|
April 13, 2003
* Bourgeois anxiety towards change B. Banaei’s article “Freedom for fools” begins with an attack on my article “Unapologetic imperial rule” and then enters the realm of fiction. It doesn’t surprise me that sometimes people read what they want to read instead keeping their minds open to the various points that are made in an article. I never stated, nor did I imply that the American approach to Iraq is suitable for Iran. All I said was that the US war against Iraq may provide that extra push for the democratically minded Iranians in Iran to take their fate into their own hands. I do not believe in or advocate any kind of ‘neo-conservative’ agenda. I believe ideology often blinds a political actor and leads to failure. Sometimes I get the strongest impression that all this hue and cry about leaving things in the hands of the people is nothing more than a deep-seated bourgeois anxiety in reaction to change -- any change. Leaving things in the hands of the people in this context often means condemning them to a lifetime of humiliation, oppression and misery at the hands of their indigenous despot. It is absurd to think that somehow local tyranny is always preferable to outside influence that may actually improve the lives of individual citizens. * Imperial Quisling Syndrome After reading A. Shahmolki's "Unapologetic
imperial rule" I decided to show the article to experts in the
study of morbid social psychology. They were unanimous that such political
excrement can only exude from the pen of an individual who is suffering
from what they call "Imperial Quisling Syndrome." Here's how
they explained it: That sort of fantasy combined with a basic feeling of impotence and self-loathing
drives them to politics of extreme, hoping to be noticed by the powers
to be. Individuals who suffer from this syndrome are narcissistic to the
extreme and are capable of extreme cruelty. In positions of power, they
are harbingers of death and destruction, and secretly worship as their
heroes such figures as Hitler, Mussolini, and our famous quisling the
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. * My biggest worry Thank you, A. Shahmolki, for your editorial. It's been a long time since I've enjoyed reading an editorial on your site as much as I enjoyed "Unapologetic imperial rule" It is as if A. Shahmolki took the words right out of my mouth. I would stress more the role that oil plays in this war. My biggest worry is that the next American President decides to abandon America's role in Iraq and allow it to become the next chaotic, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. * No self-dignity to want America to conquer their land God Bless You Mr. or Ms. Bana'i (the letter B. before your last name does not tell which!) for writing a sound, even handed, level-headed, and patriotic article [Freedom for fools] in answer to these treasonous and westoxicated Iranians who want their country destroyed by U.S. military so they can go back and be able to wear bikinis when they go to the Caspian sea and engage in all other kinds of ludicrous activities. Their brains are as thin and superficial as can be. There is nothing more despicable for an Iranian to want the U.S. to attack Iran militarily and destroy everything and kill our "hamvatans" just so they can go back and rule a wasteland. These people are worse than the most evil enemies of Iran. They are worse than Faust who sold his soul to the Devil. I am so ashamed that there are actually "Iranians" who think this way! But I am not surprised, the tragic history of modern Iran is rife with
these kinds of people who have sold their country to "ajnabi"
just so they can stay in power (from the Qajar Shahs who sold chunks of
Iran like Azarbaijan and the Caucasus to Russians for money to go to Europe
all the way down to the last Pahlavi Shah ! ) They are the most superficial and vain group of people who have no conviction
and no self-dignity to want America to conquer their land so that they
can freely engage in their even more superficial and vain life style.
