PRESIDENCY

America can neither make nor break Iran

There's no realistic American policy that could make or break Iran. The American election is really only going to affect Iran by a small amount.

If Iranians want to improve thier government, then they are going to have to do it themselves. No outsider can fix what's been going on in Iran for the last 29 years. Just as no outsider should be blamed for what's been going on during that time.

The America that the world see's today was the result of many strikes, protests and even deaths. The point is, if you do not fight for your rights then you will have none.

As for those that wish to bring up how bad the Shah was, the mullahs are even worse on almost every point. I don't advocate a return to a dictatorship, but the Iranian government does need to change/evolve.

The Iran I see today is one where the best and brightest minds flee the country because there is no future for them there. This is a big reason why a country with so much potential has been failing. Mullah's with 6 months education cannot run a modern state.

Anyway, vote for whom ever you like in the next US election but don't expect that to fix Iran.

Re: Mammad

"Indeed, the Revolution was hijacked, but not DURING the Revlution, but AFTER its victory..."

I say this again: There was nothing to be hijacked after the revolution's victory. This "hijack" notion is used by those ex-revolutionary apologists who are not decent nor man enough to aknowledge the grand mistake they had made. I hope you are not one of them.

In 1978, I was one of those revolutionaries who perhaps was even more feverish than you were. It took me some times to realize I was deceived and had made a mistake.

But even then, I wanted to cling to the legitimacy of the revolution. You remind me of myself when I was about 20 years old. Like many others, I kept repeating, "enghelaabo dozdidan." This worked well in clearing my guilty concisous. It also helped me calm myself into believing that my efforts in participating in that revolution was necessary anyway, since the revolution was legitimate.

Then the war broke out and one day I found myself in Khuzestan. For one year, I had much time to think and contemplate in many lonely nights. I am glad that I had in me something that was stronger than my religious beliefs and my political ideology combined. I am referring to my humanity and to my belief in the decent truth and in the bottom line.

No, Mammad, the revolution was not hijacked after its victory. It was hijacked from its inception when a small minority who had a history of manipulating the Iranian masses using religion, allied themselves with another small minority who were masters of leftist propaganda, and both successfully began to manipulate the thoughts and feelings of the unwary majorities by means of lies, deceptions, falsifications, spread of false rumors, fantastic exagerations, false accusations and so on.

I know because I was there, knee deep in the middle of it. The revolution became "illegitimate" right there and then when it based itself on lies and deceits with the sole intent of frauding the masses.

In legal circles, any transaction that was based on fraud and falsifications is considered void. This applies to the Islamic Revolution as well. Today, the revolution's children, people like me and others, are regretting our actions that led to our country's doom, and we painfully pay everyday by witnessing the misery that it brought to our countrymen and women.

There was a day that I and many others believed in the Mammads of the world, and in their intentions when they were beating their chests in the defense of the "oppressed" Iranians.

Little we knew back then that years later, how they would turn their back on the oppressed, and instead beat their chests for the oppressors.

The revolution was not hijacked, and it was, and still is illegitmate. Your opinion does not change this fact.

Re: Anonymous8

Please stop negating others with lies and deceptions. Why can't you see that you could present a good argument without having to resort to falsifications?

Iraqis are dying by the dozens on a daily basis, however, a great number of them are dying from bomb blasts. Iraqis are killing more Iraqis than the Americans did even in 2003.

This is not to say that the US is not responsible for what is going on in Iraq. The blame must be fairly divided between all participants.

Boy you are confused or brainwashed...

Let us get this straight. I am ethnicly Persian, born in the United States of America. Everything I have is as a result of freedom given to me by the USA. The Pahlavis did not give me one cent.

That is exactly why you do not understand shah's contributions to the country of "iran". People inside iran long for his rule nowadays.

If you ask me the Pahlavis were a big mistake for Iran. The Pahlavis were a dictatorship of father and son.

So what? Any other ruler is a dictator if you can see around yourself. If you think Blare, Bosch, Sargoozy, and berliskooni are any better than the shah was, boy you are brain-washed.

Once again, I must educate the uneducated.

Still confused? You are in desperate need of education yourself. Copy and paste from MS is no education.

What does Microsoft Encarta, an online encyclopedia say about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-1980), shah (king) of Iran (1941-1979),...his dictatorial style of rule, eventually led to his downfall... What about the Shah thirst for power?

So what? All rulers have thirst for power, or else they would not get where they are. Bosch and blare, sargoozy and berliskooni, and putin and khamenei, all have ambitions, none holy, and all from the same breed.

These opponents criticized the shah for violation of the constitution, which placed limits on royal power and provided for a representative government.

