Misc

Mr. Zion,

Even you agree that "Jews killing Jesus" is code word for antisemetism. The Lord Jesus Christ was betrayed by some people who happened to be Jewish, not "Jews".

Romans not only killed and raped, but also fed my Christian brothers to lions. Should I hate Italians like Jamshid hates Arabs?

I suppose you are holding Egyptians and Iraqis responsible for atrocities against Jews from 3000 BC?

The "entire Arab nation" is of course a laughable exaggeration.

I agree with those who have said we need not hold grudges over these historical events. If not, then Q is right, we really have to hate everybody. Everybody must hate everybody else. That's not a world I want.

Jamshid is holding such a grudge specifically against Arabs and Arab culture of today. That does qualify as prejudice.

This post is about bombing Iran. People really should stick to the main subject.

Q stop the crap.

'Jews killed Jesus' is an anti-semitic lible because it is a deliberately misguided statement. `Jews` did not kill `Jesus`. A certain fraction of Jews (the Sadduces who were allies of Rome) might have acted against another group of Jews (Jesus as a messianic Pharisee who were opposed to Rome) in the mid of internal strives within Jewish people themselves. So the way the way Christian (and muslim-though they claim the 'Jews` failed in their veil plot) anti-semites speak of `Jews killing Jesus` as a confontation between an entire people and a separate christian figure is false and antisemtic.
Nothing of that has to do with what Jamshid has been saying about the Arab invasion of Persia. What he says is an accurate historical fact. It was not an internal strife within two factions of muslims killing each other. It is about the entire muslim umma of the time invading, killing and raping another nation (Persians) under the name and banner of Islam and to promote the decree of their god to establish the religion of Islam over all the earth.

Please stop this nauseating hypocricy in dragging Jews into your ideological excuses.
Nice boy. behave, OK? :-)

Re: Tondteez

"Part of what I wanted to say about your hatred of Arabs..."

After all my explanations, you still repeat the same false accusation? If you want to have any credential in here, you must prove that I hate the Arabs from what I have written in this thread or elsewhere.

Otherwise if you can't, then you have only proven that you just falsely accused me and built on top of it.

Regarding exposing people, I agree with your definition. But what about people who use half truths and fallacy to make their points? What word would you choose when you counter their manipulation of words?. I my book, the word "expose" is the correct word.

Ask Q and he'll gladly tell you about my past history and why I am so sensitive to this. 

You are saying that Mammad writes clearly and to the point. You are wrong. Perhaps you have not read my arguments with him in the past which used to be cordial at first. He lies a lot. He falsifies facts, numbers and even the history. Are you suggesting people to just stand there when someone outright lies?

Furthermore, you say that "he does not reinterpret his own words, in order to get out of the jam as many people do."  Unfortunately, you have not read all my exchanges with him. If you had, you would know that he just does that, ie, reinterpreting and changing his own words, even stating conflictive statements, based on whatever may be convenient for him.

I do understand that people can read a comment and make their own interpretation, but do they have the right to counter and state their opinion too? You seem not to like the word "exposing" for some reasons. Fine. "Countering", "arguing", etc, are these better words for you?

Questioning Mammad's sharaf is NOT out of line. When a brutal government is oppressing and brutalizing a people, even killing your own relatives, and you still defend that government with evey opportunity, you must seriously lack sharaf or vojdan, or perhaps are a slave to your ideology.

You are concerned that I am putting "more salt on the man's wounds". What about other people's wounds? Are you saying that he can freely put salt on those wounds by defending the very brutal regime that is creating all these wounds, and yet people have to stay calm out of respect?

Lastly, you accuse me of attacking anyone who is not "virulently" against the IRI. I do agree that I step out of bound in some instances. Have you asked yourself why some people may behave this way? Perhaps if the IRI was not as brutal, as repressive, as murderous and as destructive, then many of us would not react in this way.

We Iranians, both in Iran and abroad, are in pain. The pain that the IRI has caused for us for 30 years. Perhaps you don't feel this pain since you have not been its target. Perhaps instead of targeting me, you should target the source, those who are actually imprisoning, torturing, executing and otherwise brutalizing an entire nation.

Jamshid

I usually read all the comments and responses on the political articles, but I have never commented myself. But, your recent exchanges with other commentators prompted me to write for the 1st time.

Part of what I wanted to say about your hatred of Arabs, or your hatred of what Arabs did 1400 years ago, was already well said by Q, so I will not repeat it. Briefly, this is what I would like to say.

You seem to be really fond of "exposing" people. But, it seems to me that you have the wrong idea about what "exposing" means.

A person is exposed when that person has something to hide, has hidden it, and then, somehow, the hidden thing, whatever it is, is revealed.

So, take for example, Mammad, whom you attack unfairly or fairly all the time. One may or may not agree with what he writes about. But, he always writes clearly, to the point, and consistently. He seems to be an honest man in that, even when he writes something that might not be popular with some, he does not reinterpret his own words, in order to get out of the "jam," as many people do. We all make mistakes, and so does presumably Mammad. But, this does not mean that we should savagely attack people for their honest mistakes.

So, a man like Mammad needs no exposing, because he is very clear about where he stands. He consistently criticizes the West, consistentl;y opposes military attacks and sanctions against Iran, and while he has made it clear that he opposes the IRI, he believes that it is an internal affairs for Iranians living in Iran. We may agree or disagree with him, but we know where he stands.

In addition, I do not understand why you have taken it upon yourself to "expose" people, if they do need exposing. People can read everybody's comments and decide for themselves whether the comments are honest or not.

To be honest, you questioning Mammad's "sharaf" is way out of line. He has lost loves ones. It is his, and only his, business to decide how to mourn his loss, what lessons to draw from his losses, and how to view the people who are responsible for the murder of his loved ones.

Those of us who have not lost a loved one to political violence cannot even begin to imagine how those who have lost loved ones feel about their loss. But, despite your extravagant claims, all you do is putting more salts on the man's wound. After reading that attacks of yours, I was hoping that you would apologize to him for that attack, but you seem to think that you can question anything about anybody, even something as painful as losing loved ones to execution and murder.

