HYPOCRISY

You are exposed my dear

As usual. Many times, before and now. Just live with it and be happy.

Zion, don't try so hard to control reality, you can't do it

Your obfuscations are legendary.

The question was the banner under which many terrorists carry out atrocities.

I fully expect you to fall for the classic European double-standard of "free expression" when it comes to what we consider holy (Islam), but "jail time" when it comes to questioning what they consider holy (holocaust). But that's just a side-show you brought up.

I gave you no less than eight instances of groups claiming they are fighting for freedom, yet you counter only with your own personal decrees. There is no question that freeing Palestine, freeing Afghanistan, freeing the country from Muslim stooge governments, is freedom as in freedom from foreign subjugation. Why do you deny this simple fact? (answer below) Is HAMAS fighting to free Palestine from "liberal and modern values"? Or gun-toting Zionists?

At some point you have to realize, you are a mortal being and not a supernatural uber-mensch. Your word is not law.

Now a question for you: If a terrorist calls himself Muslim, you have no problem accepting his as fact, and blame Islam (excuse me, "question" Islam) about this association. But if the same terrorist says he's fighting for freedom, you don't accept his word and actually dispute what the terrorist himself says! Interesting double-standard isn't it?

I know the answer: it satarts with "Hy" and ends with "pocrisy"!!!

I'll let you figure it out. It's a sign of having a serious problem with reality.

It is an obvious lie

...and a pathetic one for that.
Islamists clearly cry out for censorship, be it their demand to ban cartoons in a newspaper or their cry for the head of a novelist. They might ask to "free" their lands from the rule and influence of liberal and modern values, non-Islamist regimes, or non-muslim infidel ones( based on the Koranic principle known as "an-nafy al-sabil"), but only an apologist liar would use this mere semantic trick to twist it and to try to sell it as a call for freedom. The object again is precisely to impose Islamic sharia on all aspects of the society. Hence they are known as Islamists, and you, Q, are shown to be an apologist yet again. :-)

Lalaezar, You are 100% correct regarding Q's Chutzpah &......Re

Mammad Has previously stated that in his secular republic of Iran he does not want freedom of speech because he does not want Multi National Corporation to come and spread Christian Fundamentalism to the secular Iranians. He, Mammad, actually believes that there is an American Corporate conspiracy to Christianize the world and Islam.

And they say they are not Islamists!!!

to Jamshid Re: "Risking war"

Jamshid,

Have you considered that perhaps pursuit of nuclear technology is a strategy to avoid being attacked? North Korea proved it. Even getting nuclear energy means the country would not be hostage to an oil embargo or blockade like it was done to Mossadegh himself.

Terrorism by Fiat!

Jamshid,

Why am I not surprised that the only evidence you presented for me being an Islamist, even according to your "definition", is your own holy fatwa that I am one?

This was your definition:
Islamist is someone who believes in imposing his politico-beliefs onto others.

This was your evidence:

///404 FILE NOT FOUND///

Sorry, please play again.

Not to be outdone, your Islamaphobe friend tries to hide the "outright lie" that I exposed about "Muslim community" using the label "Islamism".

In fact many groups labeled terrorists, especially the contemporary variety in the Middle East think of themselves as "Freedom Fighters". Their followers and funders consider them "freedom fighters" just like US used to call Bin Laden in the 80's, even though they were the same people using the same tactics as Al Qaeda today. They have said many times they are fighting to "free" Muslim lands from foreign occupation, be it Soviets in Afghanistan, Americans in Saudi or neocrusader Zionists in Israel.

It's most certainly true with Islamic Brotherhood thinks of Arab governments as Western stooges and wants to free their homeland. Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade, HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. All want to "free" Palestine. Hezbollah was formed to free southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation. LTTE consider themselves freedom fighters for a Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka. MEK also says they want "freedom" for Iran. If they want to free something and if they say they are fighting for freedom, it's correct to say that they fight under the banner of "freedom", as they understand it.

You couldn't be more wrong in your own unsubstantiated decree that "this is an obvious lie". But we're only too used to these things from you.

Re: Soraya

"Do you all believe the Shah wanted anything less? "

Yes, he wanted Iran to have access to nuclear technology as well. But your comparision is incorrect. The Shah was accomplishing the same, but without the risk of war, without the fuss that the IRI has created, and with access to the most modern nuclear technology of its time, as opposed to the 60s technology the IRI is purchasing from the Russians in 2008.

