Reza_Fani_Yazdi

آقای رضا -فنی‌-یزدی، استدلال شما از پایه غلط هست

استالین، کیم ایل جونگ و باقیه، یک مشت لامصب بودن و به امام زمان اعتقاد نداشتن. آنها بر عکس امثال خامنه‌ای و احمدی‌نژاد می‌دانستند که در یک جنگ اتمی‌، امام مهدی به داد آنها نخواهد رسید....

اگر شما مثل باقیه ما بر ضدّ جنگ و حمله نظامی بر وطن عزیز ما ایران  هستید، یک ذره هم انتقاد بکنید از این سیاست احمقانه و جنگ جویانه اتمی‌ رژیم منفور ولیت فقیه که بهانه داده دست هر کس که آزادانه در باره حمله اتمی‌ به وطن ما صحبت کنه. حقیقت این هست که اگر رژیم این جور لجبازانه دنبال این برنامه اتمی‌ نبود، عقاید عمومی‌ مردم در آمریکا و اروپا اجازه بحث در باره  حمله نظامی به ایران را نمی‌داد.

  The real disgraceful

by aynak on Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:21 AM PST

"Trita, I read the title of your analysis and thought immediately your article is talking about the real root of the embassy attack:

If we look back at the original hostage crisis back in 1979, this was exactly why Khomanee blessed the "Khateh Imam students" to maintain their hold of U.S embassy. Basically, he wanted to get rid of Bazargan, and consolidate his power, and Bazargan unlike charlatan AhmadiNejad, would not stand his government being undermined by thugs. So Bazargan resigned, later the war started. That shining example of Islamic Regimes "leadership" has been the blue-print for the rest to follow, No matter what the cost to lives of Iranian, or damage to Iran.

But your article makes sever error in analysis:

Trita writes: "The attack on the British embassy was not only illegal and disgraceful, it was also a sign of how statecraft in Iran has deteriorated over the past years.."

What deterioration? When did we really witness statecraft thriving that now we see it deteriorate, if we see the same pattern of behavior that we saw from the get go? In fact if you refer to Khatami's time, shouldn't one consider that period an anomaly, given how short lived it was and given its final outcome: A more aggressive, lawless, thuggish regime?

Then your observation is interesting in itself:

"Increasingly, it seems as if there are no adults in the room when Tehran makes its decisions."

Really? Do you think after 1988 coup, no one sensed absence of adult supervision?

I am not very smart, and want you to spell it out for me. Let's forget the interest of Iranian people for a second, What exactly are you proposing? Say I am a U.S official and want Trita's advice, I know this regime has put its own closest allies in jail inside Iran, without charge or trial, and even yesterdays friends are now enemies, who would not even consider international norms when trying to settle internal scores (according to you), why would I make a deal with them, when they don't even know the appropriate stage for settling their domestic disputes? Are you suggesting U.S should provide adult supervision, by mediating between Ahmadi-Nejad and Khamaneh-ee? "

Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

مبادا کینه ها ما را از وظایف اخلاقی و ملی خود غافل کند.

Solid mabaadaa to pro-war Iranian expats. Applies equally to Regime actors.