They are such cowards that they wouldn't even join the Americans in fighting
the Revolutionary Guard or the Basij. They would sit in their lounge chairs
and sip their tea and write their so called "analyses" of the
events in Iran ! ! and make predictions as to when the regime will fall
! ! and their countdowns to their famous "referendum" ! ! Thank
God for all the dignified patriotic Iranians that we have had throughout
our history (Sattar Khan, Baqer Khan, Mirza Koochak Khan, and Mossadeq)
and still have inside Iran! * Have to get your hands dirty It is all too apparent to me what a pathetic Islamic Republic sympathizer B. Banaei is after reading his/her article "Freedom for fools". Banaei claims that "we can solve those [Iran's problems] ourselves and measures have been taken to address these issues within the confines of the Islamic regime." What measures are those? First of all, who is "we" exactly? I don't know where Banaei resides, but there is very little that Iranians abroad can do to help the ailments which currently plague Iran other than encouraging their respective host governments to help bring about a change in Iran from the outside. In addition, why would anyone want to continue under the Islamic Republic's form of government considering the damage they've done to Iran's socio-economic state? What Iran needs is a revolution to completely clean house and drag those damned mullahs by their balls through the street for what they've done to the people of Iran. And guess what? Revolutions are bloody! Whether they come from within or without. Who has time to see whether or not these mullahs are going to reform themselves and bring about true democracy to Iran? The 70% of Iranians who are under the age of 30 sure don't. If you want to have change in an oppressive regime like Iran, you're going to have to get your hands dirty. Nobody likes to see civilians killed but sometimes thats what it takes to get things done and bring about effective change. As for U.S. involvement in Iran, I would hope that the U.S. government has learned enough since their last mistakes made in Iran to know that what Iran needs is a truly independent and democratic system of government free from outside influence. Separation of "mosque and state" for Iran now and forever! Sohrob Tahmasebi * Second class citizens under American occupation Thank you so much Mr. Banai, for truly and wisely picturing the short
and long run of the so called You said it all. What I just wanted to add to what you very eloquently
said is that Americans or, more specifically Bush'e administration, have
changed the name of Under the Mullah's regime we Iranians might be poor or rich; educated
or uneducated; tall or short, but, we all are first class citizens, whereas
after American occupation we will be the second class citizens which is
the same as being slaves or, having masters!! * Ready to slit some hezbollahi throat Reading B. Banaei's piece "Freedom for fools" made me sick to the stomach to think that such Iranians exist. Yet they do infact exist, in high numbers--10% of a population is still a substantial number. These are the kinds of vicious idiotic morons we have running our country. I personally disagree with the use of force to bring democracy to Iran but nonetheless I still think Mr/Ms. Banaei is an incredibly simple minded hezbollahi jomhuriye eslami ass kissing traitor. Banaei, Who are YOU to speak for the Iranian people? You are an IDIOT for thinking ANYTHING can be solved "within the confines of the Islamic regime". The Islamic regime is composed of vicious Arab parast animals like yourself. Go back to Iran and live there if the situation is so great you hezbollahi hypocrite pussy. I have been out of Iran for two years now and I am 19, young, and I am eager to slit some hezbollahi throat (like your own). Freedom will come to Iran, not through an American attack, but the Iranian people will do it themselves -- and when Iran achieves this freedom, there will be the greatest MASSACRING of you hezbollahi fags and I will rejoice when this day comes. Stop spreading your pro-regime Islamic arab fascist propoganda you waste of a human being. * Anti-American and prosperous? Where? After first reading "Freedom for fools", I had originally decided not to respond. After all this was written by someone who believes anti-Americanism and isolationism bring some sort of stability to the Middle East. This guy must be a genius for coming up with a theory like that! Where did he get his political science degree? B. Banaei's rambling incoherent editorial is directed to the Iranians whose loyalties are to the brutal Islamic regime of Iran -- those who have sold themselves to a vicious and dirty government. Though they are a minority, they are the ones who plague our country at the moment like a cancerous tumor. These people seem to believe that being anti-American somehow benefits Iran. After 24 years, they fail to realize that being anti-American gets you absolutely nowhere. I wonder if anyone can name a country that is anti-American or anti-West and at the same time is economically successful and prosperous? There are none. When will the hezbollahis realize that hate and killing accomplishes nothing? When will the hezbollahis realize that this is not JUST about the devastated economy, but also the social problems created by the Islamic government (prostitution, drug dealing, depression etc)? People holding hands or listening to American music is none of your business or the Islamic republic's. You cannot force your fascist Islamic views on the majority. It's hilarious how