One final comment: It seems to me that you believe that anybody who comments here must not only be in the opposition to the IRI, but must be so virulently. Otherwise, you attack them without knowing the first thing about them. Both premises are wrong. In particular, it is up to us how to express our opposition to the IRI. It is not up to you to decide for us, acting in a self-righteous way about what is the right or wrong way.

Jews killed Christ is a code word for antisemetism...

it has been used by everyone from Catholic Chruch to Hitler and KKK. I can appreciate some of what Jamshid writes, but I don't think he knows enough about this connotation.

Q: do you know any words beside Tehrangelisi baba???

You know some fancy words and know how to manipulate them, I’ll give you that. But what you write is absolutely, hopelessly content-less. You also constantly use an old and well known strategy of half-truth in your arguments which always works well for saying only the facts that work in favor of your arguments and then keep arguing around them. This technique obviously introduces a lot of contradictions in an argument, which yours is full of it without you either realizing it or relying on the folly of others not to noticing them. Here is an example, you wrote it right here on this subject and thread earlier about rejecting the idea of Iranians welcoming any helping hand in removing IRI

“Rarely in history of Iran has anyone sided with a foreign army for "freedom", no matter how bad their own government was …”

Do you see the contradiction in your statement and thought patterns: think Greek (Alexander) and Arabs for the most prominent examples in history. The arab story shoved down our throat for centuries that seems you are supporting with your latest writings was that Iranians sided and accepted Arabs and their culture, religion with open arms without much resistance. Therefore we must forget and love, peace, and the rest of cliche words. Why? Why should we forget or not seek the truth? Because once the truth comes out that it wasn’t an open arm acceptance of Isalm by Iranians but a forceful adoption one, they might rethink and start shedding this foreign Arab ideology and go back to something they were or search for new ones. What is really scaring you here about searching for the truth? Save your racism, love stories for your buddies. When Arabs were (still) raping our underage girls and boys they were giving them love, prophet/Aishe style, right?

On another note, looks like if Iranians have already sided with a foreign army before quite happily (filthy camel rider Arabs according to you and your kind), they might be willing to do it again under the right circumstances after all. My advise to you: learn logic, using it in your arguments, and stay away from half-truth strategies, they really don’t work in intellectual circles any more. But again if you were to learn these you wouldn’t be you. Another paradox, “Q” style.

Re: Q

I am glad to disappoint you. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Now on to exposing your fallacies which is always a pleasure for me to do:

You worte, "You single out arabs for what who they supposedly raped and killed in 7th century. This is just an excuse for racism, just like saying "Jews killed Christ" but "hey, I'm not racist, just pointing out what was done in history...."

1. Injection of clever words: "Supposedly" raped and killed in the 7th century? Or factually? Answer the question.

2. "... This is just an excuse for racism..." What?? Being disgusted at atrocities that the Arabs committed against my ancestors 1400 years ago is a sign of "racism"? Would you have me praise them for their acts in order not to be considered racist? Of course you do Q, of course you do.

3. "Like saying Jews killed Christ but hey, I'm not racist..." Yes, Jews did significantly contributed to Jesus' death, but stating this fact does not make one racist. Jews know and say that to each other all the time, so are you saying that Jews are anti-semites?

What a load of bull you have lined up.

There is a reason why I have not mentioned anything about the massacres committed by the Greeks, Mongols or others. The reason is simple: Today we don't worship Changiz Khan or his descendants. Nor we do Alexander or his descendants. For an Iranian, to praise Changiz or any of his descendants is a whore-ish act at the least. But thanks god, we don't have this problem.

However, we do have this problem with the Arab invaders. I do not like to praise those who raped, killed and looted my ancestors. It is my right to preach my opinion as much as it is your right to preach your version. Do you object to this?

Quote: "Get out of my face for your fake concern with people dead over 1000 years ago. Step into the 21st century..."

Translation: I don't give a damn about my ancerstors being screwed up by the invading Arabs. Good for the Arabs. It was all over 1000 years ago. Who cares?

Quote: "Only if you hate arabs over all else, will you make this a one-sided issue just about them."

Why Q, you are putting words in my mouth again! How Q-ish. Again, I don't hate Arabs. I have many good Khuzestani Arab friends. Througout my universtiy years, I had cordial relationship with Arab students, as they did with us Iranians.

What I hate is the atrocities that the Arabs committed 1400 years ago. I hate Changiz's atrocities too, perhaps even more. Does that make me an anti-Mongol racist?

Quote: "Your frequently fantastically exaggerated "history" is just an excuse..."

Your above quoted statement is worthless and only a false accusation, not worthier than a useless gossip, since it is not backed up by any evidence or example. (I love having you to spend time doing some research on my previous posts.)

And as far as pony tricks and old mules, etc, I appreciate your exposing your family upbringing. It is always a pleasure seeing your expose your own self.

Jamshid, Jamshid, Jamshid...

you disappoint me with your fading memory.

We already covered this in detail, were you goofing off that day in class when you were being schooled?

You single out arabs for what who they supposedly raped and killed in 7th century. This is just an excuse for racism, just like saying "Jews killed Christ" but "hey, I'm not racist, just pointing out what was done in history." Who do you think your fooling besides yourself?

Your racist rhetoric is a typical Tehrangelesi vehicle to escape responsibility for your own failures and those you imagine by others. There must be some "grand conspiracy", or "cultural reason from 1000 years past" that is responsible for the situation that you have decreed unacceptable. It couldn't possibly just be because of your own or Iranians' own doing. Even when it is, it's because "they were fooled by lies!" What a crock of BS!

Naturally, it's someone else's fault. Hm... let's see who the American media has decided is the root of all evil? Aha! Islam and Arabs.

You have spent hours and hours ranting against supposed arab atrocities, yet haven't mentioned one word about massacres that killed Iranians (and "raped" and "pillaged") by Greeks, Mongols, Afghans, Turks, Russians, British and Iran's own bloody internal wars throughout history. Many of these atocities have killed many more Iranian people.

Get out of my face for your fake "concern" with people dead over 1000 years ago. Step into the 21st century. This century is about getting along, learning to co-exist. What's the use of all this pent-up hatred?

