IRANIAN.COM

Wrong Jamshid, Wrong again...

the question of if a government is "legitimate" is for the people of that nation to decide. Disputing by force if such a government is truly "democratic" or "democratic enough" for some other country is itself undemocratic and has no place in the UN, NATO or any other international law/treaty/understanding. That's reality.

If we accept your argument that means it's OK to pay terrorists to kill Iranians just because IRI is "illegitimate". That's lunacy.

Since it's obvious your views about the current government of IRI is clouding even elementary logic, let me disprove you this way:

because the US government is a legitimate entity while the IRI is an illegitimate, undemocratic, unpopular, totalitarian government.

So, it was OK to fund separatist terrorists in USSR? In China? In Vietnam? In Cuba? In Afghanistan? In Saudi Arabia? South Africa? Sudan? All of the Persian Gulf countries? Pakistan? The comparison is the same, and it is still illegitimate. You may have a moral point about bad governments in general but it's not up to other countries to make that determination.

We Iranians really need to get over are worshipping of all things American and Western.

The IRI however, has NO rights in Iran or in the world, simply because it is an illegitimate government that oppresses and brutalizes its own people.

This is just your opinion, not reality. International law disagrees, UN disagrees, so do almost all major human rights organizations. Even the US disagrees. If IRI is illegitimate than probably 50% of all world governments are illegitimate.

As for the rest of your personal opinions, they are only your own no matter how much they sound like a political stump speech.

Re: Q

You wrote, "If IRI "funded" a radical seperatist group inside the US that were attacking and killing American soldiers and police, what would the US do? Be honest with yourself. The comparison is rediculous."

I think I agree that the comparision is ridiculous, but not for the reason that you stated. It is ridiculous to compare these two because the US government is a legitimate entity while the IRI is an illegitimate, undemocratic, unpopular, totalitarian government.

The US government have a right to defend its people. So would a democratic government in Iran. The IRI however, has NO rights in Iran or in the world, simply because it is an illegitimate government that oppresses and brutalizes its own people.

You wrote, "given the repeated failure of a conciliatory policy by Iran, IRI is currently pursuing the best realistic option available."

Yes, but for its survival and for ideology, not for the interests of the Iranian people.

The interests of the Iranian poeple is in the abolishment of velaayate faghih, the guardian council, the expendiency council, assembly of experts, and other undemocratic institutions.

The interests of the Iranian people is in a foreign policy that is not confrontational, but instead is based on peaceful intents and cooperation with the rest of the world.

The interests of the Iranian people is in proper management of Iran's economy and riches in order to maximize the quality of living for Iranians. Ideology, Israel/Palestine issue, and everything else should come second to that.

The interests of the Iranian people is in a secular form of government where a few individuals are not able to hijack Islam, destroying its popularity, and forcing their interpretation on other Iranian moslems. In fact the IRI has done more in damaging Islam, both in Iran and in the world, than any previous regime or dynasty, including the Pahlavis.

y'all might want to

create another blog and move the debate there before JJ shuts this baby down.

As we are now limited to the number of posted comments per blog. Especially, if they are repetitive which always happens.

Solh va Doosti

Natalia

Anonymous4Now,

first, what you have is a definition of "cultural hegemony" and this is the first time you have used that phrase.

second, Our discussion was on bombing of Iran and "war" as in "war monger" that Kashani used. That's why the only appropriate use of "hegemony" is the one relating to international relations. "Cultural hegemony" is not marked by war and occupation. So, I'm not sure why you are now redefining our discussion which could qualify for "changing the subject."

third, You may have some points on cultural hegemony of IRI "culture" on Iran, but if that's what you meant, it is not any more or less so than the Shah's regime or that of almost every other government in the region. For example non-Jews in Israel could be said to be under this kind of cultural hegemony, as would the French canadians in Canada and Kurds in Turkey. All these groups have complained about such cultural oppression before.

As far as IRI has imposed its ideological supremacy, I fail to understand how a government can do that based on a national constitution that was voted for by 90%+ of Iranians. Many people somehow conviniently forget how popular Islam really is (and has always been) in Iran. Do you really think it's only 500 or 1000 Mullahs who prefer and "impose" Islam and Islamism? You are mistaken. The shah's mistake was the same, he did not realize the power and influence of Islam in Iranian socity and indeed identity.

I would agree with you if you say that discounting non-Islamic identity of Iranians is hegemony. But I see less and less of this under the IRI. In fact, I see far less of it from today's IRI, than the complete erasure of "Islam" from Iranian identity in the early 1970's. Nothing about the Pahlavist institutions, deeds, "celebrations" or anything else gave any credit to Islam and this did not sit well with traditional muslim Iranians. That was a much better case of "cultural hegemony."

As far as when you say IRI has been "hegemonic" in the region, you are just flat wrong, no matter which definition you use. IRI has neither occupied ("hegemony" by the definition that is relevant here)nor "forced an ideology through government" ("cultural hegemony" as you have redefined it, and is relevant perhaps inside Iran, but not in Lebanon or Iraq).