Additionally, if you care for the possiblity of Iranians being exposed to "toxics", then you should review the results of the chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in the former Soviet Union.

The IRI is building plants some of which are based on even an older technology than that of chernobyl. But heck, as long as we can rub the US's "pooz" on dust, who cares?

Q, based on my definition

Q, based on my definition of "Islamist", you are qualifed to be called as such.

I say this again, that your logic is: If it walks like a duck, if it swims like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it must be an elephant.

Such is your logic.

On Hypocrisy and Labeling

Unlike what Q, our apologist resident on site claims, Islamism is the exact and accurate term to denote these types of movements.

'The KKK is heavily Christian and justifies its atrocities in Biblical terms, but not only do we not use any stupid term like Christianist...'
This of course is a meaningless comparison. The KKK might consider their beliefs to be Christian, but their main objective is not to impose the Christian law and sharia on the world. That is however precisely what the Islamist objective is, since they regard Islam not as a mere religion, but as a comprehensive and perfect program that should govern every single aspect of every single humans life on the face of the earth.

'More "terrorism" is probably committed under the banner of "freedom" than anything else, including some of what may otherwise be called "islamist.
Should we now demand an explanation from the advocates of freedom? Why is it that most terrorist commit crimes under the banner of freedom? Failing this, another strategy might be to invent a word like "freedomist"'

This is obviously an outright lie, and a clear sign of a typical apologist's confusion of facts with his own ideological dogmas that are being defended. It is a perfect example of what an apologist would say. One among many proofs of why our friend here is clearly identified and labeled as an apologist.

Islamism is surely one among many forms of threats against a free society. It happens to be the most dangerous and fashionable one in our days. That other similar movements exist (and Islamism has forged ties with almost all of them around the world), changes nothing. :-)

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoM-ZC7uNnc

Mrs. Soraya Sepahpour

Thank you for your feedback from Haaretz/ and the NYT. But the Figaro source dates from Friday's issue 12/09/2008 only recently contradicated by Haaretz Sunday the 

 How should we interpret the Valse of Hesitation at Haaretz in the announcements then ?   A Mistake or a further proof that the US and Israel are at odds on Iran ?

Simply wondering ...

Darius jaan we Love you

Your Gentlemanly style and a great sense of visual humor wins over all these rifrafs. You are a Great Sport and such a delight to have on this site.

Here is a little tribute to you on the theme of gallantry and chivalry:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSHOlrxj2EE

Gobless
AD

FYI/from Haaretz/ and the NYT

Mr. Kadivar, I suggest that like any good researcher, you check your source/s. Indeed, your "rough summary", would appear to be inaccurate.
"Despite reservations in Washington regarding a possible Israeli strike on Iran, the American administration will supply Israel with sophisticated weapons for heavily fortified targets, the U.S. administration announced.

The U.S. Department of Defense announced it would sell the Israel Air Force 1,000 new smart bombs, rumored to significantly enhance the IAF's military capabilities. The deal was approved amid public and secret messages from Washington, with the Americans expressing their reservations about a possible Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic's suspected nuclear sites.

The Pentagon's announcement, which came on Friday, said the U.S. will provide Israel with 1,000 units of Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39) - a special weapon developed for penetrating fortified facilities located deep underground.
Advertisement

The $77 million shipment, which includes launchers and appurtenances, will allow the IAF to hit many more bunkers than currently possible. Although each bomb weighs 113 kilograms, its penetration capabilities equal those of a one ton bomb, according to professional literature." //www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020702.html
I am not a physics guru, God knows I flunked it in high school, but in reading literature about all this, what gives these bombs their light weight and the capability to plough in and penetrate even steel, is uranium. Thank you all for wanting your country to be thus destroyed and its people exposed to toxics simply because it is time for Iran to move from the periphery to the core - to catch up with the technology it desperately needs. Do you all believe the Shah wanted anything less?

Mammad

It is not my fault that you make accusations without checking whom you are accusing and what you are accusing that person of. When one claims to be an academic, regardless of your field, one is expected to make assertions on the basis of facts and not assumptions or falsities.

On the question of Islam and Islamic practice, again you are the one who broadcast your Islamism so loudly (not a very private way of being a Muslim, is it)as if you are the only Muslim around here and the rest are non-believers. But you should know better that humility is an Islamic virtue, the moment you claim to be a Muslim, you are expected and duty-bound to behave like one. The last two examples (assessing others's opinios and reporting historic events) cast a shadow of doubt on your Islamic values in doing things.