Our own culture has many more influences than just 'arabs'. And iranian culture has much influence over Arabs, and others as well. Only if you hate arabs over all else, will you make this a one-sided issue just about them.

Your frequently fantastically exaggerated "history" is just an excuse. Apparently Mongols killing people does not warrant even one line from you. Yet you are hostile to today's Arabs and Islam.

Anonymous8 said it wrong. You are not a "one trick" pony. Pony is a young horse. It implies fresh ideas, and youthful vitality. This stuff is more like a "one trick" old mule. Stop acting like it.

Re: Anonymous8

I usually ignore your likes. "You hate Arabs, therefore you are racist" is an old cliche that you people don't seem to get tired using. You accuse me of having a "deep hatred for Arabs".

You lie.

I don't hate Arabs. But I do dislike "bi aar" Arabization or Westernization of my Iranian heritage. I also dislike the Arabs who raped my ancestors 1400 years ago. I don't "hate their race" as you falsely put it. I only hate what they did to my ancestors.

Your lie is exposed.

I just found out why Zion loves this website

it's full of people who validate his own prejudice against arabs and muslims. That is the only explanation. A brotherhood of racism between Persians and Jews!

Jamshid you are an angry "one trick" pony

everything always comes back to the deep hatred you have in your heart for Arabs. You prefer to live the battles of 1500 years ago. Your attacks are so incoherent, no one is reading them.

Mammad has plenty of "sharaf", that was a nasty cheap shot . something you are known for.

I respect Salar

I respect you for speaking your mind, reminding Iranians about the suffering of our people, and to point out the need for change.

And the more helpless weak people label with cheap shots like "tehrangelesi" the more stronger your points become.

Iranians should think more about how to fix our country instead of how screwed up and immoral other countries are. Until we do that, we are really no one to talk.

Re: Mammad #3

I want first to make it clear to you that I don't intend to debate with you. I am writing only to expose you to others.

You worte, "If I were in a position to improve the situation about ... human rights in Iran, I would of course do. But, the fact that I could not (other than writing about it and publishing articles about it, which I have done many times) does not mean that I cannot, or should not, be concerned about it elsewhere. Once again: Human rights are universal values."

WHAT A LINE OF BULL.

Who are you trying to deceive? You have never as much as even once opposed the IRI's violation of human rights in this site. You even brag that the IRI has killed your relatives, but you still have managed to think "objectively" and therefore defend the IRI with every opportunity.

And as far as your publications in which you claim you have written about human rights in Iran, first, I don't believe it until I see it, second, show it to us, give us some links. Third, can you take on this small challenge, or are you going to fall flat again?

Re: Mammad #2

Quote from your post: "I have lost a brother and three cousins to the IRI but, unlike you, I never lose my objectivity."

The IRI has murdered your relatives and so many more of Iran's children, and you still find yourself in a position that all over this site, you have to constantly run to the defense of this bankrupt murderous regime, and do so for "Iran's national interests"??

Don't you have any sharaf? How much farther are you going to submerge yourself in the IRI's filth? How much more should the IRI rape your principles before you shake up?

How dare you so arrogantly telling others, "not to do such things to yourself.... Do not lower yourself to such lows...."

Your audacity disgusts me. You Mammad are sinked to such lows that you are beyond redemption. You and all those who are prolonging the life of the corrupt IRI are equally an accomplice to IRI's crimes than any high ranking IRI officer.

Re: Mammad

There you go again Mammad... Same old Mammad... same old falsifications and lies...

You wrote, "it does not matter what the roots of Shiism are..."

How convenient. It matters when needed, and it doesn't when... emmm... needed!

Does it matter what the roots of Islam are? Of course your answer depends on convenience. How shi'ite.

Quote: "Shiism started when Imam Hossein married Shahrbanou, the daughter of Yazgerd, III"

You meant to say when Sharbanoo was given to hossein as a war prize "kaniz"? correct?

Quote: "Because Iranians were not willing to accept Arabs domination, they invited Imam Hossein to go to Iran... "

In another thread you said that Iranians accepted the invading Arabs with "open arms", now you are saying that Iranians "were not willing to accept Arabs domination". So which one was it? Do you see what I mean with "convenience", Mr. Mammad?

"Iraniand invited Hossein to go to Iran????"

According to "your own" Islamic historian, Tabari, both Hassan and Hossein were among the commanders of the Arab army sent to Mazandaran to crush an Iranian uprising. Hossein, this anti-ajam man, believed that Iranians are only good for being subserviant to Arabs. That must have been quite an invitation the Iranians sent to Hossein, Mr. Mammad.

Quote: "Any revolution with as much popular appeal ... cannot be attributed to the people being fooled"

Your sentence is deceitful. The truth is that "any revolution with as much deceicts, lies, exagerations, falsifications, purposefully designed to deceive the people, can indeed be attributed to the people being fooled."

The majority of Iranians who contributed to the revolution, from Jebheye Melli, to the Leftists, to the Pan-Iranists, even to melli mazhabis had admitted in one way or another that they were fooled.

And here you go with such disgusting hezbolahi arrogance still saying "popular revolution".

Come on out of your closet Mr. Mammad and say it like it is. Say what you truely are. Don't cowardly hide behind words such as "oh, but I am a reformist".

AnonymousIrooni

Once again: I gave you my reasons why I do not believe in what you say, based solely on what you yourself had said, and once again you reject them by resorting to generalities.

When you say that there are patriotism, nationalism and economic planning in the IRI, which practically nobody believes in (including me), you are giving too much credit to a regime that you seem to imply I AM SUPPORTING. That I find strange. You want to believe in what you say, do. But, in my humble opinion, you could not do it based on those elements that you listed, each and every one of which was easily refuted by me. You do not see that way, be my guest.

This debate is obviosly not going anywhere. But, just for the record:

I used treason only in relation with someone who supports military attacks on Iran. I said that, and I say it again. Saying, "I support military attacks on Iran" by an Iranian is NOT an exercise in freedom of expression. It is committing treason. I will not back down from this even an agnstrum.