"promotion" of ideology, especially among shiites who have been historically repressed in Iraq and Lebanon is hardly "hegemony." That's not too far from saying promoting "anti-slavery" is "hegemony" of former slaves. It's certainly not being done by force because IRI has no enforcement mechanism to control people's behavior. It is done by promotion in the context of shiite revivalism, building a bond between a shiite country and shiite people, exactly like the French who have a special relationship with Lebanese christians and the Israelis who have that relationship and promotion to the Jews throughout the world. Saudis have historically lead the promtion of their onw brand of Islam throughout the world with great success, much, much better than Iran could ever hope to do. No one has called that "cultural hegemony."

fourth, I find it especially telling that you pointed to the defintion of "cultural hegemony" by Antonio Gramsci, someone who invented the term directly to oppose fascist western governments. His whole point was the a secular, capitalist nation exerts this kind of hegemony by its control of media and information. This critique has been much more widely applied to the US and Western Europe and the Soviet Empire than to Iran.

On your discussion on "terrorism," I see nothing to contradict my point that "hot war" itself is terrorism and therefore US and Israel are guilty of it. Do you seriously think that "shock and awe" had nothing to do with "breaking down the will of the population" and "causing terror" among the civilians so that they would not resist an invading army? Modern wars are all about this crucial psychological concept. Almost all Israeli strikes have the same psyOps signature of breaking down the will of the civlian population that support resistance. This isn't even controversial, it's an accepted strategy openly employed by Zionists.

So since both of these are clearly terrorism. We must now turn to objective measures like the number of civlians killed to understan who is more of a "terrorist."

As far as who was "better off" under Saddam, etc. Unfortunately your opinion or mine does not matter. The Iraqi's themselves, overwhelmingly reject the US invasion. Saddam being in "power" is also not unconnected to 12 years of US sanctions and blockade which reduced and destroyed all native means to resist the dictatorship (itself only strengthened thanks to 8 years of active support by US and US puppet states during the 80s.)

There would be no such thing as "Saddam Hussein" in our vocabulary had there not been active US support for completely unrealistic and opportunistic short-sighted reasons to keep him power artificially. "Better or worst" is a moot point since in both cases the problem was US interference.

Had the Arabs not fallen for Naser’s false premiss of Arab Nationalism, Palestinians would have been an integral part of the Israeli society,
Arab nationalism was a predictable response to colonialism, which no matter how it is excused, the state of Israel ultimately represents in the Middle East. Perhaps had the Jewish immigrants accepted to live side by side inside Palestine without declaring a "jewish nation", like thousands of ME Jews had done for centuries, there would also have been no bloodshed. The true blames are plenty and not one-sided.

20% of the Israeli population is Arab and I have seen with my own two eyes how well they are doing.
That doesn't justify anything Israel is doing to Arabs elsewhere in Lebanon and Gaza/West Bank and when Israel has attacked its neighbors. In addition, you can see "with your own eyes" anything you want to see. There are exceptions in everything. However there is clear divisions between average income, education, college entry, and social status of Arabs versus Jews and even Arabs versus Druze, Ashkenazim and Mizrahim. The numbers don't lie. The wealth and the politics of Israel are controlled by the Ashkenazi.

Any country that has "Jewish-only" roads and allows only it's non-Arab citizens to carry guns, where only Jewish residents are allowed to move into West Bank occupied settlements and even given protections to steal more land is no where near a "democracy." I suppose we can call it a democracy just like US and UK were democracies 200 years ago. And South Africa was a "democracy" 20 years ago.

But Israel's internal racism is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about war mongering and "terrorism." You are of course wrong when you say that without IRI there would have been peace in Palestine. What about the 30 years before IRI? Was there peace in the region than? Or is IRI another excuse to continue blaming the victim like it was done for years before any such thing as "IRI", "Hezbollah" or "Hamas".

These are excuses. The facts on the ground haven't changed. Palestine is occupied country, with millions of its population in refugee camps. Refugees and occupation bring resitance and retaliation. No amount of sugar-coating will erase these facts.

Since the Intefada the Palestinians who used to go into Israel to work and earn a living, have become replaced by Chinese workers, because of the fear of suicide bombings. To encourage both sides to keep fighting seems to me like dosstieh khaleh kherseh.

Perhaps you are now beginnig to understand what I and others mean when we say that Israeli policies are also terrible for the jews. There is only one group in Israel who continues to benefit from this struggle and that is the Israeli elite and industrialists. There are people making $Millions off this war and it is not Iran or Arabs. If there is peace, the huge military aid to Israel from the US tax payers may have to stop (as it was scheduled to be lowered and stopped under the clinton administration before 9/11). That's millions of dollars that goes directly to the Israeli economy and the US corporations who provide the military goods to Israel. This is a military industrial complex that runs deep in both US and Israeli societies and controls much peripher economic industries as well. Much of the success in Israeli economy is directly related to military spending and the science that is developed in expensive military labs and is later put into the civilian economy. All of that makes many many people millionairs.

Those people don't want it to stop and are thus allied with the truly ideological fascists who push the war policy on religious and hegemonic grounds.

to Bijan:

will you tone down your rhetoric and refrain from provoking an enemy that doesn’t even need provocation (as you suggested)?

I agree that rhetoric should be toned down by both sides and it is unhelpful to the cause of peace. But you still seem to believe this is about Iran's "rhetoric." People don't go to war and spend $Billions for "rhetoric" this is only an excuse for people like you to stop looking further about why they may support a bloody conflict.

There has been no hostile rhetoric from Iran for a while now. Has it stopped the war cries? Has it stopped the sanctions and war preparation?