There are a number of Bakhtiar's interviews on the Youtube and on this site in which Bakhtiar complains about the army's mistrusting him and effectively igoring his decrees. Therefore Bakhtiar was undeer no illusion about army's position toward him. As for General Huyser's mission to Iran, no one can categorically say what it was BUT now with te benefit othe hind sightit is not difficult to find what it was; averting a possible coup by the army. I any case, your hearsay account of Bakhtiar telling Bazargan that the army would kill him if he resigned and met Khomeini makes no sense as Bakhtiar (after such resignation) would have become a simple civilain with no authority. Th eonly thing that Khomeini would have disacussed with a resigned-Bakhtiar would have been a "Aadaabe ghosslo tahaarat" :))

We prefer Conflict Management technique's in Conneticut

Er ... Yes I gather that you in Tehrangeles are a little more ... Er ... How do you Say it in the New World ? "sophisticated" Right ?

I'm something of an Old School you know sticking to Mark Twain's Conflict Management Solutions. Even when Writing from the Land of Moliere.

I salute you Sir and Peace

Well, it's not so much "translate" as "read"

Here's one of them for you:

when it comes to you and so many of your fellow anaonymous contributors who don't have the guts after more than 30 years to even express your views in the light of the day.

This qualifies as an insult doesn't it? I would think, even if I was anonymous, and nevermind the non-application of this standard to Fred, Zion, and the rest. But I consider this matter closed.

I happen to agree with your sentiment 100%, by the way, I have written similar arguments against such hypocrisy. Fred for example feels entitled to demand, use and abuse personal information about the object of his attacks, yet he doesn't even have a real name.

incidinetally duels are done a bit differently in LA:

Q Touché ?

Your Avatar would suffice unless you insist.

What particular comments do you translate as Insults ? If I did I apologize unless you want to solve this matter between gentlemen otherwise ? Rapier or Sword ?

IranDokht

Your evasive technique in answering questions is quite telling. Condescending or not, you still haven't told us what you mean by "minor differences" between your named groups. Please elaborate. And for the record, I am a free thinker but not the "Free Thinker". Although I agree with his/her point of view, I don't share his/her stance on certain issues. My reply to you on Palin's thread was not published, perhaps due to being too condescending!

Kadivar,

thought you might ignore this:
Are you ready to take back your angry and short-sighted insults made in ERROR? (I DOUBT it).

But this

Now waiting for your photo ...

I can oblige. Sure thing. I'll get you a high quality portrait I developed myself. Give me your address and I'll send it DHL.

Also, in light of some interesting recent developments, that All-American crew may be needed closer to home.

Lastly, this is for you, my friend:

FYI/ From the French Daily Le Figaro: ( MUST READ)

According to the Latest developments from the "War Front"  Washington doesn't seem to  encourage the Israeli  Military Option against Iran. In my humble opinion now  The Ball (if I can say)  is in Iran's hands I suppose to show more encouraging signs of appeasement in the current crisis.

Q, its "Chutzpah" NOT "Chutzbah"

My Islamist Hamvatan. An yes you have lots of Chutzpah.

You say "So it should be trivial for you to prove to everyone that I am an Islamist. Where is it that I or Mammad have ever indicated, we wanted to "impose" beliefs"

Q, you have openly stated that the elections in the IRI are democratic and the selection of the guardianship council is democratic. You support the IRI being in power. Sure, you personally don't "impose beliefs" although you try to bully people into shutting up by calling them names (even Mammad has told you to cool it). However, you support the existence of an entity that imposes beliefs. Now that is the ultimate Islamist chutzpah!

Or will yoy have the Chutzpah to tell us that the IRI does not impose its beliefs on others?

Glad to meet you Qumars Bolourchian ;0)

Now waiting for your photo ...

Merci Beaucoup,

DK 

The hypocrisy and double standards

good thing the article is about Hypocrisy because much of it is clearly on display here with regards to the Islam discussion. It has hit a nerve with our Kalimi friend, Zionist friend and the usual Islamophobic crowd.

For example, I can't believe this was said with a straight face:

labeling anyone who disagrees with you, and charging them with irrelevant and false allegations is the prime hallmark of a totalitarian mind in fear of light.

with only a few lines later:

Now we get the following from an apologist:

probably sets another land-speed record for fastest time to self-contradiction.

Furthermore, this person goes on to make the statement that

Whenever there is an outcry against the by now common horrendous atrocities committed under the banner of Islam, by extremist muslims, the only response one gets from the muslims community is that such acts are attributes of Islamism, and not Islam.