I used criminal only in relation with invasion of Iraq. I have declared my opinion about this time and again: The invasion of Iraq was not only illegal (because it did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council), but also criminal because too many crimes have been committed as a result. I will not back down even an angstrum about this, no matter who says what.

If I were in a position to improve the situation about respect for human rights in Iran, I would of course do. But, the fact that I could not (other than writing about it and publishing articles about it, which I have done many times) does not mean that I cannot, or should not, be concerned about it elsewhere. Once again: HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL VALUES.

Regarding your adherence to Western ideology: First reread your old comment to see whether you did say "Western Ideology." You did, but that is besides the point.

Second, capitalism is NOT an ideology. It is simply an economic system. An ideology, as I said in my last response (check it for yourself though; do not take it from me), is an all encompassing school of thought. An ideology has a position regarding science, social science, political science, economy, religion, God, etc. A capitalist only advocates a certain way of running an economy. Same for liberal democracy, which is only a way of running a country politically.

Socialism is a prestep to communism. Communism is, indeed, an ideology. Therefore, the only ideologies (not economic schools, or political ones) coming out of West are Fascism, Nazism, and communism.

So, if this reasoning is playing with words to you, fine, I respect that. I am not insisting that you convert yourself. We are only debating.

We are obviously not going anywhere. So, this should end our debate.

Anonymoush: Pointless argument with "Motehajerin", history repea

Why are you wasting your time arguing with this guy mammad? I have argued with like him all my life. They are all the same and argue the same. Take you down to some nonsense details and use manipulation of fancy words and change angles and subjects so fast when they see they are hitting a wall in their reasoning, “safsateh bazi az noeh darjeh yekesh”. if you haven’t already seen it, get a tape of their master theoretician lajevardi argument with Mohajerani that happened about 10 years ago, it was shown live in iran. But after their master theoretician crumbled under impeccable logic, historical facts and knowledge of Mohajerani and this discussion on tv got many ozama of Qom involved condemning mohajerani crossing red lines, mainly questioning “imamat”, shia, mehdi and beyond, they promptly stopped the monazereh and mohajerani’s fate was sealed after that. This Dr my foot Abassi is not even half of lajevardi with his phd in theoretical physics. These idiots don’t even know the philosophy and theory behind the nonsense they are promoting and certainly they can‘t even backup iota of it by logic. In the book “Shak” by ghazali when he is arguing, much like lajevardi and mohajerani” with one big “motehajerr” of his time, he finally tells the stupid, don’t reason with me with imamat, reason with me with logic. Of course I don’t have to tell you what happens to him after that, halaj and sohrevardi weren’t as lucky and lost their heads in the process and if it wasn’t because of Mawlana’s family and his previous social status he would’ve ended up the same, although Shams wasn’t so lucky. They argue to a point where they test how knowledgeable you are about their nonsense and then if they see you are standing your ground and they are losing, the daggers come out and cutting starts. Don’t waste your time, much bigger and brighter than him has been beaten over and over again in historical arguments in their own game and their answer has always been the dagger.

Mammad you are playing with words

First, I think you are very clever here playing with words. It’s a good technique. I am sure the Islamists used these techniques 30 years ago to fool the Iranians. You are not being honest here Mammad. Again, I had nothing to do with changing the subject heading of my post. I would have kept it the same because it was appropriate due to your responses to others on this blog. Notwithstanding, I am glad you got a good night of sleep. Maybe you can think clearer this time.

As to you calling people names such as “Zionist”, that was OK and accurate. But here is were you are being dishonest with me and with yourself. You also called them CRIMINAL and TREASONIST. If you can do that, that I can call you a JOKE any time of the day. That was my point. So please stop playing with words and being selective at the language you used against others and what you choose to argue when you have committed the same acts you want others to stop doing.

Daree Khar Zerangi mikooni enjah!

Here is another instance of you playing with words to reach your own self serving conclusions (Ahmadinejad does that a lot).
“(iv) You said in your older response that, "I believe in Western ideology." Now, the only IDEOLGIES coming out of the West are communism, fascism, and Nazism. The question is, which one do you believe in?”

Have you heard of Capitalism/Socialism genius? When did I say I was a communist or Nazi, capitalist or socialist? I said I supported the west in its attempt to stop the IRI in getting its hand on Nukes. Look at the video posted by Anonymoush of this idiot Abassi character. You want this type of an idiot to potentially have access to nuclear technology?

You say:
“(B) It makes a heck of a difference whether a system is a dictatorship or a fascist or Nazi dictatorship. The last two are, at least in part, based on racism, the first one is not. We should be careful about what we say.”

Again, I showed you all the elements that are present in a fascist state and that they are also present in the IRI but some how you want to say that it’s a dictatorship because there is no racism? You first tried the angel that the IRI has division of power and a check and a balance system. This was a totally false claim. I was honest enough to agree with you that this may have been attempted during the Khatami years but again you come back with none sense such as tying G.W. Bush to fascism because he is militaristic. Or because the entire west is anti communism than its fascist. Please stop the non sense.

Not every fascist entity is the same. You can take out racism and replace it with religious fundamentalism. Result is the same. Instead of hating and enemy or creating an enemy that has racial characteristics, the IRI’s enemies have religious characteristics, i.e, not being Shia Muslim. Give yourself a break here.
Apparently, for you, there is Sunni fascism but not Shia fascism. Somehow, you become very defensive about this.

You also say:
“(i) that most objective analysts, including many in the US, view the IRI system as totally convoluted and, hence, not akin to the simplistic analysis that you present;”
(ii) that if the IRI system were a fascist system, we would not have so many factions within the right wing, in addition to the reformists, and other democratic groups, and”

Again, this may have been true in Khatami years. But this is history now. Additionally, the reformers in Iran have been completely neutralized. Please wake up and smell the coffee. Just because there are different factions amongst the conservatives, it does not mean that they are not fascist. Saddam’s Iraq and Assad’s Syria were both based on the Nazi Germany fascist model. Go read were the Bath party came from. They were not racist like the Nazis but they are/were fascist. I told you that all the elements of Fascism somehow exist in one form or another in IRI today. You play a silly game of saying that they also exist in US or the West. That is really silly.