See above!

How did the Shah waste money?
The shah saw himself as heir to the kings of ancient Iran, and in 1971 he held an extravagant celebration of 2,500 years of Persian monarchy.

So what? All countries have celebrations of this and that. Americans celebrate 4th of july every year at great cost. Besides, do you know how much 2500 year celebration cost? I won't tell you, but I will tell you the absolute highest that it cost was less than half of what IRI announced that it contributed to lebanese people who lost their homes. This is from horse's mouth.

And what about human rights?
The shah’s regime suppressed and marginalized its opponents with the help of Iran’s security and intelligence organization, the Savak.

Sigh that savak was so incompetent. The only ones in savak's retention are all pretty much in charge in IRI, each killing the same number of people that shah killed in his entire regime in a day every day. 99% of shah's prisoners turned out to be likes of khamenei and rafsanjani and rajavi and rajai and ... All criminals by any standard. The remaining 1% were run away or were killed by IRI. Shah's problem was that he was way way way too soft on islamists and leftists.

What happened in the 1970s in Iran?
By the mid-1970s the shah reigned amidst widespread discontent caused by the continuing repressiveness of his regime, socioeconomic changes that benefited some classes at the expense of others, and the increasing gap between the ruling elite and the disaffected populace.

Now we "know" it was all based on lies told to people, IRI itself says that. People were fooled, period.

What happened to the Shah?
The shah’s government collapsed following widespread uprisings in 1978 and 1979.
Micropsoft Encarta is an objective online Encyclopedia. History has already happened. Microsoft Encarta has written what happened in Iran.

MS Encarta is apparently as buggy as the rest of MS goofy products. MS aim was to make B.G. rich by selling out of date junk to its customer, nothing else.

The Pahlavis were dictators. This is a closed discussion.
You can not refute the facts.

Still repeating the same old thing? You are in dire need of education to replace your brainwashed mind. These claims are as old as used by khomeini and his gang to take over the country. Even IRI itself, in their state of comfort, refute most of them nowadays.

Correction, the Everything I have is from the United States

Let us get this straight. I am ethnicly Persian, born in the United States of America. Everything I have is as a result of freedom given to me by the USA. The Pahlavis did not give me one cent.

If you ask me the Pahlavis were a big mistake for Iran. The Pahlavis were a dictatorship of father and son.

Once again, I must educate the uneducated.

What does Microsoft Encarta, an online encyclopedia say about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-1980), shah (king) of Iran (1941-1979),...his dictatorial style of rule, eventually led to his downfall...

see: //encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575287/Reza...

What about the Shah thirst for power?

These opponents criticized the shah for violation of the constitution, which placed limits on royal power and provided for a representative government.

Same article see site noted above. (so the Shah was power crazy)

How did the Shah waste money?

The shah saw himself as heir to the kings of ancient Iran, and in 1971 he held an extravagant celebration of 2,500 years of Persian monarchy.

See same site noted above.

And what about human rights?
The shah’s regime suppressed and marginalized its opponents with the help of Iran’s security and intelligence organization, the Savak.

See same site noted above.

What happened in the 1970s in Iran?
By the mid-1970s the shah reigned amidst widespread discontent caused by the continuing repressiveness of his regime, socioeconomic changes that benefited some classes at the expense of others, and the increasing gap between the ruling elite and the disaffected populace.

Same site noted above.

What happened to the Shah?
The shah’s government collapsed following widespread uprisings in 1978 and 1979.

Micropsoft Encarta is an objective online Encyclopedia. History has already happened. Microsoft Encarta has written what happened in Iran. The Pahlavis were dictators. This is a closed discussion.

You can not refute the facts.

John Carpenter the Parrot.

من اول ایرانی هستم.

PLEASE SHUT UP. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHATSOEVER WHAT YOU ARE TALKING UP.
ALL THOSE THINGS YOU SAID, WERE FED TO YOU BY YOUR MASTER AKHOUNDS..
SHAME ON YOU. YOU WHAT, EVERYTHING WE HAVE IS FROM SHAH TIMES, EVERYTHING YOU OWN IS FROM THAT TIME.

Khomeini clone

Any progress that occured during the reign of Reza and Mohammad Reza would have taken place in Iran whether the Pahlavis were in powere or not.

So how come not a fraction of that same progress occured in the 30 years of IRI?

Per capita income in 1978: $7200.
Per capita income in 2008: $1800 (estimated)
Top 3 universities: build during pahlavis.
Steel Mill: built during pahlavis.
Refineries: built during pahlavis.
Copter Manufacturing: built by pahalvis:
1st (and last) research reactor: built during pahlavis.
1st (and last solid state manufacturing): built during pahlavis.
...