you somehow believe that you represent the "average Iranian" and how you honestly think that the Islamic government is "popular". Keep telling yourself that, but you will be in great shock later on. If America ever does attack, the only people who will be killed for the most part are people like you -- hezbollahis who love the Islamic regime and will do anything to keep Iran in it's fascist and devastated state. That is precisely why you fear it so much. Stop your rambling. Nothing you can do or say will stop what will happen in the next 5 to 10 years. You do not have a place in the future of Iran -- maybe Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would love to take you in -- or maybe the Taliban can recruit you ;). * Right idea, wrong approach The discussion about "an American foreign policy rootred in American traditions" is a mini-essay in need of a response. It is good that Saddam Hussein will be removed from his position of power. It is not so good that the operation which is getting this done is being carried out essentially by one superpower with the help of relatively few friends. It is better for operations like this to be carried out by international coalitions that have the general support of the international community, than by narrowly based coalitions. Also, President Bush is going to be coming before the American people next year to ask for our votes to reelect him. When it comes to the reelection campaign, Bush should answer for the decision to break down the Iraqi front door when the UN had already opened the back door for us. In this case, the back door approach could have gotten the job done with many fewer casualties all around, than have resulted from the current approach. It is something to hope and pray for, that the Saddam Hussein dictatorship will soon give way to an elected Iraqi government which will serve the people of Iraq. * A fool or a mouthpiece In response to Banaei's article [Freedom for fools], all I can say is I hope he is joking. We don't need American's invasion to solve our current predicament. However we can use every support of the West and America in our fight against this blood thirsty regime of mullahs in Iran. This regime is dependent economically and politically on other countries. However the mullah regime is portraying our nation as a backward and terrorist country. We are still dependent on other nations. The only difference is that those nations are now a bunch of communist or ex-communist countries and some Europeans that are after making a lot of profit from selling their outdated technologies and weapons to us in return for our oil. And the mullahs are pocketing most of the wealth of our nation while dictating to us how to live our lives. This to me is shameful. What you said is shameful. All I can say about you is either you are a fool who lives comfortably outside of Iran or you are a mouthpiece of mullah regime. Payandeh Iran * I wouldn't blame them Dear B.Banaei, And you have the audacity to accuse Iranians and Iranian-Americans for advocating the use of military force against the ruling akhoonds/thugs in Iran![Freedom for fools] Then again, I wouldn't blame them if they did!? Obviously you have forgotten Iranian casualties incurred by the Islamic Republic and the Iraqi regimes over the past 24 years. To refresh your memory, I will enumerate for you those victims: 1) Thousands of innocent military and civilian officials just because of association with the previous regime (the late shah of Iran), 2) Tens of thousands of young and innocent students, workers, etc. just because of association with various political groups, 3) Hundreds of thousands of military and civilian people due to the bloody war instigated by the Islamic Republic and initiated by the Iraqi regime, 4) The list goes on and on and on.... I am not even going to mention the mutilated, forced to being Jendehs, Taryakees, etc. etc. The only stable thing one could envision about the Islamic Republic regime and its associates are going to be those Louisville sluggers wrapped in barb wire, marinated in hot molasses, and inserted up in their rectums if you know what I mean!!! Finally, get out of my country (USA) if you don't like it. America is not for hypocrites like you who benefit from it while being loyal to Akhoonds, France, Russia, etc. It would not be any trouble for the FBI and the INS to arrest and revoke goodies (e.g., citizenship, green cards, welfare checks, coupons, student loans, etc.) from people like you!!!!! God Bless Iran, America, and Israel. * Minimal government, and democracy It is time for iran to have a democracy. When one person rules a country, he will become corrupt with time. Iran has tried kings, mullahs, tyrants, arabs, mongols, turks, macedonians, magis, and others. Ultimately, all these rulers represent one thing: people with no skills to serve society, and the desire to rule others. For example, a country needs doctors, engineers, teachers, janitors, bakers, laboreres, police, etc. Why should hardworking, educated people be ruled by others who do nothing but take, and not contribute to soceity? For example, what skills did Mohammad Reza Shah have? What was his education? What were his qualifications? Countries should move towards minimal government, and democracy. * There are Americans opposed to neo colonialism God Bless you for having the balls to tell the truth [Freedom for fools]. I am an American who lived in Iran and I have been writing for Iranian.com and saying the same thing, my exact words in fact that the US is only interested in creating vassal states and not