First and foremost, this is a a lie. Muslim community does not attribute terrorism to "Islamists" or "Islamism". The latter is loaded code word popularized by people already hostile to Islam the religion, and who perceive Muslim immigration as a "threat" to their society, and in their irrational xenophobic fears, think there's a Muslim conspiracy to "take over" western societies and enslave Christians and Jews. It is purposefully designed to equate Islam with terrorism and fanaticism. Usage of "Islamism" actively banks on the fact that most listeners don't know this obsecure made-up, self-serving definition and hope they would instead make a negative connection to "Islam". It would be very easy to clear the misconception, as by now, even the Bush administration and most right wingers use other adjectives to narrow the component of Muslims they are talking about: like "radical", "extremists", "violent", "jihadi", etc.

The indisputable fact is that terrorism and "common harrandous atrocities" are committed under all kinds of banners. Judaism, Christianity, Communism, Capitalism, "Self defense", "racial purity", tradition, "God says this land is mine", human rights, social justice, economic justice, etc. etc. More "terrorism" is probably committed under the banner of "freedom" than anything else, including some of what may otherwise be called "islamist."

Should we now demand an explanation from the advocates of freedom? Why is it that most terrorist commit crimes under the banner of freedom? Failing this, another strategy might be to invent a word like "freedomist" and pin it on that. Never mind that it has nothing to do with freedom and will necessarily lead to a false association. In other words, simply accept a terrorist self-label as fact. This is what our Zionist friend does above and elsewhere.

The KKK is heavily Christian and justifies its atrocities in Biblical terms, but not only do we not use any stupid term like Christianist but we don't even use terms like "Christian fundementalist" and "Christian extremists" for the KKK. They are racists and terrorist period. Their Christian identity is not important. But because of the prevelance of bigotry and Islamophobia, the same courtesy does not get extended to people who carry out atrocities "under the banner of Islam". Actually, there is far more to this. Not only is the Islamic association a term of ignorance when applied to criminals and terrorists, it is a political tool to conflate and dismiss Muslim social movements reacting to Western occupation and colonialism.

To the other time waster:

Islamist is someone who believes in imposing his politico-beliefs onto others.

is not because it is insulting to Islam, far from it, it is because YOU are an Islamist yourself.

Really? So it should be trivial for you to prove to everyone that I am an Islamist. Where is it that I or Mammad have ever indicated, we wanted to "impose" beliefs? Can you find it? If you can't, and you are not a hypocrite, can you, Fred, Zion and others stop assigning this word to myself and Mammad? (Answer: No, and No).

But the ultimate hypocrisy comes in here:

The problem is that a minority hated Islamist extremists have also the loudest voice.

Look at the number of modifiers, you yourself assigned around "Islamist": minority of hated, extremists.

By your previously stated definition, it would be sufficient to just say "Islamist" wouldn't it? Why then use all these modifiers? To make sure you don't mean the "non-extremists" who wish to "impose their political-religious beliefs onto others"?

Give me a break!

Conclusion: "Islamist" is a term used by those hostile to Islam to demonize it in a variety of ways. It can mean any negative thing that you want. For example it is frequently called both "backward" and "modern", both "true face of Islam" and "a deviation from true Islam", both "IRI" and "Taliban" and even "JDP, the Turkish ruling party". Just like all code-words, it is so broadly defined, it has become meaningless, except for what the phonetics itself invokes, which is "Islam". Like it's more radical cousin "Islamo-fascism", it is a political device to silence and deomonize any opposing political expression by a person who identifies themselves as Muslim.

Now, for a good laugh, go back and read our Zionist friend's rant on "labeling."

Kadivar: There was some very interesting comments about being "anonymous" in this thread which I hope you can give "some thought" to as well.

FYI/Another Patriot ;0)

Tennis Champ Mansour Bahrami and Farah Pahlavi

//iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/mansour-bahrami-and-farah-pahlavi

Oh But I suppose then that he too should be bad mouthed by some of you out there as a so called "Crowned Cannible", "Pro-War Neo Con" , "dictator lover French Poodle" like me ?  In that case I take that for a compliment.

VIVE MANSOUR BAHRAMI !

-

-

Dear Enki Catena

Wrong forum. I find it interesting that whenever the Islamists run out of arguments {which is very often} they resort to trashing Israel. This is a discussion about Iran not Israel. What does any of those links have to do with Iran?