Now in all honesty, what you missed and should have argued, is the fact that most fascist states also had/have a strong economic system that is lacking in the IRI. This issue has been argued by many who argue that we should not call these Islamic KooKoos fascist.

I suggest you read a book by Professor Arjoomand called Turban for the Crown. It was written 20 years ago and it beautifully explains how the IRI system resembles fascism. He can also explain to you how you became Shia. He was probably one of the first to make the connection of Islamic Fundamentalism to Fascism (way before that idiot Bush).

Even assuming that we can just call it a dictatorship, the point is that the West does not want such a regime to potentially get its hand on nuke technology. You brought in China, Russia into your arguments below. Russia & China will sellout the IRI in 1 minute for the right price. Who was it that sold all the technology and weapons to the Iraqis? The Russians and the French sold Saddam in less than a minute! Before, people like you would claim that the Shah was vatan foroosh because he sold out to the west. The IRI has sold out to third rate super powers much worse and much more demented than the USA.

You say:
“There is no question that there are fascist tendencies within certain groups in Iran, but we are talking about the whole system, not groups.”

The whole system is Mr. Khamenei. Wake UP! There is no system anymore.

As for the Palestinian issue, I was explaining to you why you and others such as (Abarmard, Xerxex & Bahram the Barberian) have no credibility. Again, you artfully turned the tables by bringing in the West’s crimes into the picture. The West has committed many more crimes than what you have listed. I don’t need the list. I gave you the list to show you how silly the Palestinian issue has become because of your type. You, the IRI & its supporters, have massacred the Palestinian issue and cause for the sake of IRI’s influence in the region.
The criteria is not “how many people have been murdered”. I did not say that. And yes Human Rights Are Universal. I pointed you to your hypocrisy which you fail to acknowledge. I also tried to explain to you how the Palestinian issue is unjustifiably amplified by the kookoo left and Islamist. First clean up Human Rights in your own house than after that complain about Palestinians who have corrupted their cause by adopting the tactics of Dr. Abassi.
Than you claim that my 2 million muslims killed at the hand of muslims is “imaginary”. Mammad, can you do simple math? Can you count the number of muslims killed in the Iraq/Iran war? Can you count the number of Muslims killed by Saddam in the past 30 years? Can you count the number of Palestinians killed by Jordanians during black September? Can you count the number of Muslims killed by Algerians? How about the Civil war in Yemen? How about the Taliban in Afghanistan? The Kurds (don’t they deserve a state if Palestinians do?). Can you count the number of Muslims killed by the IRI? Is it still imaginary to you?
Are you going to come and say that this is all a Sunni problem?
The point is that Muslims hurt each other much more than Zionists have hurt Muslims. If Muslims can’t treat each other with respect and offer Universal Human rights to each other, why do you expect it from the Zionists and why is it so loud when Zionist do a millionth of what Muslims do to each other on a daily basis?

Anonymoush

I had promised myself to never reply to you. But, since you raised a couple of points that the response to them might contribute to understanding of readers of this column about what is going on (which is the main point of being part of this debate), I decided to respond.

As my late father used to say, it is important what people say, but it is equally important who says it and why.

If Mr. X and I have seemingly the same opinion about something, it does not mean that he and I are in the same camp. My criticism of the West, and in particular the US, is not meant to deny a lot of great things that the US has done. Rather, as a naturalized citizen of the US I have a right, indeed a duty, to criticize the destructive foreign policies of a government that runs the country in which I live, which are in fact against the national interest of the US. I am not going to be blind to such destructive policies, simply because I live in the US. That is not what a good citizen should do.

Abbasi, who does not even have a B.S. degree, but is referred to as Dr. Abbasi, can say what he wants. Just because what he says may be similar to some of the things that I say does not mean that we are allies. I am my own man. I have read extensively. Even though I am extremely busy, I constantly read.

A good example is the following: President Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces that defeated the Nazi Germany. But, when he became the President, he greatly admired Hitler's construction of a network of highways and freeways in Germany for its national security, and started doing the same for the US. Does that mean that he and Hitler were allies?

Regarding the debate about whether the IRI is a fascist regime:

I am a scientist and publish 15-20 scientific papers every year in some of the best science journals. I am not saying this to brag, rather to make the following point. In my profession, when we write a scientific paper, we must reason and document everything that we say and everything that we claim. I cannot claim, for example, that the IRI is fascist, unless I can show that it conforms with the accepted definition and basic tenets of a fascist regime. Just because we like to see something in a certain way does not make it so.

Aside from all other reasons that I discussed in the previous posts, the worst - and the best - thing about the IRI is that it is unpredictable. To the contrary, a fascist regime can be predicted. That already makes the IRI not a fascist regime. All I did was debating whethger the IRI is a fascist regime. I said repeatedly that "not every dictatorship is a fascist regime, " with the obvious implications. But you and a few others seem to read things selectively.

Regarding Shi'ism:

In my view, there is a lot of misunderstanding about Shi'ism. People look at Velaayet-e Faghih and claim that this is the true Shi'ism. It is not. VF is only a theory of government in Shi'ism, advocated and implemented by a small group of Ayatollahs in Iran. It is not even the predominant thinking amoing the leading Shi'ite thinkers.

The Shi'ism that I believe in is a dynamic, progressive, and open religion, of the type many great Iranian muslims advocated and continue to advocate, from Ahmad Nakhshab, to Habibollah Peyman, Mahdi Bazargan, Yadollah Sahabi, Mohsen Kadivar, Taghi Rahmani, Reza Alijani, Hoda Saber, and many others, not to mention Dr. Ali Shariati whose interpretation of Shi'ism was great for ITS time.

Therefore, It is clear that I defend my religion and what I believe in against baseless statements, especially by those who have not studied the religion.

I makes no bones about it. I publicly talk about what I believe in, I publicly and firmly defend it, and posts such as yours, or other attacks do not deter me. We should either not claim that we believe in something, or if we do, we should be prepared to defend it. Any sensible man knows that, once we enter the political arena, we should expect unfair attacks, unsubstantiated and baseless accusations, etc. It is part of being political and talk about one's political beliefs. That is also why I regularly publish political articles in the print media and on the internet with my full name.

