DECEPTION

Mammad

My apologies for delayed response. This is not to comment on the tone of my post to Soraya but rather to respond to your post.  I have noticed that you have made many other posts after your defense of  Soraya’s post.

Before anything else, I should acknowledge the depth of your research and study of historical events and beg your permission to speak as a school drop out, with the view of a layman observation in front of a highly regarded PhD scholars. You are free to ridicule my words to your contempt.  

In your lengthy essay, you have tried to discredit Bush administration’s war on terrorism in response to my assertion of declared war on US on 9/11. In my comments to Soraya, I never referred to war on terror, and I am not here to defend or condemn Bush/Cheyne’s administration’s reactions to 9/11.  

What I saw in 9/11 was declaration of war by Islamic Fundamentalists against the Democracy loving people of the United State and their system of government. We can sit here debate and argue till eternity as to the reason why such attack happened and the fact that US at some point was supporting the attackers, etc, etc…..It will still remain a declaration of war. It could be even with your own brother.

Terrorism is just one of the weapons used in this war of ideologies. IMHO “war on terrorism” is a misnomer. The war is against those who use terrorism as their tool, not against terrorism. Again, IMHO, to defend against such ideological intruder, you first need to neutralize or completely destroy their weapon. This is where disagreement arises in many debates over the actions of one administration vs. another.  

In my simple mind it doesn’t matter who created Islamic fundamentalism. It doesn’t change its nature as enemy of democracy and the biggest threat to the world’s peace.  The critical issue is how to confront such ideological enemy? Such wars are the most difficult to fight and Mammad, contrary to your comments in a different post, it is not a matter of how many fighter jets, battleships or tanks you have to be the most threat to the world peace. A few committed believers could become as lethal as a nuclear bomb.  

You may then argue that the most effective approach would be to address the source and try to shake the foundation of Islamic fundamentalism. But, to do that, you need time. How are we going to buy the time when we are facing such threats (real or perceived)?  

Inevitably in any such debate formation of state of Israel is brought up in one form of another. It is my opinion as a realist that we should accept the Jewish State of Israel as an unchangeable fact of modern history and build our arguments around this fact. This is not by any means to condone or condemn the actions of their government. There can be an endless debate over what different Israeli leaders and their governments have done.  I sympathize with the plight of Palestinians and at times rationalize their actions, but I have hard time to condemn Israel’s every action outright. I am sure many on this thread would label me as Zionist, fascist, imperialist, vatanforoush, khaen, bad joohood, neocon, etc…..but, that’s OK.  I know who I am. I never promote hate.

Fortunately or unfortunately Israel has become the focal point of world peace. If you agree the premise that Israel has the right to exist then you cannot dismiss their concerns without reservation. I know that you have presented many cases for Israel’s violation of many international laws, treaties, human rights, etc….But, when it comes to IRI’s access to nuclear bomb (even with a 0.00000000001% chance) you cannot blame them for their stance even if they have 500000 warheads.  IRI is an enemy who has openly proclaimed their vision to wipe them off the map and actively sponsors Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south.As for Palestinians and their supporters, what is wrong with accepting a set-back in their struggles and start building a new, more prosperous life free of hate and revenge. Give their children a chance,  if it didn’t work they can always start entifada and come back to where they are now.

Back to Mrs. Ulrich’s post (after taking out its insulting tone to millions of American and their system of government), I believe there are enough activists around the globe to soften US and Israeli’s stance in this fiasco, but I don’t know of any that is actively persuading the IRI to soften their position. If I had Soraya’s standing and sharp pen, I would have gladly directed my talent towards that end.  

Regards,  

Bijan    

Mammad, I’m sorry that

Mammad, I’m sorry that you believe that our conversations go nowhere. I don’t engage in personal attacks or character assassination, and so far, you haven’t been like that with me. So I’m not sure why you make such claim, but offcourse its up to you whether you want to respond to my posting or not. Obviously, we have fundamental differences in our points of view.