The Pahlavi dynasty was noted for it cruel human rights violations. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International had reported the human rights violations of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Oh but you do not know that many years ago, AM confessed that their reports were totally wrong about iran since it was based on opposition hearsay; and for that exact reason they refuse to accept data from opposition groups without proof since then. The actual numbers (according to emad baghi and akbar ganji) was some 1500 times smaller than what khomeini had claimed and some 1000 times less than what AM had claimed. The total executed by pahlavi regime in 16 years prior to revolution is less than what khomeini executed in half a day in evin.

By the way, we have 140 juveniles on death row as of july 10, 2008 in iran. Do you know how many we had during the entire pahlavi regime? (Hint: zero!).

The rest of your claims are equally due to misinformation pickled in 1979 and now regurgitated.

John Carpenter III

John Carpenter III is like "Joe Fisherman IV". Pretentious much? Or is that an attempt at humor?

The Pahlavi dynasty was one big dictatorship

The Pahlavi dynasty was one big dictatorship. This is a historical fact. Any progress that occured during the reign of Reza and Mohammad Reza would have taken place in Iran whether the Pahlavis were in powere or not. The Pahlavi dynasty was noted for it cruel human rights violations. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International had reported the human rights violations of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It is hard to believe that anyone would right such jibberish and try to defend the reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
As for the next US President whoever it is will have direct talks with the IRI government. Direct dialog is the only way. Iran's president has even said on the news 13 July that Iran would welcome an American Embassy in Tehran.
It is safe to say that after almost 30 years the days of the monarchy in Iran are dead and gone for good.
The current Iranian government has out lasted the regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi uninterupted. Even the Shah had to flee Iran in 1953. 1953-1979 was 26 years. And 1941-1953 was only 12 years. And Reza Khan ruled only between 1925-1941 and that is 16 years. And the final 26 years of Mohammad Reza Pahlavis rule was with the assistance of SAVAK, a secret police trained by CIA, Mossad and Scotland Yard. And that could not save the Shah. The IRI has lasted longer without any foreign influence. It can be said viewing such a situation it can be concluded that the IRI has a majority support among Iranians living in Iran.

Anonym7 aziz, I can’t

Anonym7 aziz, I can’t spare you, that’s the whole point! Refer to my “truth behind IRI propaganda” last comment, to find out what I mean. But trust me , I’m not what YOU consider a right wing. I think some of us are too quick to generalize or stereotype.

 Also, not sure what you mean by the “center” but I’ve always took analytical approchaes to issues, not emotional or ideological.

moving to the center? (Re: Kashani)

(* it appears that JJ was a little goofy and accidentally deleted my comment, so this might be duplicate!)

Kashsni_jAn, so far your postings in this site have been not just right but many times far right although you have hardly been right (correct) about anything.
However if you are moving to the center, that is good news. BTW please spare me from re-defining what/who is right and who/what is left Kashani style!

What is a "post-doctoral degree"?

In the UK, there is such a thing as "post-graduate" work, but in the U.S., there is no degree after doctorate, just the possibility of post-doctoral work (no degree awarded). Such a pretense to a level of knowledge that is impossible for you to have earned makes me suspicious of your other claims.

Talebi aziz

May be I am generous and want to let Professor Sahimi copy my materials. After all, who am I to protest, when I am a faceless Mammad here?

Besides, why should it matter who I am or, for that matter, who Professor Sahimi is. Do you not think that, instead of thinking who Mammad, or Sahimi, is, we should think about what Mammad, or Sahimi, says, debate them politely, teach and learn?

By the way, were you convinced of my response regarding "justifying" my opinion?

One more question: Have you read Professor Sahimi's other articles, and if you have, what do you think?

Mammad

Anomym7 azeez, as I said

Anomym7 azeez, as I said before, different political ideologies mean different things in different political systems. American left is not the same as Iranian left or Japanese left or Cuban left. They are all different. My argument was mainly against Iranian left.

The economic system in this country was not established by the left. It was established by genius economists from all political backgrounds.

And Kashani is not a “right winger”!

Farhad

Mammad, YES, they are

Mammad, YES, they are opinions.

Look, I’m sure you’re aware of this, but the CIA was established after WWII for one main purpose: to fight and defeat communism and KGB. That’s why, by the way, that it wasn’t (And still to large extent is not able to) understand the Islamic Fundamentalism threat. Communism, mainly the Soviet Union, declared war on capitalism. The U.S, was the center of Capitalist world, especially after WWII. Therefore, the U.S felt threatened and it established the CIA to be able to effectively fight the advance of communism movement globally. The world glad it did that, by the way.

