out where he lives and you go over there and shoot him to get your stuff back and to make sure you don't see him in your house again, that isn't self defense.

Your guys do the latter. Our guys do the former. Our guys are right, and yours aren't. Only, our guys are starting to behave like your guys. Which I don't like. But I especially don't like seeing you acting like you have the moral high ground, because your guys have been doing it wrong since day one.

SK jan

here is what i think is really happening on the nuclear front: iran wants to develop her technology to a point where she can produce bombs if needed, but she is not going to produce any. her aim is to place herself strategically within the nuclear fuel cartel. this is likely to be the opec of tomorrow, and iran sees no reason to stay out of it. nor should she from a national interest perspective.

in terms of weapons, it is a safe and stable position for both iran and the region. a nuclear-capable (rather than nuclear-armed) iran reduces the threat of war from israel, not only against iran but others too. all the noise is basically about holding iran down, and maintaining the US-israeli stranglehold on the region. this is not because of the regime's theocratic nature, but because no power holder wishes to share power.

iran's time for sharing some of that power has come. we have moved into a multi-polar world, no matter what the western media say.

these are some of the strategic, national interest questions and dilemmas that we anti-IRI iranians cannot ignore if we want to a) do the best for iran, and b) be taken seriously.

Peace

Typical American myopia and ignorance

Craig wrote: "We were being attacked. You didn't notice(?)".

This is typical American myopia and ignorance.  Yes we noticed that America was attacked, but the attacks were not done by Afghanistan, nor by Iraq, nor by Iran.  So where's the justification for America's tyrannical bloodlust against these countries and their innocent citizens?  America and Americans should mind their own effing business and let the rest of the world run their affairs without the constant paternalistic intervention of Uncle Sam.

Solve your own huge problems first, and then maybe the rest of us can take you seriously when you attempt to portray yourselves as knights in shining armour riding to rescue the poor and unfortunate.

yawn

...far as we have known in recent times, this is exactly what Cheney thrived on.

We were being attacked. You didn't notice :O

Vildemose

re: All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

far as we have known in recent times, this is exactly what Cheney thrived on. he and bush actually took it one step further and added the 'pre-emptive strike' idea. and they Did attack other countries. 

add to this level of paranoia the added threat of israeli warmongering, pour in the IRI obsession with the foreign threat, and you have the explosive tasting soup that we have been fed for years on end.

having said all that, i did not state that they were about to attack. this line of argument was not mine. though i don't discount the possibility because both the US and israel have a nasty habit of attacking countries. they are warmongers. even obama has expanded the war in afghanistan and extended it to pakistan.

the IRI's posture is closer to strategic defense rather than offence. it is the weaker party, so it cannot try to threaten other than in the context of self-defense.

my central question is: given so many threats, which way should we head? what is to be done for those of us who cannot align ourselves to any of the parties?

Peace

Noulifar jan

I think the worry is that there will be an increased  threat to peace if an erratic regime like IRI gets nukes and then is able to intimidate or blackmail its non-nuclear neighbors.

As an Iranian I would be happy for Iran (IRI) to get nuclear technology for peaceful purposes but not nuclear weapons. This is because the regime would get even more confident and Human Rights situation get even worse for its own people, less chance of getting a more moderate and democratic government in Iran. We have seen what this regime will do to its own people to remain in power. There is no tolerance, justice system is corrupt and Human Rights record poor.

Nuclear arsenals in the hands of stable, democratic, status quo powers do not threaten the peace of the region. If Iran did become democratic and rational, then I would have been more for it.

As for Israel being a threat to Iran, I think that it is Iran that constantly threatens Israel. Wishing "Death To" people is not a good policy against a country. I do not think US is obsessed with Iran, it is concerned. It has tried the negotiations route with Iran for the first time and it appears to be working. We have to give them a little credit for that.