During Khatami, Iran's position was all about dialogue and conciliation. The nucear enrichment was halted for years and still nothing was appeasing the Bush administration who ripped up all attempts at peaceful dialogue.

Now, if you are a realist in Iran, you care about facts and results and not ideology. You see that Khatami accomplished nothing by his peaceful gestures. Indeed it only made US bolder because it was now convinced that Iran is weak and it doesn't have to negotiate for anything. You see that North Korea didn't bother with any negotiations, pulled out of the NPT, detonated a bomb, and guess what? nobody is calling for a war with North Korea. A realist could be well justified in thinking that the only thing that works against the US is threats and fear of Iranian retaliation in Iraq or Israel.

It would be nice if "lowering rhetoric" was something that US and Israel respected. But the fact is they do not. They only pursue a might makes right mentality and unfortunately that usually leads to war.

So, I would say given the repeated failure of a conciliatory policy by Iran, IRI is currently pursuing the best realistic option available.

Sahray-e Karbala…..

Q, you disappointed me with your dodging a simple question of realism and diverting the debate to a long essay about US foreign policy, its hypocrisy, its terrorism around the globe, its warmongering, etc….Excuse my childish style, but for one second, for the sake of argument, let’s assume:

-US, UK, Israel, Russia, France, Germany, and China are all scum of the earth, have no moral values, are imperialists and warmongers,….

Let’s also assume that:

-IRI is the only democratic government on the face of the earth. They have not and they will not sponsor terrorism, they have no intention of spreading Islam or destroying the Zionist government

Given the current state of the world, with these assumptions in mind, if you are a realist (Anti or Pro IRI) and don’t want innocent people killed or harmed, will you tone down your rhetoric and refrain from provoking an enemy that doesn’t even need provocation (as you suggested)?. Or, will you risk the lives of your people on the premise that you are righteous?.  

I think this is a simple and legitimate question that deserves a simple answer.

This is not a debate over the crimes of IRI against its own people and its systematic and meticulous long term plans for destruction of Israel, spread of Shii’ Islam around the globe,etc…It is not even a debate about crimes of the west (as you put it).

It is a debate over the stupidity of IRI’s unrealistic stance that could jeopardize the lives of millions of innocent people.

In my humble opinion, those who think that the reality will change after Bush & Cheney   leave the office, are in denial and day dreaming. 

Regards,

Bijan 

Q here is the definition of

Q here is the definition of hegemony that I am employing.  (…hegemony consists of socio-political power that flows from enabling the "spontaneous consent" of the populace through intellectual and moral leadership or authority as employed by the subalterns of the State. The power of the hegemony is thus primarily through coercion and consent rather than armed force. Such conceptions are sometimes referred to as "cultural hegemony.") //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony.

The IRI has, since its inception, imposed its ideological supremacy, not only on the nation of Iran but on some of its neighboring countries also.  The Iran Iraq war was a direct consequence of it.  In addition through funding ideologically based organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, they are attempting to spread their ideological supremacy, or hegemony into Lebanon and Palestine and are committed to the annihilation of Israel.  Supremacy of the military kind is referred to as an empire.

Terrorism is the concept of creating terror in the civilian population as the means of breaking down the will and subjugating a civilian population.  Secret agents popping each other off, is similar to two armies facing each other and is not defined as terrorism, but a war; one is cold and the other warm.  However, a suicide bomber’s intention is to cause terror and mayhem amongst civilians.

But let’s get past the linguistics and talk about the human aspect of it all, if you wish.  I don’t want to digress too much from my own concerns about my homeland and worry too much about the headaches of others until I have resolved my own headache, so to speak.   

Since you did bring up Iraq and Israel here are my tidbits.  

The war in Iraq was won in less that 3 weeks and yes if Rumsfeld had a second chance he would not have dissolved the infrastructure of the country.  But to put things into a perspective, Iraq would not have been better off without the war (250,000 Shiites were killed at the end of the first Iraqi war, and Kurds were massacred with chemical weapons, and the population at large lived in fear and suppression and the semblence of the democratic system we see there would have been delayed till saddam or his sons or their sons, died.  There was mishandling of the after math of the war, by the U.S., yes, but the misdeeds of Alqaeda and Irqais killing Iraqis can not be blamed on the U.S.

Israel has been in existence for 60 years.  Had the Arabs not fallen for Naser’s false premiss of Arab Nationalism, Palestinians would have been an integral part of the Israeli society, the only democracy in the Mid East, and may have actually become the majority by now.   20% of the Israeli population is Arab and I have seen with my own two eyes how well they are doing.  I truly believe that, had it not been for IRI hegemony for the past 30 years Palestinians would have been living side by side with Israelis; a relationship that would benefit Palestinians more than Israelis.  Since the Intefada the Palestinians who used to go into Israel to work and earn a living, have become replaced by Chinese workers, because of the fear of suicide bombings.  To encourage both sides to keep fighting seems to me like dosstieh khaleh kherseh.

Anonymous4Now

I'm confused by your recent posts, but I appreciate you having now responded "directly" to the Kashani post exactly as you asked of me later.