The CIA had to establish global presence to be able to counter communism. People like Kinzer, do not approve that CIA should’ve done that. What he’s not realizing is that the U.S wasn’t the only country feeling threatened by communism. Many countries that felt threatened, rightly or wrongly, cooperated with the U.S towards defeating communism. For example NATO’s philosophy and reason for existence is exactly that. Now granted, many right wing dictators like Pinochet, used anti communism to gain power and oppress their people, but many didn’t, and that means the U.S did not “support dictatorships solely to gain power” like some claim. For example, the U.S had to pull back its help to El Salvador in fighting communism, because the El Salvadorian army was massacring its people. Again, this goes back to our argument that who should be responsible for an internal matter of a country. France, worked extremely close with the U.S to fight communism, but it never oppressed its people, but the Shah did, so whos fault is that?

Farhad

Mammad

If you say you are not Mr. Sahimi, I take your word for it. But can you please explain the similarity between your multiple posts under a blog titled "Moral Advise from a Criminal" on June 10th 2008 and the post on Antiwar.com  from Professor Sahimi on June 24th titled

"Explosively False Propaganda
Bush's Middle East legacy"

ANTIWARE LINK:

//www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=1...

The format, style and most of the outline format is the same as your moral advise colums from June 10th (10 days before the Anti War blog) I think Professor Sahimi has plagiarized

your workand he has some explaining to do.The formats and titles of both works are IDENTICAL. Can you Please explain this to us. You state:

"I must conform with everything you and what your like-minded friends say; otherwise, I am attacked, labeled, accused, ....?:"

Well There is a Professor Sahimi who writes exactly the same thing (almost word for word) as you.

You have also stated that you are an expert in the Oil and Chemical fields. So is Professor Sahimi! How interesting!

SEE MORAL ADVICE POSTS FROM YOU BELOW AND COMPARE TO ANTIWAR LINK ABOVE.

//iranian.com/main/2008/moral-advice-crim...

by Mammad on Tue Jun 10, 2008 09:10 PM CDT

To all Bush lovers:

In this and the next few posts I describe the legacy that Bush is
leaving behind in January 2009, as far as his Middle East policy is
concerned. In this one, I briefly talk about Iraq. I'll publish the
entire thing in an article in the next two weeks. First Iraq:

After

(i) illegally invading Iraq (illegal, because it had no United Nation's backing);

(ii) destrying the infrastructure of one of the most advanced Arab nations, turning Iraq into a beggar nation;

(iii) allowing the looting of Iraq's cultural and historical heritage;

(iv) creating 4.5 million refugees, 2 miilions of whom have left the
country (who are obviously either affluent, or professional, which
means irreplaceable);

(v) causing the death of at least 1 million (probably many more) civilians;

(vi) creating hundreds of thousands of orphans, widows and widowers;

(vii) causing stress and anxieties in 70% of Iraqi children which will be with them for  the rest of their lives, and

(viii) torturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere,

the following is a partial list of what the Bush-Cheney team is demanding from Iraq in secret "negotiations": 

(i) 58 military bases;

(ii) control of Iraq's airspace below 32000 ft

(iii) authority to kill anyone deemed "hostile" without Iraq's permission;

(iv) authority to stage a war against terrorists anywhere from Iraq without Iraq's permission, and

(v) full immunity from presecution in Iraq for the US military and civilian contractors.

This last one is Capitulation, the same Capitulation that sparked
the 15 Khordad 1342 (June 5, 1963) uprising in Iran. As Ayatollah
Khomeini said at that time: Capitulation means if we kill the
Americans' dogs, we will be jailed, but if they kill us, our wives, our
husbands, our children, or destroy our homes, they won't be.

The Bush-Cheney team are threatening Iraq with $50 billion in Iraqi
assets; they won't get it if they do not agree to this "agreement."

This is the meaning of liberation for Iraq, and return of its sovereignty!

Bush Lovers: His Middle East legacy

by Mammad on Wed Jun 11, 2008 12:09 AM CDT

In addition to all the previous postings, here is the rest of Bush's legacy in the Middle East:

(i) When Bush was elected the president, the price of oil was about $35/barrel. Today it is close to $140.

(ii) When 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, there was snmpathy for the
US in the Islamic world everwhere. Today, the US is despised.

(iii) When Bush was elected, the US and Iran had a chance for
reconcilliation, after Madeleine Albright's speech. Today, there is no
chance, not at least until he leaves office, if he does not order an
attack on Iran.

(iv) When Bush was elected, due to Iran's internal developments
(only 7 months before his electection, Iran's reformists had taken the
control of the parliament), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE,
and Jordan were moving towards cautious reform. They have stopped that
now.