The only thing that bothers me about posts such as yours is that, not only are they baseless, but also stifle good, polite debate. Otherwise, I have a squeeky clean track record, and such things do not bother me. We can fool others, but we should not, and cannot, fool ourselves. I know who I am and what I stand for.

Truth hurts…..

Mammad I am not posting this to get a response from you but just to set the record straight.
I grant you, the second clip that I posted was a cheap shot and I should have resisted posting it. I am sorry. But, when I had seen the first clip (the fiery speech by Hassan Abbasi), it reminded me so closely of your position in many of the bloggs you have contributed to.

You claim to be anti IRI because you have lost your loved ones to this regime but you will argue point for point what Dr. Abbasi raises his fist for. In his view and yours, priority one is to denounce west and whoever that questions IRI’s right to Nuclear technology. You use the nationalistic argument to defend that position. You support spread of IRI’s brand of Islam in Lebanon because you see that as the only chance to get rid of Zionism. If anyone suggests that we should welcome any help even from our enemy, you get as aroused as Abbasi in his speech, trying to defend Islam. Here you are again using the piece that was meant to take me to the lowest of lows, bragging about your nationalism and that everything you do and say is to defend IRAN. But in practice and in reality everything you say and do will lead to defending IRI. You can’t have it both ways.

You tangle yourself in definition of fascism and go into such length to disprove that IRI is a fascist state. I suppose you do that because it has been used as Islamo-fascism (which I believe is the doctrine of IRI). Anything anybody says about IRI’s brand of Shia will tick you off and get you on your podium lecturing in defense of Shia Islam. You don’t need to be so paranoid about the world trying to insult your religion. Take a position that would make your lost brother and cousins proud of you.

Anonymoush

Do not do such things to yourself. Do not lower yourself to such lows. It would be unbecoming of you. If your reasoning is strong, you would not need such lows.

I have lost a brother and three cousins to the IRI but, unlike you, I never lose my objectivity. I separate my personal feelings and views from my views on Iran, and what I consider to be in Iran's national interests. It would be easy for me to transform my personal hatred of the IRI system to something far worse that would hurt Iran - due to my own great personal loses - but I will never allow myself to do it.

Once people stop having any shame, then it is useless to argue with them. I'll never respond to you again, no matter what you say.

AnonymousIrooni

Thanks you so much for relieving me. I will have a good night of sleep, knowing that I am not a joke. Your story is not credible, of course, but that is not important. On one hand, you say I am not a joke, but on the other hand, you say if the censorship henchman had not changed the title of your old post, you would have kept it!

You did not respond to many points that I had raised. That is fine. Let's debate what you did try to respond.

(A) Me calling people names:

(i) Calling Zion a Zionist is tantamount to calling him names?

(ii) Calling someone who says that he supports the West and agrees with what Bush says and does a Bushie is calling that person a name?

(iii) Since when calling a person a neocon is an insult, if that person is a ardent supporter of whatever Bush and company do, all based on neoconservatism? If you support the West, as you say you do, and in particular the US, as you obviously do, then why is calling you, for example, Westernized, name calling (I did not do that, though)?

Something is called name calling when you have no evidence or basis for it. When someone calls himself Zion to give a certain message, you become more Catholic than the Pope, and protest why I call him a Zionist? This is a totally novel concept.

(iv) You said in your older response that, "I believe in Western ideology." Now, the only IDEOLGIES coming out of the West are communism, fascism, and Nazism. The question is, which one do you believe in?

Perhaps, you do not know the difference between an IDEOLOGY, and, for example, a political or economical system. An IDEOLGY is an all encompassing line of thinking that has a position with regards to anything, from economy to social science to science, history, etc. Islam is an ideology. Marxism, fascism and Nazism are all ideologies. Liberal democracy is NOT. It is just a way of setting up a political establishment. So, which Western ideology you believe in? Since you mock the leftists, should I assume that you support fascism, for example?

(B) It makes a heck of a difference whether a system is a dictatorship or a fascist or Nazi dictatorship. The last two are, at least in part, based on racism, the first one is not. We should be careful about what we say.

(C) Let's see: The IRI is a fascist system because, according to you, the following elements are present in it:

(i) patriotism. So, any partriot may have fascist tendencies!

(ii) Nationalism: Aside from the fact that the IRI has suppressed all the nationlist groups, from National Front, to Freedom Movement, to Religious-Nationlists, and aside from the fact that the IRI has tried constantly to discredit the hero of Iranian nationalism, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, the only conclusion that I can make is that nationlists, like patriots, also have fascist tendencies.

In fact, many people who are fiercely anit-IRI, accuse it of not caring about patriotism and nationlism.

(iii) Militarism: Therefore, the G. W. Bush's militarism, both in the US and abroad is a sign of fascist tendencies. President Eisenhower, in a famous speech, warned againat militarism in the US. I guess, the US that you support is moving toward fascism.

(iv) Anti-communism: Therefore, the entire West, in whose "ideology" you believe in, is fascist. The Shah regime was fascist (that one was!). All the regimes that the US supprted during the Cold War were all fascists. Man, fascists are, and have been, everywhere, but I was not aware of them.

(v) Economic planning: Aside from the fact that economic planning was started in Iran by the Pahlavi dynasty (which were fascists), and the fact that the IRI has been trying to privatize the economy, all the communist countries were or are fascist?

(vi) Artocracy and anti-liberalism: I agree that this does exist in the IRI, but anti-liberalism also exists in China, much of south America, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. I have never ever heard anybody calling them fascist.

(D) Lazy fascism of the IRI: This is also a totally novel concept. Never ever heard of it. Of course, there is a first time for everything.

In addition to the facts

(i) that most objective analysts, including many in the US, view the IRI system as totally convoluted and, hence, not akin to the simplistic analysis that you present;

(ii) that if the IRI system were a fascist system, we would not have so many factions within the right wing, in addition to the reformists, and other democratic groups, and

(iii) that the fascist system would have created a homogeneous system without any dissidents,

your analysis of the IRI, based on what you said is totally wrong. You just like to think of the IRI as a fascist system and, therefore, you just call it that.
There is no question that there are fascist tendencies within certain groups in Iran, but we are talking about the whole system, not groups.