I'm glad you realize that Kashani's quote is preposterous and illogical. You say, you can sympathize with his point. This seems to suggest that perhaps he exaggerated for dramatic effect. I'm not so sure. Right now if you ask Bush and Cheney if US should have invaded Iraq knowing that there were no ties to terrorism and WMD, they will both say "Yes." In other words, they are so delluded as to make it plainly obvious they do not care about facts and never have.

Kashani seems like such a person to me from everything he is writing. Facts are treated with no respect and outrageously stupid claims are made with the ease, just like well-known liars and warmongers.

Now to your own questions of me.

How could you not see something that is as plain as day light?

I'm not sure what the "something" is. If you are referring to Kashani's claim that "Iran is the only warmonger", then your response makes little sense since Kashani's premise is a laughable falsehood.

For the past 30 years the IRI hegemony has created mayhem the world over, funding and orchestrating most of the terrorist activities in the Mid East, and creating a reputation for Iran which does not befit the character of its people, all the while tormenting, torturing and killing and terrorizing Iranians.

"Hegemony" means overwhelming domination of one group over another by force, usually in racial and ethnic terms. In modern international relations it means occupying other countries. There is no sense in which IRI is "hegemonic." You can possibly make an argument for hegemony of Persian ethnicity over that of Azaris or Kurds, but that's not what you were talking about. You are either abusing or misuing the term.

US is most often labeled a hegemonic power because of the economic and military domination it has over many other countries in the world. USSR was rightfully called the same, and so was the old British Empire and many other cases going back to the Roman Empire where the term was initially coined. Iran or "IRI" is not a hegemonic power. The simple pre-requisite in modern terms is occupying, which Iran has not done for over 300 years.

"terrorist" activities is of course assessed by the people who do not consider bombing and occupying other countries terrorism. When CIA and USSR used to kill rival spies and dissidents around the world by the hundreds for over 60 years, no one called it "terrorism." Similarly intelligence operations of all countries have committed human rights atrocities. I do not approve of them, but they have historically not been called "terrorism." If you insist on this label, then, I will have to insist that you count all external intelligence operations by US, UK, Israel and other countries as terrorism, which will make what IRI has done to its dissidents in Europe in the 80s and 90s pale by comparison.

Second, if you count Hezbollah and Hamas funding as "funding terrorism", again the label is opportunistic. I won't deny that SOME of what they have done is certainly terrorism. But Hamas was ALSO funded by Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Christian falangists who committed much atrocities in southern Lebanon against civlians were funded by Israel and the US.

Hezbollah and Hamas are both fairly elected governments of their respective constituencies. Hezbollah democratically represents the biggest single group of people in Lebanon who have been for historical and colonial reasons not given their fair share of power. In any case, If IRI was sending actual Iranian suicide bombers into Israel (something even Hezbollah has not done), you could say IRI is committing terrorism. But giving support to Hezbollah is exactly the same as giving millions of dollars to Israel, a violent hegemonic nation that has committed much more terrorism than Hezbollah. The figures of the numbers of INNOCENT CIVILIANS killed by both sides are there for everyone to read. There has been 5 to 10 times as many innocnet palestinian and lebanese civilians killed by Israel than vice versa.

I will accept that "IRI is funding terrorism" by supporting Hezbollah, if you are grant that "US is funding terrorism" by supporting Israel. A fair minded person would value innocent civlian bodies the same on both sides and military aggression as problematic equally on both sides.

Wouldn’t the West benefit more by reaping the benefits of lucrative contracts with Iran, much like Europe, and especially Russia, have in the past 30 years rather than boycott and Saber rattle.

That is your opinion. Of course some US companies would want this and would rather there be no restrictions. But hegemons are historically never happy with this arrangement. The reason is simple: if there is no military force, than what is there to GUARANTEE these lucrative contracts go to US? If it's a "free" country, these contacts could easily go to rivals like Europe and China. Also, the nation in quesiton may have biases against US (imagine that!) and not let them have the contracts. Sure, the US side can "compete" in a free market, but by attacking and taking over the country it doesn't even have to compete. Case in point: Iraq. Saddam WAS trading plenty with Europe and US was not willing to compete in an open market by lifting its own sanctions against Iraq. So if US and UK were not getting any contracts, what's the harm in destroying the country? It's not making YOU money anyway, so therefore there is nothing to lose. Maybe after "the war" the "situation" will be more favorable toward your economic entities, especially if they are protected by 150K troops.

So in conclusion, your opinion may or may not be valid. Secondly, it may be outweighed by considerations of even more profits in the future.

Have you asked yourself, why would the U.S. benefit from a war in Iran?

Why would the US benefit from a war with Iraq? We know it happened even though those who waged it knew they were lying about the reasons. The argument was made that Iraq's oil could pay for the war, and at the same time allow US bases and companies to be present in the Middle East region.

There are many many reasons to take on and destroy Iran. As a global hegemon, US needs to set examples of countries that do not obey its orders. The Iranian market is ripe for cultivation of American goods and services which do not yet have a foothold there. The oil of Iran is now extremely valuable given that oil is running out in general. $Trillions are to be made of the last drops of oil. US is caught in a strategic rivalry with China and India who will need more energy if they are ever to compete with the US militarily. Cutting their access (controlling and blackmailing them) via middle east oil is key to making sure they don't overpower the US militarily some 50 years in the future. There are plenty of reasons but these are not important. The fact and the history shows that US administration wants to do this and it thinks along these lines. (See: Project for New American Century)

Would they not avoid it if Iran was not provoking them?