(v) Due to Bush's support, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and
UAE are still run by corrupt, dictatorial governments. They are
supported by Bush as "moderate governments," even though they produce
more terrorists than any other country.

Yes, Bush lovers: Next time when you praise him, hoping that he
would attack Iran, just remember his Middle East legacy: Chaos,
bloodshed, destruction, and instability in the Middle East, the most
strategic area in the world. 

• reply
• Flag as offensive

by Mammad on Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:54 PM CDT

No US president has supported Israel so blindly.

(i) He is the 1st US president that actually recognized Israel
policy of settlements in the West Bank, giving Israel a letter
committing the US to such settlements.

(ii) He has not moved a finger to prevent Israel's innumerable atriocities against the defenseless Palestinians.

(iii) He pushed for democratic elections among Palestinians. Radicals wanted it too! What happened?

Alas! Darn! Hamas won! They got the pularity of the votes and absolute majority in the parliament.

(iv) But, wait a minute, Bush and Condi Rice said: True, we wanted
elections, but you guys voted for the wrong side! Our "directed
democracy project" was defeated once again. So, let's punish the
Palestinians for not electing our stooges!

(v) So, what happened? With Bush's support, Israel "evacuated" Gaza
Strip, but created the largest jail on Earth: Gaza's land, sea, and air
borders are all controlled by Israel. Israel attacks at will, and when
it kills innocents, what does Bush say? "Israel must defend itself"
against children, old men, and women.

(vi) Due to Bush's policy, Hamas routed the Fatah forces in Gaza and is now in full control. Here is  to you, Iran's radicals!!

(vii) In his recent speech before the Kenesset, Israel's parliament,
he promised the Palestinians that they will have a state of their own
"over the next 60 years!' Some promise.

The Legacy? Peace between Israel and Palestinians is more fat fetched than ever.

• reply
• Flag as offensive

by Mammad on Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:20 PM CDT

During Bush's presidency:

(i) Iran has made far more progress in its nuclear enrichment program than the past 30 years combined.

(ii) Due to what has been happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon, Iran's radicals are in the driving seat.

(iii) Due to Bush's idiotic policy, the reformists have been
suppressed. The President goes to the Middle East a few months before
Iran's elections and declares his supports for the reformists, giving
them a kiss of death. The elections were going to be bad enough, he
made them much worse.

If Bush does not attack Iran, which is possible but not probable,
his legacy will be: An Iran on the verge of having the complete
capacity and technology to make a nuclear bomb, should a national
security emergency arises.

• reply
• Flag as offensive

by Mammad on Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:12 PM CDT

After Rafik Hariri's assassination,
presumably by Syria, Bush and the West pushed for democratic elections
in Lebanon. Of course, the most democratic action in Lebanon would be
taking a new poll - none has been taken since 1943 - to see which
religious sect. is in the majority. Everyone knows it is the Shi'ite,
but never mind.

The elections were held. SURPRISE! Not only did Hezbollah receive a
significant fraction of the votes and sent 14 representative to the
parliament, it also joined the government of Siniora, the PM. Condi
Rice's "directed democracy" was a failure!

But Bush and company did not quit. They constantly provoked Siniora
and his allies against Hezbollah and its allies, such as Michel Aoun,
the Maronite ex-General. The result: Complete paralysis of the
government.

This was, of course, just fine with Israel, because while the Arab
world was fixated on Lebanon, Israel continued its crimes against
Palestinians.

Then, came the summer 2006 war. Hezbollah began the war. It should
not have, should have been condemned by the world, and it was. But,
Hezbollah had done several such small operations in the past, and each
time there was a quick ceasefire.

Not this time. With strong support by Cheney and company, Israel
started a full scale war. Meanwhile, the US prevented the United
Nations Security Council from reaching any consensus, and was buying
time for Israel. Condi Rice was promising a "new Middle East," one in
which Hezbollah is defeated, and then Iran is attacked.

Alas! Darn! Hezbollah won! Read the three articles of Jonathan Cook,
a journalist living in Israel, to understand the depth of Israel's
defeat. The Pentagon hurried to revise its plans for attacks on Iran.
General Abizaid, then the Centcom. commander, said, "May be Iranians
were showing us what we may expect if we attack them."

The result: a destroyed Lebanon. For the first time, the number of
fighters killed on both sides were roughly the same; about 140 from
each side, in addition to 1000 civilians Lebanese. But, Hezbollah
remained intact, with its popularity vast in the Arab world. This was
the 2nd time Hezbollah won a war with Israel. The 1st time was in 2000,
when, after fighting with Israel for 15 years, Hezbollah forced Israel
to withdraw from southern Lebanon that it had occupied since 1982.
Israel lost 600 soldiers over that period, a huge number for a country
of a few million.