I like to get to the core of the argument and see the problem. What I’ve been promoting for ever, is that we need to resort to history, logic, experience and evidence; it is very clear that you do not believe in that, your arguments are all based on ideological lenses.

Islamic fundamentalism is not only a Sunni phenomenon. Like I said before, just like any religion, Islamic fundamentalism can trace its roots back to the early days of the religion. But obviously, we don’t live in 600 AD; rather, in 2008, and in 1979 AD, a fascist by the name of Khomeini revitalized and introduces a modern concept of Islamic fundamentalism. Most, if not all, Sunni groups are inspired by the Khomeini model. Just look at Hamas. On the other hand, all shite fundamentalist groups, such as Hezbollah and Moqtada Sadr, are inspired by the IRI. Last week, Hassan Nasrulla himself said that he is “proud to be a member of the Velayat Faghih” party.” Like I said Mammad, you need to get out of this bubble and explore the truth.

Shite fundamentalist groups are definitely minority in Iran. Who said they are the majority? All this time I’ve been saying that a small group of fascist, fundamentalist, previously disfranchised, tyrannical in beliefs, heartless and brutal minority of our population have hijacked our country and our oppressing our people, destroying our country and inflecting war on our country. You basically reasserted my argument there.

Again, your claim that Khomeini was a “leftist” is so misguided due to the reasons I mentioned in my last posting. I can copy and paste them, but that wouldn’t make sense, would it? Mammad, just remember this, not even during Khomeini’s era or post Khomeini, you can be in Iran and call Khomeini a leftist. Your punishment would be jail at minimum, execution at max. So, I’m really not sure based on what you make this claim unless you made up new definitions of leftism and Islamism. And your interpretation argument, again, reasserts my previous posting. Fundamentalism is exactly that, it’s a way of translating and defining religious principals. It’s a “fundamentalist” method of doing that in such it practices verses and teaching as they are written without looking at the spirit or the meaning of those words. Khomeini just did that, he institutionalized Islamic teachings such as stoning, Hijab, ..and others exactly as it says in the Quran. Now, obviously, moderate or liberal Muslims don’t believe in that. They look at the unwritten meaning of those wordings. They also look at the applicability of those laws in a modern, civilized society. That’s the difference between a moderate and a fundamentalist.  And your argument about other religions fundamentalism is flawed also. First of all, there are far more “fundamentalist” Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other religious groups in other parts of the world, including Europe than the U.S. I’m just gonna give you two examples. The “god army” in Uganda is a militant fundamentalist group taken arms against the government and people. Also, the right wing National Front party in France headed by Le Pen, is a far more radical party than any in the U.S. However, the difference between those so called “fundamentalist” parties in Europe and other places is that they play within the rules of the game and they obey the democratic choice. If they lose an election, they concede it. They would not take arms and start killing innocent people. If the IRI had given room for fundamentalist parties from all religions to operate freely in Iran, they would’ve earned my respect. The issue is, that Islamic fundamentalism has zero tolerance for anything other than them, and the crucial difference between them and others is that they have no hesitance, remorse, or second thoughts, about taking innocent lives and resorting to terrorism and force, to achieve their goal.

FK

As usual, my discussions with you quickly deteriorated to something that goes no where. I only respond to the core issue. The rest of what you said is contradicted by so much evidence and so many analyses that, in my view, does not need responding, like your absurd arguments about Algeria.

Islamic fundamentalism is a Sunni phenomenon, not Shi'ite. It is the Sunnis, and in particular the Wahabi and Salafi sects,  who interpret the teachings of Ghoran and what the Prophet said in a strict literal way, and draw the wrong conclusions. It is the Wahabi and Salafi sects that have produced practically all the terrorists, and Wahabi and Salafi sects do not even recognize the Shi'ites as true Muslims.

Shi'ite, due to the fact that they allow reinterpretation of Ghoran's teachings, cannot be, and are not, fundamentalist. It does not mean that there are not any. As I said, Mesbah Yazdi and the "Mesbahiye Cult" are close to being fundamentalist. But, they are an extremely small minority. Mesbah is not even respected by most of the Ayatollahs.