Absolutely not! Are you kidding? Was Saddam "provoking them?" Was Vietnam "provoking them?" Was Grenada "provking?" This is just brainwashing propaganda. If by "provoking" you mean, "daring not to obey" perhaps you have a point. But by any real definition of "provoking" it has been the US that has provoked Iran over and over again.

You talk about Terrorism of IRI "funding" Hezbollah, a group fighting only on it's own land against aggression of Israel. Yet, why don't you mention the funding of MEK, PEJAK, Jundullah and other groups by the west which are directly killing Iranians right now? Is that not terrorism? Is that not provocation?

If IRI "funded" a radical seperatist group inside the US that were attacking and killing American soldiers and police, what would the US do? Be honest with yourself. The comparison is rediculous.

Regarding Khomeini: of course it's a completely different thing to ask your government to stop supporting a dictator (like the US and Europe were doing to Shah, and are still doing to Arab dictators) than to ask it to attack and invade another country (like US and UK did to Iraq). I don't believe Khomeini was talking about invading and overthrowing Shah by military force.

If he was, than he was wrong. I do not approve of it.

These are direct responses, as you asked for. I hope you will not stupe to name calling and changing the subject as has been my experience with most people on this site. But if you are interested in a discussion, we can continue.

Q

You made the same accusations on Farhad Kashani on another thread to which I responded and have reprinted here:

C'est la Vie

Excellent observation for someone who has been here since the age of 10.  I completely agree with you.  Some people subconsciously take positions favorable to the regime and for extremely good reasons, from their point of view.  You hear them throw a lot of loud slanders at others calling them vatan forosh because in their frame of reference they are concerned about Iran.  Iran is nothing without Iranians and as long as this group’s sympathies lie for the dirt in Iran and “the progress” in Iran (as if in the absence of mullahs progress would be impossible) and they overlook the suffering and the torment Iranians are going through on a daily basis, they mistakenly believe themselves to be more patriotic and for core democratic values.  What is material progress if it is not empowering people to live better lives with dignity and in freedom? 

I wrote the next paragraph on another thread:

In addition, there are people with a defeatist attitude and believe the fact that the IRI has been around for 30 years, legitimizes the regime, especially since 99% of the 36 million people in 1979 voted for them.  Any grievances against them is old news and, although they accept the fact that the IRI  killed and committed atrocities in the beginning, to them, things are getting better since they are not killing as many as they did in the fervor of the revolutionary days.  Uprooting this regime would be a backward move and a loss of all “the achievements” of the past 30 years.  They believe in reform and that that one day things will be better.  In contrast, I believe you cannot compromise your values and principles and should call wrong, for what it is.  Any material progress, even if we accept that premise, at the expense of human suffering is regression and not progress.  While some people believe that the IRI is an experiment that will eventually succeed, whole generations of Iranians are suffering the consequences and losing out on this short life.   In addition, any reform accepted by the regime is a weakening of its grip on power, which means a reformed judiciary would prosecute the crime of those in power, today.  The regime will not roll over to be weakened and prosecuted.

Dear Q you are welcome :o)

It was my pleasure to go searching for the post, so that Mr. Bijan could give you an adequate response on it, if he so chooses to.

By the way, what is wrong with being a "realist". I am a "realist" and I am fine with it.

Meaning of realist:

"The disposition to face facts and to deal with them practically."

              -Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2004

Solh va Doosti

Natalia

Kashani, easy!

Kashani says: "you keep engaging in name calling ..."

Kashani_jAn, you don't seem to know the meaning of name calling. Mr. Rashidian has a good example of that when he calls many of those who disagree with him IRI "lobby stooges" (see Rashidian's post below titled "Salar"). I and many other posters have politely identified Mr. Imani, you, ...., and JR as extremists instead of identifying you with the word that Mr. C'est la vi is fascinated with for example (see below).
Take it easy Kashani ...

Fair is fair Q…

Please calm down and let me do some house cleaning before getting into this post. I never intended to be condescending and may have sprayed my previous post with more sarcasm than I should have but I did not mean it in to be offensive. If you took offense, I apologize. I have always considered you as a very intelligent and reasoned individual. In all honesty, I think you are a member of some think tank somewhere in the US. Unfortunately, I find myself on the opposite side of you in many debates. I afford you, Sadegh, Mammad,……in disagreement (in many debates, not all) the same degree of respect that I do for Salar, Jamshid, Rashidian, Anonymous4now,….in agreement.

Back to the subject of this particular debate, I think you are reading a little too much into the intention of my post.. I had not read Mr. Kashani’s post in its entirety. In many debates on a variety of issues I support Mr. Kashani’s stance, opinion and viewpoints. I will not speak for Mr. Kashani, but I think he has composed that post in haste and probably in the heat some emotional exchange with other posters (I have not followed the entire thread). Regardless of the circumstances, I do not agree with the single statement that you have extracted from his post but sympathize with his frustration that IRI is equally responsible for provocation of a hostile exchange.  I am not as sophisticated and well read as many others on this site. But, I pride myself in having some common sense and being a realist. My previous post stemmed from my amazement that every effort is focused on stopping the west from hostile reaction and none whatsoever on trying to soften IRI’s provocative stance. That’s all….