But, Bush and company continued their provocation. They provoked
Siniora to sack the security chief of Beirut's airport, allegedly a
Hezbollah, and shot down Hezbollah's optical communication network that
had played a crucial role in its victory over Israel.

The Result: Hezbollah swiftly took over West Beirut, and routed
forces loyal to Siniora. It demanded, (i) restoration of its
communication network; (ii) putting the security chief back in his job,
and (iii) veto power over all the government's decisions. Siniora
had taken those actions thinking that Bush will rush aid to him. The
aid never came. Bush blinked. France Blinked. Siniora blinked.

The Result: Hezbollag got all of its demands and more. Michel
Suleiman, the General with whom Hezbollah has good relations, is now
the president. Hezbollah is more powerful than ever.

Thus, an organization that the US has labeled terrorist, has won
impressive strategic victories over the US and Israel during the Bush
presidency. This is his Lebanon legacy.

• reply
• Flag as offensive

Anonymous7

Exactly!

Mammad

Farhad Kashani

No, books such as Overthrow are NOT opinion. They are documented facts, which are very different from sheer opinion. If I were to believe what you say, then there would be no such thing as history.

Your postings here are opinion. I respect them, but I do not agree with most of them. Some of what I say here are my opinion. Kinzer's book is documented. He is not the 1st person to write about such things, but he has done a fabulous job of documenting 13 overthrows, all by the US.

One of the most amazing things about what you say is that, you deny things that even the Americans themselves accept. For example, the CIA bragged about the coups in Iran and Honduras (which occured in 1954) for years, but, you still deny them.  "More Catholic than the pope" does not even come close to describe your thought process about this!

Let's move on.

Mammad

Anonymousm

My intention was not at all to change the subject. I grant you that I may have misunderstood you. In that case, I do not know what your point is.

If your point is that people like me supported the 1979 Revolution, then, as I have said many times in this column, yes, I did. But, what I supported, or more precisely, what I thought we would be getting, was a republic in which everyone would be democratically elected. One in which there would be no Velaayat-e Faghih, etc. I am honest. I believe in certain principles, one of which is that, we should either not claim that we believe in this or that, or if we do, we should be willing to declare them publicly and defend them, if necessary. Because of this principle, I am willing to declare my beliefs. It is easy to declare support for something that is "popular," but not so when it is unpopular, especially in this site and about matters that have to do with the Revolution.

I also do not buy the argument of some that the Revolution was hijacked by Ayatollah Khomeini. Indeed, the Revolution was hijacked, but not DURING the Revlution, but AFTER its victory, and by right-wing mullahs and their supporters. A lot of honest people made a lot of mistakes. I, for one, never ever thought that we would be in this situation today. 

Do I still believe in the legitimacy of the Revolution? Yes. Do I support Velaayat-e Faghih regime? Absolutely not. I am not opposed to having political groups that are religious. Christian Democrats in Western Europe are also political. But, what I am opposed to is ruling by claiming some divine, religious right, the way VF does. In short, I am for a secular republic. 

If your point is that because I am an Islamic-leftist, I should not live in the US, I already responded to it. I do not try to convert people to Islam in this country (or anywhere for that matter), because religion in my view is a private matter. So, unlike you, I also do not insult people's religion, regardless of how I feel about it. My views are driven by politics not my religion. 

As I said in another post, I am a citizen of the US, and like any other citizen I have the right to criticize those policies of the US government with which I do not agree. At the same time, as I said in another post, I am grateful to the American nation for the opportunity of having a good life here, but I have also returned the great favor by being a good citizen. 

Mammad

many good things are because of the left! (Kashani)

Kashani_jAn, many of the good things in this country (U.S) come from the left. The fact that this country (still) has a very large middle class comes from the left. The fact that this country is not a ruthless capitalist system like Mixico, Brazil, ..., and Iran comes from the left. The fact that a person like me was allowed to come to this country and work despite not having a dime is because of the left! The most decent people in this country (George Soros, Olberman, Edwards, ..) are from the left....
On the other hand a lot of bad things in this country come from the right .... these past several years of national and international scandals and disasters come from the right. Mr. Bush comes from the very right! Kashani comes from the right! ....

Changing the subject?

You are either very naive, or pretend to be very naive, or want to be very naive by spinning in different directions such as changing the subject and/or blaming others for our own doings. 99% of islamist/leftist "dissidents" who staged the dark revolution of 79 were pure and simple thugs, stamped themselves as islamist/leftist and hiding behind dissent as the tool of their trade. None cared about iran or iranians, or about freedom and democracy. They wanted power and wealth, period. The remaining 1% were naive and stupid pawns used by the other 99% and were first to be eliminated or driven away.