the exportation of democracy. Never mind that I hate globalization and the imposition of western "culture" on the whole world eradicating the richness of indigenous culture and reducing the proletariat to consumer status. I am so ashamed of being an American. I am greatful that there are a handful of American intellectuals like Michael Parenti and Noam Chomski who are telling the truth. I want you to know that there are Americans who agree with what you are saying and who are vehemently opposed to this neo colonial fascist empire that America has been since the end of WWII. If there is a hell it will be full of CIA, Savakis and Israeli secret police...and of course all the weapons merchants of this world who sold Saddam 27 billion dollars worth of WMD. Stupid Bush just had to show us the receipts from the sales as the "proof"....I am totally offended by the US media playing to the public emotions parading the 5 US POWS as a smoke screen to hide the atrocities of the US bombing. Bush has turned back the clock and made this world totally militarized and dangerous and ruined everyone's goodwill and trust in just a few short years. These are terrible, terrile dark times we live in. * Has anything positive come from the use of military force? Banaei makes very good points in his "Freedom for fools" article, despite some of the exaggerations. It is easy to understand why many young people in Iran or outiside Iran despise the gov't so much, but come on. First of all, much has improved in Iran over the past decade or so, and second, any regime-changing war in Iran could have catastrophic, long-term effects, turning Iran into an Iraq or Afghanistan or worse because of the much larger population size. Look at Iran's history, has anything positive come from the use of military force to establish a new regime?? * You can not fool us Dear Mr. Banaie, [Freedom for fools] I am sorry to say that your scenario about the impending American attack on our country comes out of a sick mind. Time & time again the American high authorities have stressed that they are not going to attack Iran, but they want the regime change in Iran by the effort of the Iranian masses. To compare the situation of Iran & Iraq is foolhardy, & you know it damn well, yet you keep pouring out the content of your sick mind. Why have you put the task on your shoulder to falsify the facts & make our people afraid for no reason? What right you consider to have to insult our country men/women in such a grotesque way? You have to accept that the Iranian Diaspora are well versed & educated who do not need your perverted advice. You can not fool us. Yes we are free but not fools. Only those are fools that they think that with all the freedom we enjoy out of that hell are fools. Also Mr. Jahanshah Javid's perverted mind makes space available for such rubbish to be published, under the pretext of freedom of speech. He also thinks that the readers of Iranian Times are fools. What a thoughtful editor! As we say in Persian ( DOME KHROUS AZ LAYE GHBAYE SHOMA PEYDAST ). If you are a kind of a spoke person for the IRI murderous regime then be brave enough to come out with it out right. We very well know the kind of you, changing your name or signature just to create diary among our people. You people are not capable to hide your real face from us any more. I do not understand why you bother yourselves. Keep your invented, perverted, fiction accusations for yourself. H. Hakimi * How many countries is Mr. Bush going to liberate? While addressing the Retired US defense service personnels President George Bush has laid emphasis on his own failed presumption that his war is only to liberate people of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussain. How many countries is Mr. Bush going to liberate in this wide world of Allah? Is he prepared to liberate America of his own tyranny? Is he prepared to liberate China of Communism, which he hates? Is he prepared to liberate Chechenya from the clutches of Russia? President Bush instead of dreaming about setting the world right should think about the state of affairs in his own country, otherwise he will go down in history as a failed President of America and his dream of returning to White House for the second term will still remain a dream unfulfilled. George Bush would be better advised to go through the letters of resignation from John Brady Kiesling, Ann Wright and Richard Pearl, who have resigned on their differences with the policies of Bush administration over Iraqi war. Small people they may be in the eyes of President Bush and the henchmen around him, yet they talk sense, if you try to kill even a cat in a closed room, she is going to jump on your throat. Don't go that far in your dream of world hegemony by pushing the Muslalmans against the wall. Saddam Hussain has shown them light at the end of the dark tunnel and they know their way now. It would be better if respecter‚s of world peace, understand the meaning of PEACE for ALL. * Slanted reporting perpetuates anti-U.S. hatred Why is it you don't report when Saddam and his groups kill civilians, take children hostage and force men to fight under the threat of death to his family.. You cannot say you have not seen this or have not had access to the victims of Saddam' brutality.. If this is the case you have the worst reporters on the globe.. I think you want to perpetuate the anti-American sentiment. Saddam has killed more of his own people using gas and torture then have been killed in this war, yet there where no protests then. It appears to me that you don't care for these