In my view, the IRI system is more tribal than anything else. Anybody who is somebody has set up a sort of domain of influence for himsaelf, which is why I referred to those two examples. This is not what you see in a fascist system.

(E) Your objection to my supporting of the Palestinians is totally absurd, uninformed, and wrong:

(i) How do you know what my positions are regarding all those hot spots that you mentioned? You simply assumed that people like me are indifferent. I do care, just as much. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL VALUES.

(ii) If the criterion is how many people have been murdered, then your beloved West has killed more than any other part of the world, and any ideology:

(1) Two million Vietnamese were murdered by the French and the US.

(2) 1 million Algerians were murdered by the French.

(3) At least 350,000 muslims were murdered by the Serbs.

(4) at least 1 million Iraqis have been killed since 2003.

(5) If you count Russia as a Western nation, at least 250,000 Chechens have been murdered by Russia.

(6) Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered by dictatorships, supported by the US, in Central and South America over a four decade period, from the 1950s to 1990s. In Guatemala alone, a small country, at least 200,000 people have been murdered.

(7) Hundred of thousands of people were killed by the Western colonizers in Africa, South America, and the far East.

(8) The Western ideology of Nazism started WW II, resulting in the murder of 47 million. I do not even mention WW I, also started by the Europeans, which also resulted in colosal number of people killed.

How many of such crimes have been committed by the muslims? None, zero, zilch, nada.

I can go on, but you should get the point.

So, you are totally blind to all the crimes that have happened under the banner of Western civilization and "ideologies," and instead tell me about the imaginary 2 million muslims that have been killed by other muslisms which, even if true, would be besides the point that we are discussing? It defies rationbale and logic. As I said before, think a bit deeper.

The origins of anti-shia and anti-Islam in modern Iran

I don’t know and could care less about when and where shia islam began and who did it or what it stands for. hey, don‘t get me wrong I feel the same about judaism, buddhism and the rest of useless “isms”. But I can tell you when anti-shia and anti-islam movement of Iranians started in modern era. that was 1979 when they witnessed the true face of islam and its mafia like clans of embedded Arab worshipers of IRI lead by ayatolah Khomeini that to this day stand against everything Iranian and Iranian heritage. They hate iran and anything and everything about our culture and want to eradicate it entirely much like their ancestors that came from deserts of Arabia. That has been their mission ever since they invaded our land and our minds. Khomeini said it himself I don’t care if all iran is destroyed as long as islam prevails and during first presidential election after revolution he said the president should not necessarily be Iranian as long as he is a devoted muslim, translation “nokar velayat o esmat”. this is their mindset, this is what they have brought for us. Nothing but misery and humiliation. We must start respecting ourselves, our culture and our freedom first, we must be pro-Iranian before we are pro-anything else, until that day, until the day we stop worshiping foreign books and foreign ideologies, and foreign invisible entities, let it be western or eastern we remain in this rut we are in right now.

FYI, labeling me tehrangelesi not knowing a thing about me. I am a true Iranian and did my undergrad there, I was there in dovom khordad, I was in koyeh daneshga, and regrettably I did vote for khatami and his deceptive clan thinking they could make a difference and stood behind them for early years. We tried hard to make a difference but everywhere we went there was repression and religious tyranny, some corrupt akhood and akhoond zadeh ruling like a king and not giving up the throne. I am still very much in touch with what goes on in iran and still keep contact with friends who dared to remain there. There are many many like me there, and we would make a deal with the devil himself to free our country, after all we did it with khatami, didn’t we? Where did that get us? All lies and deception to keep the regime on its feet and divert the student movement when there was enough momentum to make a difference and peacefully bring reforms to a broken and corrupted system. You fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Never again!!

Mammad, is this you leading the shia crowd?...

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT569kEkON4&feature...

Mammad, you are finally exposed

here you arefor everyone to see....

//fr.youtube.com/watch?v=weCXdHJj5q4

what would zion say when he meets an arab?

Mr zion has of course a zionist background. The zionists are the best to manipulate , exaggerate and turn evrything upside down just to achieve their desired outcome.

He comes here where he knows he can find a realtively large persian or Iranian comunity on line. his approach is quiet amazing, he has become the best firend of persia, he tells us stories where the origion of shissim comes from without even having heard the name of king Ismaelh. he tells us how close jews and persians are, they both should unite aginst evil of arabs, he has tary of danish pasters walking around on the day of purim to sweeten the bitterness of what jews did to persians(75000 killed by the order of Esther and his lover Moardchei)He knows anything about Iran and if hits a headle He just pulls it out his hat(He doesnt know the faith of shite was intriduced and promoted by the king of safavi and sice has been the base for Iran uinty)

now the question is what he would say when he goes to pan-arabic nationalists the one like the lebanse Saad Hariri or pro-goverment in Lebano. we are semitie arabs and jews are cusines and have the same dna, we should unite aginst persians terroirists????persians want to revive their empire and you sons of my uncle Esmaiel better stop hating me and start hating persians, they(persians) are your realy enemies. he as zionist should be well capable to do so.

Mr zion ignored my question posted twice, obviously there must be a reason for it.

why a non iranian be jews or muslims or whatever should get so much involed in an iranian affairs?what makes him so interested in something for which he lacks any background?????

would you go in an indian or african or chines website and so wholeheartedly invole yourselves in their matters????

on the record ; shite means the party of Ali it was intriduced by Safavi to balance off then Khalief from ottaman, another thing held dear by the king was Shahnameh which he knew off the top of his head. at the time the official language was arabic he changed into farsi.

zion doest know this stuff and I dont blame him for it after all..... HE IS NOT AN IRANIAN

Throwing zionists to the sea

Maybe there was no Palestine then, but it doesn't mean that you can buldoze their homes and create a little Israel, build settlements and then breed as fast as you can so that you can cling on to that stolen piece of land as hard as you can.
There is unjustice. There is an occupation which should end. The rest of the talk is just bullshit.
And no need to tell bloody lies about throwing Jews to the sea. If you suffered a holocaust it doesn't give you a right to impose it to others.