In particular, Ayatollah Khomeini was not a fundamentalist. He was instrumental in reviving the Islamic principle that all the Islamic teachings are divided into two groups: The primary teachings that cannot be changed, but are only a few, and the secondary teachings that are subject to reinterpretation, depending on the needs of the era. Say what you want about Ayatollah Khomeini, but as a practicing Muslim and proud Shi'ite I find that a very progressive position which, in fact, prevents fundamentalism from taking root among the Shi'ites. Add to that the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini was a leftist cleric. I should know this, because not only I am a practicing Shi'ite, but also follow such issues due to being a political activist for 36 years.

Where you go wrong in what you say is when you confuse two dictinct issues as being one and the same. There is no doubt that the Iranian Revolution helped the revival of political Islam. But, political Islam is not equal to Islamic fundamentalism. The ruling Party in Turkey is an Islamist Party, but not fundamentalist. The same is true about Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Muslim League of Pakistan (the Bhutto Party), .... Most of the reformist/democratic groups in Iran are Islamic, but not fundamentalist. This is similar to Christian democratic Parties in Western Europe. None is fundamentalist, but all are religious Christian, and are distinct from Christian fundamentalists of the US, such as the Christian Zionists.

Mammad

Here We Go Again - Mr. Mammad

Please, please please, if you want to respond to me make sure that you read and understand my comment properly. I am not claiming that more Mulims have been killed at the hands of other Muslims than non-Muslims. That argument will be intellectually dishonest and simnply not true.

What I said was:

"In fact, I think that more Muslim have died at the hands of fundamentalists than non-Muslims."

The meaning of that sentence is that fundamentalists have killed more Muslims than they have killed non-Muslims. And if you read the beginning of the paragraph that talks about indescriminiate killings the meaning of the sentence is even more clear. So, please don't misquote me.

Anonymous Observer

I did not know that I am the problem, or that people like me, moderate Muslims who are against fundamentalism of any sort, are the problem. Thanks for letting me know.

I believe that you are the one who is not serious about the danger to the world of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism. For example, you see the problem of Jewish fundamentalism (that you accept to exist only grudgingly) to be local. Well, its effect is GLOBAL. One of the most important issues, if not the most important one, that many Muslims resent and are angry about, especially in pooro Islamic countries, is the issue of Palestinians and their plight after 60 years.  This is absolutely not my claim. All you have to do is checking the internet, and you will find hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and analyses about this.

If you claim that this is not a big issue; if you claim that much of the resentment in the Islamic world toward the US is not due to the one-sided and totally blind support of the US for Israel, then I do not believe that you know what is happening.

Your claim about more Muslims killed by other Muslism than by anyone else is totally wrong. These are propaganda spread by the neocons, in order to hide their own crimes. I am preparing an article, that I hope I'll be able to post soon (not on this site though), in which I show by reliable statistics by respected international organizations, such as Amnesty International and the UN, that over the past 30 years, 3.5 million Muslims have been killed by Western powers. This is not counting the Iran/Iraq war deads, at least half a million, that was encouraged and started by Western powers, particularly the US. 

I did not claim Hindu fundamentalism is a global problem. What I was talking about was the existence of fundamentalism thinking in any religion. And, the effect of Christian fundamentalism on the Republican Party and the Bush administration, and its devastating global effect, are too important and obvious to ignore.

Muslims like me believe that fundamentalism can be eliminated, or forced to be just a little noise in the background, if the issues of poverty, hopelessness, the Palestinian problem, and the corrupt and dictatorial regimes that are supported by the US are addressed. Muslims like me believe that fundamentalism does not have a military solution. This is a war, but not a military war. It is a war of ideas for solving the problems above. 

You believe otherwise, be my guest.

Mammad

who is WE Kashani?

Kashani says: "All WE ask, is for you guys to be fair."