Proof: the monopoly of islamic republic in unprecedented thuggery as well as simple observation of how camp ashraf is run.

Since you are an islamist, you should have visited emam reza or emamzadeh masoumeh. Had you noticed middle-age impotent men or women rubbing their genitals to the haram in hopes of bearing a child? Have you seen body parts (including genitals) tied to a rope tied to the haram on the other side in hopes of long distance healing? Had you noticed junior mullas and sheikhs and middle-age women circling haram in search of sigheh?

Even today, 30 years later, some 17 (?) million voted for the monkey president and another 15 (?) million voted for his opponent, the architect of hanging dissidents by cranes. These people did not need dissent of the thugs or naives; they first and foremost needed education that shah was trying to force down their throats unsuccessfully. They finally succeeded in making iran into what they had exactly in mind from the first day that voiced their bogus dissent.

Mammad,   As I said

Mammad,

As I said before, being a leftist or a right winger, does not make you less of a person. We don’t engage in personal attacks, I don’t think you can claim that I’ve ever done that, because that stands against what we believe in. Most of the leftist I met, though, and you’re not one of them, show incredible disrespect, uncivilized behavior and intolerance towards others. That’s just a fact.

I don’t call anyone who disagrees me an “Islamist”, rather, I call it like I see it (read it!), if you have Islamic belief, I will call you an “Islamist”, if you have right wing beliefs, I will call you a “right wing”. I’ve been called all sort of things, for example, a right winger, by you, which I’m not; nonetheless, I do not believe that just because you’re an Islamist, you should be silenced or bullied, that’s what makes us different from most Islamists and leftists. I do, though, attack the argument, not the person. I do believe some arguments made and some points expressed, are misguided and not representative of the current Iranian movement for democracy. Some views expressed in support of the IRI or to apologize for it, are destructive for our country, and I will definitely counter it. A healthy country is not one that those destructive views are silenced in it, but rather, minimized and rejected.

As far as your WWII argument, like Mr.Talebi expressed, the Soviet were on the verge of defeat if it wasn’t for the allied (led by the U.S) assistance through Iran. The U.S and allied defeated the Germans not only in Russia, but elsewhere, in N Africa, Europe, ..and elsewhere. Remember now, France was occupied and England was crushed by German bombs (Actually Canada and Australia were great helps also). U.S was not the only player in defeating communism and Nazism, but, definitely the main, and by far, the biggest player. Even Chirac said, if it wasn’t for U.S soldiers buried in Normandy, there will not be a France today.

As far as the book is concerned, my dear friend, those are just opinions. Opinions are not necessarily facts. What we have to look for is the bigger picture, so when we talk about alleged “U.S sponsored coups”, we have to look at the following:

1-     What does “sponsoring” mean?

2-     How big of a different sponsoring or not sponsoring had in success of the coup?

3-     What made that country ready for a coup? How come coups never happen in Switzerland, or Japan, or U.S, or France, or Canada, but it always happens in Pakistan? Or Thailand? What are the social, economic, political, cultural characteristics of that country?

4-     At what point, do nations take responsibility for their own actions? What is the limit? Where is the line drawn?

Finally, I’m not sure if you realized, but your last comment actually asserted my argument. On one hand, you claim that “we did it ourselves” does not hold water, on the other hand, you suggest that well, it our people’s opinion that is shaped by our leaders, which is exactly what I’ve been saying. Leaders are us too, Khomeini comes from the same streets that we come from, and so did Shah. Also, “the people” come from the same streets that me and you came from. so, my understanding is we’re on the same page here, although, you’re saying we’re not.

Regards,

Mammad

There is no room for dissent. If there is, the dissident should be
blonde, blue, all American Anglo Saxon Christian (or possibly Jew), or
someone who attacks another nation which is perceived as an enemy of
the US. Right?

I read anonymousm's comment, and I don't see where he said anything like that. Which means you just used his comment as a pretext to make a racist statement of your own. Keep this kind of opinion to yourself, please. If you want to rant about WASPs (or Jews, but there is no such thing as a Jewish WASP in case you didn't know) then make a blog post about that and take ownership of your opinions. Don't pretend you are just reacting to somebody else.

Keyvan Talebi

First of all, do not get excited. I am not him.

Secondly, I am not justifying anything. I am expressing my opinion. You absolutely positively do not have to accept it. In fact, if you really believe in democracy, then you should know that one does not even have to justify his/her opinion. One can believe in whatever one wants.