Moving on

I’ll not belabor the point and take your lack of providing citation for your supposed direct quotations of mine as proof positive of a tried and failed Islamist tactic. That is the tactic the Islamist use to shut their opponents up. 

 Islamists like opponents’ hands tied and even then as soon as cornered revert to victimization and if that does not work brandish their nuke. Knowing fully well what that entails, your ultimate weapon is calling your opponents Anti-Islam. There are graveyards full of its victims.

 Your other Islamist buddy has tried to come to your rescue by a load of typical amateurish conjecture rather than actual direct quotations. At least you have the finesse to make wiggling out a sight to behold; his is too amateurish, crude and Keyhan like.

I’m afraid you still don’t get it. It is not you or I or thousands upon thousands like us, it is all about Iran and its emancipation from your Islamism. Your political creed is ruling and ruining Iran, don’t expect its victims to buy your repackaging (compatibility of Islamism with democracy) in silence, you will be opposed every micrometer of the way.

 You want to empower the Islamist republic by getting the nuke, go ahead but be prepared to be opposed on that score too.

 And finally let me make it easy for you and all the interested Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies. I have always and do so now believe that the state of Israel is Iran’s one and only ally. Not out of her goodwill or historical ties, rather sheer strategic reality and necessity.  The good news is I am by no means alone in this assessment; it seems to be all the rage in the Islamist occupied Iran as well. We shall overcome soon.

Soraya Shall we Dance ? ;0)

Ok after all this Heated Debate I think we all deserve a commercial Break.

Until our next intellectual Swashbuckling, Soraya Khanoum I dedicate you this song:

BUT EN GARDE NEVERTHELESS ! ;0)

Che Sera, Sera ...

Some interesting comments on this thread particularly from Mammad to which deserve an argumented response which I hope to deliver after I give it some thought if I have time this week.

In the meantime keep well everyone and lets agree to disagree in a civil manner.

Best to all Friends and Foes alike,

Wishing all a Nice Week

Re: Q

You are again resorting to fallacy in order to prove your point. You start with a false premise, you then cleverly quickly move on to a long discussion, and then, based on the false premise you started with (but quickly moved away from), you make conclusions that can only be false.

Your false premise is equating Islam and Islamist, just because they sound similar.

But they are two different things. Islam/Moslem stands for the religious beliefs at the spiritual level. "Islamist" stands for fundementalist (ertejaa'i) religious beliefs combined with extremist (read: fascistic) political views.

Islamist is someone who believes in imposing his politico-religious beliefs onto others. This is unlike my grandmother or many of my dear practicing Moslem friends who would never try to shove their views by force and violence.

If you get offended by the word "Islamist", it is not because it is insulting to Islam, far from it, it is because YOU are an Islamist yourself.

Islamists have offended and damaged Islam far worst than anyone else. In fact the worst victims have been spiritual Moslems. Your time spent on googling is appreciated, but it was only a waste of your time.

Re: Mammad

ON YOUR RESPONSE TO FRED:

You wrote to Fred, "Have you ever tried to the attention of people in this column ONE, just ONE, positive thing about many Muslim thinkers, activists, and so on."

Have you Mammad? The only one I remember you mentioning is Shariati. Educate, don't complain. The problem is not Fred. The problem is that a minority hated Islamist extremists have also the loudest voice.

What have YOU done to undo the damage they have caused? This includes the majority of the ayatolahs in Iran. What have you done to oppose them both at a political and also at a religious level? So far you have only relieved yourself of any responsibility by stating that you are a "mohtaat".

Do not blame Fred. Blame the source instead.

You wrote, "Countless number of times I have stated my support for everyone to practice his/her religion as a private matter, from Bahais to Jews, and Christians"

Have you done anything besides "expressing" your view? I am talking about the type of anti-US admin comments you have written in the past, slamming the US administration. Why no such "slamming" against the IRI for their treatment of minorities? Or Women?

Again, don't blame others. Blame the source instead.

The reason you sometimes get attacked by others in an unfair manner is that you have done nothing to reclaim Islam from the hands of those who are destroying it. Or if you have done something, it is too little compared to your other efforts. They are just reacting, as you and I sometimes do.

I respect you as a Moslem. I respect your praying and reading the Koran. I respect you even for doing vozoo, for example.

What you need to do is to teach the other type of false moslems who are today in charge in Iran how to respect others. How to not hurt so many. How not to plant the seed of hatred and anomisity towards Islam in so many people.

But instead you complain at the victims, instead of focusing your efforts on the source.