Kashsni, who is "WE"?
I find it amusing that you make up facts, and rewrite history as you go along. In your recent post you even create a new philosophy when your baseless claim that Iran is "the biggest threat" to world peace" is discredited, by saying:
"your view presents exactly what is wrong with how the West and the rest of the world have been looking at the IRI for the last 30 years."
The west and the rest of the world is wrong and Kashani is right! But of course Kashani is WE!?

Kashani, that is the problem with making things up as you go along!
On top of being a confused extremist you are an extremely confused fellow.

Mammad, I don’t think you

Mammad, I don’t think you see the big picture at all and your assessment are all wrong.

-         If you want to trace Islamic fundamentalism back to its roots, you have to go back as far as the early days of Islam, not the mid 20th century in Egypt. Obviously, we’re talking about modern times, not ancient history. Khomeini, according to his own and most Islamic fundamentalist’s (Such as Bin Ladan) words, initiated and revitalized Islamic fundamentalism. In Iran and shitism, that goes back to the final days of the Safavid dynasty, where shite clergy started the process of building a social network of religious fundamentalism. In 1979, after 400 years of plotting, they were successful in taking control of the country using that network. Also, do not forget that Seeyed Qotb was leader of a group (Ekhvan Muslemin), and IRI is a government. Ekhvan Muslemin never took over Egypt, thus, they were never able to use the country’s resources, the IRI, however, did. And your claim that the British had something to do with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism originates from the conspiracy theory which blinds one from seeing the truth or identify the problem. The British did many things; initiating Islamic Fundamentalism was not one of them.

-         Your Algeria example contradicts your argument. First of all, you talk about 1992, which is sometimes close to 14 years after the Iranian revolution and their movement. like close to all other Islamic fundamentalist movements, was inspired by Iran, and that’s why Algeria broke all relations with Iran because the regime was supporting those Islamic groups. The relations were normal again, after Belkhadem became head of state in Algeria. As far as your constant claim that Algeria did this by the support of U.S or France, and Pakistan did that by the support of U.S, again is baseless. You don’t think that any of these governments had enough will or power to take action themselves? You don’t think they’re responsible for their own actions? Just because U.S ambassador in Algeria said his government is OK with what the Algerian government is doing, does that mean the U.S is “involved” in its operations? Furthermore, what happened in Algeria wasn’t a “civil war”. It was a murder campaign by Islamic fundamentalists against the government and innocent people. A replica of that happened in Egypt in the 90s and can be seen now in Iraq.

-         There is a huge difference between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran. First of all, there is no such thing as “Islamic Republic” or any religious republic for that matter. Second, in Pakistan, women don’t have to wear hijab, alcohol is permitted in many places, many of its laws are secular, (As recent election showed) they have a fairly democratic system that is not necessarily always functional, the Pakistani government is not in conflict with the world although it has maintained its sovereignty, and the official position of the government is not to “export its revolution or Islamic fundamentalism” to the world (although there are certainly elements in the Pakistani government, intelligent service and army that support Islamic fundamentalism)…all of the above are not true about the regime in Iran. So the Ziaul Haq government did not in any way, shape or form, set a precedent for Khomeini. Khomeini set an example for other Islamic states to follow: for example, Taliban, they applied almost all the laws applied in Iran during their reign, and the Bitullah Masoud group in Wazirestan in Pakistan, and the Sunni and shite fundamentalist groups in Fallujah and Basra, everywhere those Islamic fascists had an opportunity to apply their system , they copied exactly what Iran has, not what Ziaul Haq had.

-         Your Mujahedeen argument is the same old cliché. Its actually very simple; in the world of politics, different government and groups from totally different ideological background come together to face a common enemy. There are numerous examples of that during the history. England and France came together against Germany in WWI, and U.S and USSR got together against Germany in WWII. Same thing happened in Afghanistan. The U.S were assisting the Mujahedeen because they were anti Soviet, not to train them how to smash civilian airplanes into its own buildings. At that time, it was Communism who declared war against the free world, the Islamic regime had not yet produced the new generation of human suicide bombs to be able to confront the world yet.