Third, your opinion regarding the roles of the Soviet Union/US is most respected. But, most historians agree that the turning point during WW II was when the Nazis could not defeat the Soviet forces in Stalingrad in that horrible Winter. And, of course, the fact that the Soviet forces arrived in Berlin before anybody else and finished the Nazi regime cannot be disputed.  Do not take anything from from me. Read, for example, the indispensable book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

Fourth, I said that the US played a maginficent role in the defeat of Nazi. All I said was that the US was not the only, or the most important, factor. There were other important players as well.

I must conform with everything you and what your like-minded friends say; otherwise, I am attacked, labeled, accused, ....? I do not understand the attitude. Since when am I supposed to "justify" what I believe in? This is worse than the IRI!

Mammad

Anonymousm

In other words, what you want is a country in which everybody thinks like everybody else. Everybody pats everybody else on their back, congratulating them for thinking like them. There is no room for dissent. If there is, the dissident should be blonde, blue, all American Anglo Saxon Christian (or possibly Jew), or someone who attacks another nation which is perceived as an enemy of the US. Right?

Mammad

The question is...

What is a leftist-islamist (who helped ruin the decent progressive country of iran of 70s by bringing 30 years of disaster to iran) doing in the most free secular capitalist country? He should be in one of the numerous holy leftist cities of the east, damascus near his zeynab, najaf near his ali, karbala near his hussein, or at least qom near his masoumeh or tehran near his holy emam!

And the answer is: selfish blind hypocrisy. As all these leftist islamists want their disastrous prescriptions only for others in iran and none are willing to walk the talk or take even a drop of their own prescribed medicine or have courage to face the consequences of their past actions! And yet they all have guts to criticize shah on same grounds. All they could do then was to kick the shah out to guarantee that iran would be ruined and fall behind numerous countries including those then backward arab countries of the persian gulf and then run away to the west (but not east).

Too bad spinning history has stopped working for the oppressed people of iran, let it be about hassan and hussein, mosaddeq and fatemi, or khomeini and khalkhali (sorry that I intentionally forgot to call these colorful murderers by their proper titles of emam and grand ayatollah).

Dear Professor Muhammad Sahimi (AKA Mammad)

Give us a break. Now, to justify your views, you are revising history?

If it was not for the Americans, who supplied the Russians with Arms (through Iran incidentally), the Russians could not fight the Germans in the first place.

I am just amazed!

Farhad Kashani

First of all, if I were you I would not stereotype leftists (or any group of people). We all have our biases. We all feel strongly about certain issues.

Secondly, perhaps you did not understand my comment regarding you labeling a lot of people leftist, Islamic leftist, etc. I have announced on this site, and proudly so, that I am a practicing Muslim and a leftist. So, not only it would not bother me to be called as such, I actually take pride in that. My point was, you tend to call people who disagree with you leftists, Islamic leftists, etc.

Now, regarding the US and the defeat of Nazism and Communism:

First of all, many historians agree that the most important role in the defeat of the Nazism was played by the Red Army of Stalin, not the US. It was the Red Army that bogged down the Wermacht on the gates of Stanlingrad, and began its defeat, and it was the Red Army that arrived in Berlin before any other troops or country to finish Hitler off. And, by the way, the Soviet Union lost 27 million people during WW II, compared with 350,000 Americans.

I absolutely positively do not mean to diminish the role of the US. It played a magnificent role. But, the way you put it sounds as if the US was the only, or the most important, partner in the anti-Fascism, anti-Nazism coalition of WW II, which is not true.

I suggest you read the book, "Overthrow," by Stephen Kinzer, the former New York Times reporter who also published "All the Shah's Men," a fantastic book. I know Kinzer personally, and helped organized his Peace lectures in Southern California several months ago. Read that book. It describes 13 countries that lost their democratically-elected government only because of US-sponsored coups. 

With all due respect, your arguments regarding "we did it ourselves," does not hold water. Common people are led by leaders. Their opinions are shaped by leaders. The leaders are political, social, and, for example, in mass media. Therefore, if the leaders are sold outs, then we will see things like the 1953 coup.

Mammad

Anonymous7

Thank you very much. You are kind to me which I truly do not deserve and I really mean this.

I do not decide what other people should do, but I consider it my duty as a human being to do what I can to prevent a war. My efforts may amount to nothing in the final analysis, but as my late father said, "conduct yourself in a way during the day that when you put your head on that pillow at night, you can go to sleep with clear conscience."

Mammad

Kaveh jaan, thanks. You and

Kaveh jaan, thanks. You and I are on the same page. Keep up the good work.