Anonym7

Oh no, you have dashed my new career hopes. Guess I gotta call the bank manager again...

Did you call Langley though? Or that scary Bermuda Pentagon where the remains of anything can vanish into thin air?

No worries, there is always a chance that somebody here will write us a good recommendation. Otherwise we could just run for US president and run the show rather than wait for secret phone calls and emails. Think I'll add that to my CV's 'motivation' statement.

Peace!

Natalia, I'm not sure why you feel like you have to intervene

Yes, I made an observation about the other thread and Kashani. The observation was about his first sentence, and the rest of the paragraph does not negate the first sentence. The questions I asked are all about that first statement. It's completely logical to question that statement, indeed it is something that needs to be questioned.

This was not directed at anyone but Bijan responded to it, anyway. Except unlike his own righteous demands, he did not do so "directly." And he knows it.

Bijan's previous comment was already a response to my statement about Kashani. Besides cheap shots in his first paragraph he makes references to my question about Kashani: "pretense of objectivity" and "being in touch with reality." This is why calls me a "realist".

Just like I said, Bijan read my words, completely discarded them and now is "responding" by trying to change the subject and using cheap insults to "demand" a "short direct response," condescendingly. He accuses me of not reading the entire post, and jumping the gun and calling people "zionist", yet he is too blind to see that he's doing so himself.

So, I'm not going to give him a "direct answer" until he gives one to me. The questions I asked originally were not directed to him, but he chose to respond to them without any kind of directness, nor did he answer any of the questions. So, it's only fair that he practice what he himself preaches before issuing demands to others.

Dear Q and Dear Bijan

Dear Q,

I checked on the War mongers in congress are on the march again blog and Mr. Bijan was not on that thread. How do you expect him to answer to the sentence "The only war mongerer in the world is the fascist regime in Iran." ? It is insufficient information.

Is it logical to repost a sentence from another thread/blog and expect Bijan to respond to it, in an intelligent manner without providing sufficient information on why Mr. Farhad Kashini made such a statement? No!

I don't mean to be harsh on you. On  my previous statement, I tried to make it clear that when posting one sentence, all that can be expected is an analization of said sentence.

Dear Bijan,

I have provided the link to the blog that Mr. Q is referring to, so that you may read the blog and any previous comments. You may want to read Mr. Q's posted comment to Mr. Kashani as well. Here is the complete posted comment by Mr. Kashani. I put in bolded letters the sentence that Mr. Q quoted.  It is up to you now, to decide whether you wish to respond to Mr. Q.

by Farhad Kashani on Mon Jun 23, 2008 04:09 PM CDT

The only war mongerer in the world is the fascist regime in Iran. A few Iranian political groups who blame all the problems between the U.S and Iran which was caused by the Islamic fundamentalism supporting policies of the IRI, on lobbies such as AIPAC or on Israel, unfortunately, resist any attempt by the U.S or anyone else to weaken the Iranian regime. Some of the leaders of these groups travel to Iran freely and come back, which raises the questions how much support they got among Iranians and how much credibility they have between them? Iranians who want nothing less than the demolition of the regime in Tehran. Earlier, they were blaming Republicans only, and making up excuses that Republicans are going for a “crusade” against Iran and other accusations, now they are “surprised” that Democrats are taking action too. The same thing with Obama. They talked about him as he is their savior, and as soon as he spoke against the barbaric regime in Iran, they turned against him calling him an “AIPAC puppet”.

Solh va Doosti

Natalia

Bijan, you want a direct response?

what makes you think you deserve a direct response given your extremely opprotunistic framing of the question? You have basically taken my words, thrown them away, and reinterpreted the comment as affirming exactly the fantasized caricature that you have of me.

Why didn't you directly answer the issue that I raised in my comment which was on the specific claim made by Kashani?

I am normally more than happy to talk about Iran and the nuclear issue and US foreign policy. However, since you insist on a "direct response", I will not do this now.

Until you "directly respond" to me in my last post, you will not get a "direct response" yourself.

Fair?

Q

I am one of those sad and pathetic people who is here to feel that I still matter. Please indulge me with your extreme realism and help me with these disturbing thoughts that have been eating me alive. Please let me finish my sentence before calling me Zionist or vatanforoush.

Would it be unfair to expect the same amount of organized efforts invested in persuading the US government (and her allies) away from military actions or sanctions, to lobby with same rigor to persuade the IRI away from their goal of nuclear weapons?.  I am not debating here in defense of US position on any other issues around the globe. Only the issue of Islamic Republic in control of nuclear arms. 

You speak of being in touch with reality. How realistic do you think it is to assume US would concede to a Nuclear Iran? (again, the debate is not about the morality or righteousness of the US position). It is just a matter of reality.   If you are sincere about your claim of being a realist, shouldn’t we be lobbying as hard to soften the provocative stance of the IRI if we really care about Iranian lives?