-         Your IRI argument is so misguided I don’t even know where to start. First of all, I think you should stop reading misguided leftists like Chomsky, and how about listening to what they themselves say. You don’t have to take Bush or Obama or anyone else’s word, just listen to what they say. Based on what do you say that the “export of revolution” slogan has stopped? I frequently read Iranian newspaper online (From Iran), and almost every week I run into some fascist like some Imam Jomeh or Guardian council member, or Ahamdi Nezhad Or Khamenei or someone else, declaring that our revolutionary ideas are now spread all over the world and we have a duty to continue that trend. That’s really easy to find out. Second, based on what logic do you say that Khomenin was a leftist??? That’s either an astonishing departure from reality or you have officially created new definitions for leftism and Islamism. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the leftist movement in Iran is as much responsible for what Iran is going through as the Islamic movement, but there are clear distinctions between the two. Khomeini killed communists and leftists, predicted the fall of leftism and constantly bashed the Soviet Union and the leftist model, in all his speeches and declarations he trashed and demeaned the left, most , if not all leftist principals such as worker class benefits, social and medical welfare for all, separation of religion and state, women and minority rights, economical welfare, ..and numerous others, were crushed and thrown out. The ones you mentioned are Islamic-Leftists, which just like the “Islamic Republic” or “Melli Mazhabi (religious nationalist),,are all made up terms and ideas. None of it make sense, none of it has any followers in Iran, and none of it has positively contributed to anything in Iran.

-         If you claim that Sunni fundamentalists are anti Iran, then what do you have to say about Hamas? They themselves do not dismiss the fact that they are part of Ekhvan Muslemeen (Sunni fundamentalis). Hamas, praised and held a funeral ceremony for Zarqawi, a prominent Al Qaeda member who you say is “anti Iran”. Zarqawi is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Shiites in Iraq. Also, if you listen to Zawaheri or Bin ladan or Mehdi Akef or Khaled Mashal or any other Sunni fundamentalist speech, they rarely make anti Iranian remarks. You are totally unaware of the fact that Sunni fundamentalists 1- have been inspired by Khomeini to rise up and create an Islamic state 2- Do not look at today’s Iran as a “Persian” country, rather, an Islamic state. Therefore, the previous animosity does not exist anymore. And some of them, are allying with Iran for the same reason as confronting a common enemy, namely the U.S. They don’t have to necessarily agree with Iran in everything.

-         “Christian fundamentalist” Bush sacrificed a military base in Uzbekistan because it spoke out in support of Uzbekistan’s Islamic fundamentalist right to protest. That’s the difference between Islamic fundamentalism and others. Also, I’m not sure if you’re following whats really going on, but large portion of conservatives in the U.S are disappointed by Bush because of his inability or unwillingness to deliver all the conservative promises he made in his campaign. Bush is not a fundamentalist, he’s not even a true conservative, he fooled some conservatives to get their votes. Why do you think lot of them are saying they gonna stay home this election? Mammad. Open your eyes and look around you, the words “fundamentalism” and “Conservatism”, and even “liberal”, are translated different into realities around the world, depending on the country’s social and political structure. A conservative in Iran doesn’t believe in, lets say, gun ownership, in the U.S, they do. So don’t mix up the definitions.

-         Iran has introduced a new breed and a new style of Islamic fundamentalism. Zia Haq or Qotb or others simply presented a way of life, Iran is using scare and terrorist and brainwashing tactics and mafia and bullying methods, to create human bombs, whom are able to cause catastrophe with box cutters. There is a difference between presenting a way, and relentlessly and tirelessly pursuing to implement a way.