Befriend Jews, shoot zionists!

America and Israel - both invaders and both own WMD. That's what you cannot deny you little zionist bastards. Leave Iran alone.

Fairy Tales

Hitler and the Nazis also came to power with huge popular support, and their rise can also be attributed to many historical factors. It still doesn`t mean that the German people didn`t commit something akin to suicide at that time and believe you me, they paid dearly, and justly, for it.

The evidence and arguments for the origins of shiitism is not an invention of disillusioned Iranians. Iranians had actually nothing to do with the rigorous scholarly work upon which these results rest (that I know of.) This can explain why such superficial fairy tales, as you are narrating here, can still be believed by gullible souls over there so easily.

One thing you said though was very interesting:
There was no Lebanon in history. It was all part of Syria. Very nicely said. No argue there. But tell me, can we say the same about a certain `Palestine` as well, until it was adopted in the end of 19th century from European tongues by arabs and exploited to invent an imaginary fictitious 'arab country' in order to legitimize throwing Jews to the sea?

Mammad you are NOT A JOKE

Mr./Ms. Mammad
1)As to Insults, calling people names and labeling them
A. Please see your replies to Zion- Calling him a Bushi, Zionist, Neocone, Criminal .......
B. Please see your response to Pissed off where you said that he has committed “Treason” and that he is shameless

So is it only OK for you to label people and for us to submit to such labeling? Are you special because your name is Mammad? Is it OK to call Zion those names because he is Jewish and Najes? My point is, please don't make an issue out of something you yourself are guilty off. The title of my previous post must have been changed by the thought police here. I assume because they wanted to keep this thread serious. I had nothing to do with changing it. I would have kept the title the same. I will explain why I said you are a joke later. As to calling you Kookoo Leftist......Again, I ask you. Was it OK to Label Zion & Pissed off? I only played by the same rules you seem to have played by.......
As to the issues: Your first sentence says it all. You claim that I am defending what “cannot be defended.” As far as I see it, it is the exact opposite.
You say that “not every dictatorship is a fascist dictatorship.” I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Iran is a dictatorship but not a fascist dictatorship? Assuming you are correct, does it even make any difference? So its an Islamic Shia Dictatorship? How would you like to label it?
The Wiki article had listed the main elements of fascism which I will list below for your edification. All the elements of Fascism are present in IRI. There is no “power structure” in todays IRI as you claim. This is an absolute falsehood. The closest thing to what you described was attempted during the Khatami years and it was a complete failure. The Khamenei faction easily got rid of all opposition. Today we have a pure fascist dictatorship.

Your claims that there are so many centers of power in the IRI are just plain fiction. To be clear, in the USA for example, we have 3 branches of government: Judicial (courts), Legislative (congress/senate) & Executive (president). Each has specific granted powers which compete for power and influence. In addition, you have the states with their own powers, governors, counties, local courts........................ Conversely, in the IRI, the Velyateh Faqih can over rule everyone on every issue. He has final say. There are no such intricate divisions as you claim in the IRI. Are you saying that because you have a right to appeal a death sentence int the IRI courts, than there is division of power? Do you think that Mosullini looked at every law, appeal, legislation in Italy during his rule? No! Same goes for the IRI's fascist system. Mr. Khamenei does not have time to look at every little issue that goes to majlis. He is to busy writing his Friday hate speeches. Mr. Khamenei, however, can put the breaks on any issues. He has the last say. IRI's Fascism is TAMBAL (lazy) fascism, designed to fool the masses (who have not been fooled) that they have some type of democracy. OK we can call it a Fascist Democracy if you like. The point is that someone (regardless of the divisions of power that you allude to) has ultimate power. Sir, azizam, aghayeh mohtaram, this is fascism at it best.

Again, here are the elements of fascism:
1)A government, faction or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head:
A. Isn't Shia Islam and Sharia law the nationalism of the IRI and isn't it above the individual?
B. Isn't Mr. Khamenei's power autocratic and dictatorial since he has the final say on every matter and its impossible to get rid of him? So a body of elders votes him in! Great! The way we choose the ultimate dictator is done in a democratic way so that makes it OK on not fascist?

2) Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes
A. Again, Isn't Shia Islam and the belief in Velayat the only attribute that is promoted in the IRI?
3) The following elements are usually seen as its integral parts of Fascism:
a.)Patriotism- Present in the IRI
b) Nationalism- Present in the IRI
c) militarism,- Present in the IRI
d) totalitarianism & anti-communism- Present in the IRI
e) economic planning- Present in the IRI
f) Autocracy and anti-liberalism- Present in the IRI

Again, Sir, the is no power hierarchy that you speak of. Its a pigment of your imagination.
Finally, you say you are a supporter of human rights. In all of your postings below you mentioned Zionism & Israel. This is why I said you are a joke. You care about human rights? What the Zionist have done to the Palestinians is nothing compared to what Muslims have done to Muslims in the past 60 years. Muslims have killed over 2 million Muslims in the past 60 years. The Israelis have killed no more than 30,000 Palestinians and 700,000 of them lost their property 60 years ago. If you were outraged just 1% of the level of your outrage about Muslims killing Muslims to your level of your outrage about Zionist doing the same, I would say you are credible.
Look at the world around you today:
1)China & Tibet
2)India/Pakistan (Muslim v. Hindu)
3)Darfur- Muslims murdering and involved in genocide
4)Kurds/Turks
5)Russian/Chechnya
6)Tutsis/Hutus
7)Afghanistan/Russia/Afghanistan/Taliban
This is just a short list. Everyone on the list is a bigger tragedy than what has happened to the poor Palestinians and the Imperialist USA or Zionists had no role in any of them. Yet somehow Zionism got into all your Postings. Zionisim also got into every other pro IRI person's posting on this thread and other threads on this site (See Abarmard, Xerxes, Bahram the Barberian. This makes you have ZERO credibility joonam. This is what makes the whole thing a Joke.