people until it involves the U.S. If you gave a damn you would have been protesting what Saddam has been doing to those poor people for the last 12 plus years.. The American public do not want to hurt innocent people, we do not want to kill civilians, we do not want to occupy Iraq. What do you think Saddam would be doing now if it were not for the U.S. intervention in the first gulf war? Who would Saddam be targeting now? Containment is not a solution to his tyranny, it is only a delay. In the long run less will die if we deal with it now then later and I think it is the other countries in the middle east who would be targeted by his brutal ambitions. Yet you hate us and your slanted reporting is what perpetuates this hatred. Joe R. * You deserve to be led by Bush In response to "High noon in Baghdad", Billy (in the great tradition of American name-abbreviating technique), Hegel once said: "you must recognize a people from those who claim to be their leaders." And if that's too much to grasp, the famous American learned Richard Prior also said: "You order shit, you get shit." This simply means one thing and that is: there's no wonder why a person such as dubyaa is leading a people like yourself (who probably belongs to the American so-called intelligentsia.) You American folks deserve to be led by Bush's and Powell's of this world. Your "analysis" of things are inaccurate, and demagogical at best. All the litter that you spread here is merely saying one thing, that it is alright if you repeated somebody else's wrong doing, and that in itself is very American just like the American cowboy crap, cowardice and lack of any kind of principle (whatsoever). Does this mean that the European leaders are better than the American ones? That Putin is a better man/leader than Bush? That the Chinese are better than the other two? That the people against this unjust invasion are pro Saddam? No. No. No. No. Besides Osama and Saddam are your men. Yes Billy they are your "sons of bitches". Can you deny that these people are American CIA's creations? Is it wrong to point this stuff out? That the mere fact that the French are committing atrocities in Western Africa should not be justification for the Americans to invade another country for oil, even though that country is run by an American-trained butcher... Stop being deceitful if you can. Then again, that's probably too much to ask from a yank. For deception is another red-white-and-blue trait. Just go back and read your forefathers' thoughts and actions. I sincerely hope you're not an educator. * I would like to hire you to defend Iraq Since, you introduced yourself a lawyer in this article [The war brief] and took the position to act as the defence for the defendant "USA". I would like to hire you (hypothetically) to defend Iraq. What chance the accused has? Of course, your fee would be matched to what you got paid by the defendant. You can not hide behind the conflict of interest clause and being an American patriot, [you] are a lawyer, and you have taken the hypocratic oath (or something like that). [See reply below] p.s. I am not a lawyer (I know!). I can hear the reply,"no shit". * Safest way to peace In reply to the above letter, One of the blessings of my profession, with or without the oath (which is not the Hippocratic oath, which you meant to call it -- our oath is to just uphold the law), is to be able to make an argument out of any set of facts. We lawyers, more than winning and less than losing cases, love a good argument, and we build our arguments like engineers or architects design buildings. In the defense of Iraq's position (which I offer to you free of charge and on an equal academic footing as the The War Brief), I would state, it, as a country, has the ultimate right of self-defense, as does any country. I would also state, it, as does any other country faced with insurmountable odds on the ground, has every right to defend itself by whatever means, including the unorthodox means. I also believe, as does the International Court of Justice, it is not illegal to use weapons of mass destrcution, nuclear (may be as well as others) in the ultimate defense of the country when faced with its own survival. I just happen to believe that the safest way to peace in this region is that every country be armed with weapons of mass destruction so that any attacker would be assured in return its own destruction. Having said all this, I would also state that the doctrine of preemptive self-defense in the Middle East has had only two modern precedents: Israel in 1967 and Iraq in 1980. This latter one may amuse you -- were it not for the provocations of the Islamic Republic to export its revolution to the Iraq, incite the Shiites to rise against the Baath, to encourage the Kurds to set themselves adrift in the northern Iraq, and the Ayatollah's personal enmity to remove Saddam Hussein (whom he viewed as a lackey of the deposed Shah of Iran), maybe Iraq (Saddam) would have not invaded Iran in 1980. The pity is that the Iranians, always the victims, have bought their government's propaganda that the war was "imposed" on Iran. That war also showed -- and the U.S. should have learned from it -- when attacked by a foreign power, the inhabitants of the attacked country do not rise to topple their own government. That has happened only once before in living memory -- Italy at the end of World War II. * Hidden motives in legal action Regarding Mr. Guive Mirfendereski's March 14, 2003 article "The
war brief" I would like to say the following: To hell with your "laws for justification of war on Iraq."