-         Thanks to IRIs and Khomeini’s barbaric and savage intolerance model when he issued a fatwa to kill Rushdie, its not only unfashionable to criticizes Islam, but most people have been scared to shut up if they wanna say anything against Islam, fearing for their lives. The IRI has created a breed of inhumane humans that cannot even tolerate a simple caricature. Please turn on your TV right now and see how frequently Jesus or Christianity is being ridiculed in “fundamentalist” American media or on “fundamentalist” FOX news!

All we ask, is for you guys to be fair.

Mammad - You Can't be Serious!

You know, I am all for objectivity and taking a critical look at all sides on an issue. But in doing so, one cannot be disingenuous and make silly arguments just to prove a point.

You say this:

"In the occupied territories, Jewish fundamentalists, armed and backed by Israel's forces, pose the greatest danger to a meaningful peace between Israel and Palestinians. In India, Hindu fundamentslists [sic] keep killing Muslims and destroying their mosques. I do not see anybody warning against such fundamentalist forces, which are far more potent than anything Islamic fundamentalism can present."

You're not serious, are you?!!! Extremist Hindus are much more "potent" than Islamic fundamentalists?!!!!! For the sake of this argument, I will agree with the first part of the paragraph about the existence of the extremist Jewish and Hindu groups. But let's be honest and serious for a moment. Those groups are localized groups that are concerned with local issues (i.e., the Kashmir issue). They are NOT, as various Islamic movements claim themselves, global organizations determined to hit their enemies (and their determination of the word enemy is rather fluid. It pretty much means anyone who disagrees with them) anywhere in the world. Are you claiming that Hindu groups train and arm terrorist cells around the world to conduct such operations as 9/11, the Madrid bombings and the London bombings (among others)?

Please also note that unlike any of the other two groups that you mentioned, Islamic fundamentalists do not discriminate between their victims and, in fact, as we see in Iraq, quite often their victims are other Muslims, who a lot of times are just innocent civilians who are blown to pieces in indiscriminate bomb attacks. In fact, I think that more Muslim have died at the hands of fundamentalists than non-Muslims.

Respectfully, the problem with the Muslim world today is people like you, who instead of admitting the problem and finding a solution for it, act blind, deaf and mute as to obvious facts and pretend that denial and twisting of the facts will make other forget or overlook what is really happening. As I am sure you know, to fix a problem, one must admit its existence first.

I think that instead of denial and silly comparisons, a better solution to Islamic fundamentalism (or fundamentalism in any religion) is confronting it head on, and educating the masses about its reality. The problem is that in the Muslim world, there is critical absence of leadership that is willing to take on this task. The problem has become so big, and the fundamentalists have become so powerful in the Muslim world that any opposition to them will be interpreted as opposition to Islam itself. Again, this is mainly because of lack of leadership, but other socioeconomic factors play some part in it as well, such as poverty, political oppression, etc.

There is also the issue with the Muslim religion as not having a unified religious structure. Unlike Catholicism, for instance, that has a unified and well defined hierarchy, modern day Islam is a fragmented religion with different factions competing for their share in the marketplace of power and influence. Therefore, conveying a unified message to the masses of Muslims around the world by their religious leaders is rather difficult if not impossible. Then there are other political issues and influences which will take us about three days to discuss.

In sum, burying your head in the sand and denying everything is not the best approach to end fundamentalism.

Who Initiated Islamic Fundamentalism?

The point was made by FK that Islamic fundamentalism was initiated and advocated by the IRI. That is not what history says.

In modern times, i.e., 20th century and beyond, Islamic fundamentalism started by Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by Sayyed Ghotb in 1928, right around when Reza Khan became Shah of Iran. There has been evidence, uncovered by some historians, that indicates that the British government was in contact with Ghotb. But, that issue aside, Muslim Brotherhood was the first Islamic fundamentalist organization in modern times.

During Jamal Abdel Naser's, and then Anvar Sadat's, reigns in Egypt, MB was the most potent opoosition force. Today, exactly 80 years after its founding, MB is once again the largest opposition party in Egypt. 27 years after Assassination of Anvar SAdat, Egypt is still governed by emergency rules.