A direct and to the point response is very much appreciated.As the Persian expression goes: please “be sahraye karbala nazan”   Thanks  

Anonymos7, you keep

Anonymos7, you keep engaging in name calling and insulting people. I never called anyone whom I disagree with on this site a “borderline fascist”. I certainly call the regime in Iran, fascists, cause they are. And as far people looking for attention, obviously I’m gonna disagree with you. As a matter of fact, from the tone of their posting, I can say that there are more people from your political spectrum who are here for attention and boost of self confidence, than ours. Mr. Rashidian and I and Mr. Imani and others, love Iran. The difference between us and you guys is simply that we have correctly identified whats wrong with Iran and how to fix them. On your side though, there are some who have not been able to identify those issues, and some who, deliberately, do not want to admit to those issues. The second groups activities and arguments are extremely destructive to the cause of democracy in Iran. First group is too, but not as bad. Please don’t be part of the latter.

you have no chance! (to Niloufar)

Niloufar_jAn, you have no chance of getting that money! I am from that region of Iran that everyone says are zarang, I was ready to sell my soul to any devil, Dick, George, or even the new one John, I also impressed them with my resume full of lies that proves I have single handedly lied more than 935 times! (//www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/?gclid=CLKa...).
They really liked my resume, and I satisfied their prerequisite (my soul could be devilized), but they said I did not impress them nearly as much as those charlatans in California, specially the ones who run some of the "Iranian" TV stations! I feel sad and rejected!
Do you want to put yourself through that mendacity?

Anonym7

heck i didnt realise this was a fast track to higher pay.

$75 million?! where do I sign?!

And I want a jet ski like Edwards' one pls, but faster! 

Mozdooran!? (to C'est)

C'est la Vie, there definitely are some Iranians who get paid to be part of pro IRI propaganda machine .... and there definitely are some Iranians who get paid to be part of anti IRI U.S propaganda machine. As you may know the latter group are known as members of $75 million club (by now perhaps more like $750 million club).
Now, what is it going to be gained if you call your opponents "mozdoor" and your opponents call you "mozdoor" or "member of $75"? Can you prove they are "mozdoor" and you are a clean guy? ....

Ay Val!

I agree with you...see, "Mozdooran."
While some on this site may be IRI supporters, others are meerly ignorant of their surroundings.
I really didn't know just how many Iranians were willing to take bribes directly and indirectly from the IRI until I moved to California and saw the reality. Unfortunately, when money is offered, and I mean lots of it, people forget the political prisoners in Iran, and all other victims of this regime in the last 30 years. Perhaps we should once in a while put pictures of the executed youth hanging from cranes on this site to remind Iranians exactly who/what murderers they support (even if they are in denial) by engaging in businesses, associations, and "non-profit" organizations that make themselves rich and help the IRI's agendas abroad in the USA, EU, and Canada. Yes, many people outside of Iran live in freedom and sell out the opposition in Iran who risk their lives to protest against brutality. These opportunists should think of how society will turn against them if one day Iran is free...which will happen someday.

Well dear Q

I have been considered rather objective is my assessment on many areas.

Let me have a go at it. Of course, I have not read Mr. Farhad Kashani's complete post.

Based on the following statement, it is not completely accurate. If he had worded it differently then it could have been a more true statement. He chose the "world" which makes it inaccurate. In the world there are many kinds of wars going on which are considered "war mongering" by many. So it is not "The only war mongerer".

"The only war mongerer in the world is the fascist regime in Iran."

Solh va Doosti

Natalia

Disclaimer: My analyzing this statement does not in any way mean that I support one political view over another. :o)

Why some people are hopelessly out of touch with reality

This is what MR. Farhad Kashani wrote on the other blog about "War Mongers in Congress".

The only war mongerer in the world is the fascist regime in Iran.

I ask anyone with any pretense of objectivity to really consider the above statement.

Is a person who makes such a statement really in touch with reality? How ideologically brainwashed does someone have to be to make such an extraordinary statement demonstrably false on many levels?

I hope people now understand what kind of extremism they are dealing with when choosing to respond to people like Farhad Kashani and other pro-intervention voices.

"Fekr nemikonam mellat iran

"Fekr nemikonam mellat iran ghool sharlatanhayee ro bekhorand ke be esm democrasy mikhahand sahm khod ra az sarmaye mellat bechapand."

vali fekr mikoni goole sharlatanhayee mesle to ro mikhorand ke dar haaleh khordaneh sahmeh khodeshoon az sarmayeye melat hastan?

agha dozdeh... melate iran to daste kam gerefti!

"Gheshr daneshjoo va motefakker vatan kheili bidartar as oon salhayee ast ke..."

manzoort gheshreh basijiha va bacheh akhoondaaye bisavadi hast ke be zoor khodeshoon ro chapoondan to daneshgaha?

agha dozdeh... melate iran ro daste kam gerefti!

"Hamanja ke hasti baash....Iran maale manast"

agha dozdeh... shoma ghalat kardid! Iran maale melate iran hast, na jeaabaali va daaro dasteye dozdetoon!

"Manee ke dar iranam....bar saram baran bomb mareezeed.......istadeam ta akhar! Raah oftaadeam....rooberooyam dasht"

lol! shaer shodi? to ke dar irani... bar saret barane goheh akhoond mirizad... mikhorai ta akhar...

khar khodeti dadaash!