Just like the dictator of America and his Zionist masters, you rely on
empty words to justify the invasion of Iraq. And to be sure, the recent "judgments" by "courts" in America will "prove" through Mossad and CIA "intelligence" (we have recently witnessed how reliable our "intelligence" is in our historic military miscalculation) that Iran has killed Jews and Marines. We will agree with Argentina that Iran indeed bombed Jews in that former vassal -- but now bankrupt -- state. Then our leaders then will produce evidence that Iran has "WMD" which are an imminent danger to America and Israel. "Expatriates" will concur that the people want to be "liberated" from the brutal dictatorship ... and of course that Iran created Al-Qaeda (they will find a picture of a plane hitting a building as conclusive proof). The leaders of the "Iranian opposition" --a unemployed sissy from Maryland and some Islamic Communists -- will repeat what they are told to say on cable TV. And then, of course, America will burn, kill, and humiliate one of the most beautiful nations in the world and will again destroy the country's best assets -- its people. After we are thoroughly sodomized on television, our new liberators will take the profits from controlling Iranian resources, give it to some Jews who sue Iran in American courts, give some to their former oil companies, and of course give some to Israel (just $10 billion, even when America's economy sinks into depression) for "staying out of the conflict". To hell with your "justification for war". War sucks. Why don't you use your brain and write a justification for peace, professor. * Let's build a new federation After reading some interesting articles in The Iranian, I would like to make my observations. Basically we have become people with limited vision and much hatred; both stifle our growth. Actually, we (and here I mean the whole Islamic people) have not grown much for the last 4 to 5 centuries; the Ottoman Emprie was not much of a growth, when you compare it against various European Empires. Look at USA, built by Europeans, but when these Europeans came to America, most of them left their quarrels behind and pitched in to build something for themselves. Why can we not work hard and honestly, and build our homelands, may be even make unions similar to EU or even USA is a union. When we will be united and be able to run all the affairs of our new federation by ourselves; we would have left a good legacy for our childern and their childern. * Biased comments about the Shah Your otherwise informative article "Ghorbati" in The Iranian has been unfortunately tainted by the needless and biased comments you made about the late Shah. Iran, though not perfect, was the most progressive, free and developed society in that region. Scores of intellectuals like you deluded themselves with praise for Communism, Maoism and other mantras as the shiny path to be followed, totally unmindful of the darkness that would follow. When challenged, most of you cried foul and sought cover under the mantle of intellectual expression. The grievous changes that were to follow were of little interest to you or to your colleagues, so long as change occurred. The Shah, as you well know, was merciful, compassionate and pardoning. His interest remained solely with the advancement of Iran and her people. Were it not for his humane traits, you, (along with many others) would not be where you are today, sitting in your 'ivory tower', enlightening us lesser mortals, with your words of wisdom on "GHORBAT". * Research on Abadan I am in the process of a research on the history of Abadan
from as far back to its present day and possible future developments.
More letters (April 13, 2003) |
Archive By
subject Kaveh Golestan
|
|