Then, in the late 50s and early 60s Islam was the main force in the war of independence of Algeria vs France. That was another manifestation of Islamic fundamentalism, this time for good. Ahmed Ben Bella, a leading figure of that war and the first Algerian President after independence was, and still is, a practicing, devout Muslim. Today, in his old age, he still preaches Islam, but a moderate one

In 1992, when the Islamic Salvation Front, a fundamentalist group, won the democratic first round of elections of Algeria, the government, with support of France and the US, cancelled the elections, which started a civil war that has resulted in at least 200,000 dead. 

In 1977, two full years before the Iranian Revolution, General Jafar Zia al-Hagh, the Pakistani Army commander staged a coup, with support of the US, and overthrew the democratically-elected government of Zolfaghar Ali Bhutto, a moderate muslim. Zia then declared Pakistan to be the FIRST ISLAMIC REPUBLIC in the world, cancelled Pakistan's Constitution, wrote a new one strictly based on Shari'a, started many madrasa that became breeding ground for fundamentalism, and initiated Pakistan's nuclear program. By the time the Soviets invaded Afghanistan two years later, Pakistan was the most important backer of the Afghan Mojahedin.

Saudi Arabia provided the funds, the CIA provided the guns, and Pakistan's military under Zia, especially its Inter-Services Intelligence, were the trainers of Mojahedin. Islamic fundamentalism was invoked and strengthened as the barrier to the "infidel" Soviets. Ronald Regan, then US President, declared them the "moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

Osama bin-Laden was one of those Mojahedins. When the Soviets were defeated in 1989, and then the West abandoned Afghanistan, but instead rushed to defeat Saddam Hussein's army in Kuwait by stationing 500,000 soldiers in Saudi Arabia, Osama and his followers got angry and declared the US the main enemy.

But, the ISI and Pakistan did not stop there. They literally created Taliban who, with the help of Pakistan army, overthrew the legitimate government there in 1996.

In the meantime, Iran, and the IRI, had nothing to do with all these developments. True, Ayatollah Khomeini advocated exporting the Iranian revolution, but the fact is Sunnis despised Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Shi'ites in general. After the Iran/Iraq war, the slogans for exporting the Revolution stopped altogether.

Ayatollah Khomeini was not even a fundamentalist. He was a leftist cleric. During his time, most of the important posts in Iran were occupied by either leftist clerics (such as Ayatollahs Mousavi Khoeiniha, Mousavi Ardabili, Sanei, and Montazeri - before his downfall), or by non-cleric allies, such as Mir Hossein Mousavi, and a major part of Islamic Revolution Mojahedin, which played a leading role in establishment of Sepah. Followers of Imam's Line are the present leftists in Iran's political scene. The Movement for Militant Muslims, led by Dr. Habiboolah Payman, was a main backer of Ayatollah Khomeini before it was dissoved by Payman himself, and it was a leftist movement.

In Iran, if we try to identify the fundamentalists, they are the Hojjatiyeh, led by Mebah Yazdi, Khazali, and their followers. Ayatollah Khomeini was strongly anti-Hojjatiyeh. He once famoulsly said that, "these people cannot even run a bakery, let alone a country." How true and prophetic that was - Today, Admadinejad who is a follower of Mesbah, has completely destroyed Iran's economy, if nothing else.

Taliban and Osama bin-Laden, in particular, are bloody enemies of Iran, regardless of whether it is ruled by the IRI or another group. There has been a low-intensity civil war in Pakistan for decades, going back to the time of Zia, in which the Sunnis murder the Shi'ite on an almost constant daily basis.

Osama bin-Laden, the Taliban, and the Madrasa in Pakistan are the proponent of Islamic fundamentalism. Their followers are almost exclusively Sunni. In fact, Shi'ite have practically nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. No doubt, there are some in Iran who may think that way, but the Islamic fundamentalism that has become a potent political force was initiated by the Sunnis, supported and funded by the Sunnis, and are advocated by the Sunnis.