Islamic attack on democracy

Dear All,
The most ardent supporters of this apartheid Islamic murdering regime of Iran live not in Iran but in the USA and Canada. The highest number of opponents of the regime live inside Iran unable to express their views openly because if they do they will be murdered by the regime's thugs. The like of Shirin Ebadi and others who talk about democracy and human rights are wolves in sheep clothing. They would not be alive to go and come from Iran as and when they wish if the regime thought they were real enemies.
This regime has a thousand and one faces. From the likes of Ahmadinejad the monkey to the smiling fox which is Khatemi. You name it the regime has it to fool the people and rule over them. Take the example of the privatisation going on in Iran. They call it khodisazi and not kosoosisazi, as all the regimes blue eyed boys are getting it all.
And the sight of Iranians clearing immigration at the IK airport in Tehran makes one sick seeing and listening to the amount flattery showered on the immigration police.
Most of the Iranians living in style in Canada and the States have property in Iran the rent of which they receive here or their businesses are tied up to the Iranian market.
No wonder you have so many supporters of the regime here in the States and Canada.
Doctor Pouran Rostamian
N Van BC Canada

PS Bijan A M new blog

i have a new blog already buried that belive it or not is kind of inspired by you.  Maybe you want to see it.

And pps suggest you send your letter to jj under Registered Users at the bottom of home page.  You should be able to cut and paste it there.  You can't do so at the Contact Us button, it's designed to keep the messages brief so you can't cut and paste into eat.
R,,

Bijan BLOG DELETION! AGREE! AWFUL/ My coming "article"

It is outrageous to allow authors to delete their blogs once a substantive post has been posted to it.  Substantive meaning more than "Nice job".  WHo is to decide what is substantive?  Why, our Fearless Leader of course.  One must make due with what one has.

 If an author wants a blog deleted (s)he should have to inform jj and ask his permission and the guideline, the criterion should be ONE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENT =NO DELETIION.  Period. Case closed.

We are not children. We have aresponsibility to ourselves and to our community to judge wisely  if blogs are suitable to remain here, and if they're not ,not post them PERIOD.  No mind-changing.  ensued. IF YA DON'T WANNA KEEP IT HERE, DON'T PUT IT HERE.

ESPECIALLY in a blog like Mouses' which was kept featured for THREE days with Mouse replying and encouraging MORE WORK FROM THE POSTERS AND THEN SUDDENLY ANNOUNCING: AT NOON I'M DELETING THIS BLOG.BECAUSE I HAVE THAT OPTION.  Really, exact words. His explanation:   "because." 300 posts! Three days.   I wrote my opinion to him just before deletion zero hour came.

 NOBODY  ON THIS SITE HAS THE RIGHT TO DELETE ANOTHER PERSON"S HARD WORK!:POSTS ARE PEOPLE'S WORK AND ARE OFTEN BETTER WRITTEN AND LONGER THAN THE BLOGS THEMSELVES.. And I have mentioned it to jj several times as I have mentioned many things to him so many times... publicly, privately, via e-mail, phone..

which segways into:

MY COMING "ARTICLE" and issues related

Actually I was planning on blogging on Blog Deletion since Mouse did that  but unfortunately my blogs are no longer being featured so nobody hardly sees them.  Even the ones that had research in them or extraordinary writing are now intentionally buried.. I've still been blogging  but not about website logistics and isssues of moderation, etc. because it's just too discouraging to make those specific contributions to HELP the website function and know they'll get buried.I'd also written a long article about CAN THIS WEBSITE BE USE D TO EFFECT REAL CHANGE IN THE WORLD? which was in the editing stage but it won't be published  Yep, blacklisted. Yep,by other means too. Yep case of someone putting a personal agenda above both their professional one and supposed "ethics" and "ideals"....well...

jj...please... don't delete me again, 

I want to condense the contents of that article into one long post here.  After that, I honestly don't know WHAT I'm going to do....JR, Jamshid, what am I going to do?

Rashidian's rating is up! (Re: Kashani)

Kashani says: "Anonym7, no matter how hard you try to make this about me and you"

Kashani_jAn, this is one of those rare occasions that I agree with you. It is not about me or you, it is not about democracy, and it is not about "Islamic attack on democracy" ...
It is about an extremist who craves for attention and rating. The rating that was taken away from him by borderline fascist Imani. It is about a frustrated extremist turning around and blaming everyone who does not admire him, for his issues. It is about an extremist associated with a small and intolerant minority. It is about an extremist portion of opposition whom any descent member of opposition should oppose. It is about JR the frustrated profiler and his camp! .... But the good news is that his rating is up, look how many comments he has so far! Personally I am very glad his rating is up, I am even more glad how beautifully he exposed his line of intolerant politics.
Well done Rashidian! Well done Kashani! My friends you have very nice invisible clothes!

In titrhaye dahan porkon!

Fekr nemikonam mellat iran ghool sharlatanhayee ro bekhorand ke be esm democrasy mikhahand sahm khod ra az sarmaye mellat bechapand.

Gheshr daneshjoo va motefakker vatan kheili bidartar as oon salhayee ast ke chappiha ya shahiha dar 30 saal ghabl tajrobeh kardeand.

Ba in titrhaye abdar faghat khodetan ra pish mellat efsha mikoneed.

Hamanja ke hasti baash....Iran maale manast!
Manee ke dar iranam....bar saram baran bomb mareezeed.......istadeam ta akhar!
Raah oftaadeam....rooberooyam dasht pahnavar ghalb mellatam.......mara be vaadi sabz doosti va mehrabani mibarad;
Varaye daghal bazaan siasat.....ghalb nazanin mellatam.....naseem gharm fotovvat ra az yaad naborde ast;