Among the Sunnis, the Salafis and Wahabis are the fundamentalists. This is something that even the West has now recognized. But, so long as the West is not willing to confront Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and as long as the West does not reciognize that, in order to destroy fundamentalism , one must address poverty, illiteracy, and hopelessness, Islamic fundamentalism will not go away.

Finally, Islamic fundamentsaism is not the only fundamentalist ideology  that has taken a dangerous turn for the worse. In the US, Christian fundamentalists - the Zionist Christians - are the most ardent supporters of invasion of Iraq and blind, one-sided support for Israel. In the occupied territories, Jewish fundamentalists, armed and backed by Israel's forces, pose the greatest danger to a meaningful peace between Israel and Palestinians. In India, Hindu fundamentslists keep killing Muslims and destroying their mosques. I do not see anybody warning against such fundamentalist forces, which are far more potent than anything Islamic fundamentalism can present.

But, because Islam and Iran bashing is fashionable, everybody jumps on its bandwagon, without even the most superficial study of the history of such issues. 

Mammad

Uncle Dick (Re: Kashani)

Kashani_jAn, besides the philosophical, albeit amusing part of your post, your main point is that Iran (IRI) supports terrorism. Currently the only Iranian terrorist entities that I know of, are MEK cult, Jundullah, and pejak, all of which are financed and supported by uncle Dick himself. If you prove to me that IRI supports these groups I'll agree with you that IRI is a terrorist regime.

Anonym7 azeez, I guess you

Anonym7 azeez, I guess you clarified, but I still strongly disagree with you for the reasons I mentioned in my previous posting.

Anonym7 and Mammad, your argument about the “biggest threat” in the world is fundamentally flawed. First of all, since when does having more tanks or fighter jets make a country become a great threat? For example, Afghanistan during Taliban years was as big of a threat to world peace as the IRI was and is, and that’s why the entire world supported U.S intervention in Afghanistan and is still supporting it. What was Taliban’s military capability at that time? I’m sure you know the answer.

Second, your view presents exactly what is wrong with how the West and the rest of the world have been looking at the IRI for the last 30 years. (I’m surprised that an Iranians would say things like that though!!!). The West, specially the U.S, have this unique method of analyzing things by relating them to numbers. They believe every fact represents a number. And you know what, that style worked great against Soviet Union, North Korea, ,,and other countries, by exactly assessing their capabilities, thus, assessing the level of threat they pose., and many countries are doing the same against the U.S , for example China, …..and it will work for countries that although rogues, but at least play by the rule as much as possible. However, there is a significant difference between how those countries operate and how IRI operates. The IRI created a new way of doing things, which is close, if not same to Mafia tactics. What IRI does cannot be, necessarily and in most occasions, measured by “numbers”. You have to understand that facts are not just numbers, there are facts that cannot be measured with “numbers”, whether “number of Tanks, or RPGs..”. The bottom line is this, the IRI is by far, the biggest threat to world peace because it initiated, inspires, promotes, and supports Islamic fundamentalism. Khamenei himself said (Many times) that the U.S shouldn’t fear out atomic bombs, rather it should fear the “Iman” of our revolutionary youth. Let me translate that: The U.S and the World, should fear the human bombs we created. You’ll never gonna find a piece of letter signed by Khameni ordering a young Arab to commit suicide bombing. That’s just now how the IRI operates. They do their inspiration, brainwashing and support a different way. I don’t think anyone disagrees that this is a battle of ideas. So, how can you relate “ideas” to “numbers”? The suicide bombings that have happened all over the world from Manila to New York were done by youth, not wearing a uniform and not operating “a tank”. They rather used home made bombs and box cutters. And they don’t have to be in great numbers. If each country has, let’s say, 1000 of those human bombs, that country will not have security or stability. You get my point?

Every suicide bombing that happens anywhere in the name of Islam, has been inspired by the “Shahadat Talabi” (Martyrdom) culture first initiated by Khomeini himself. Khomeini and then his followers, showed the way for young Muslim youth to become human bombs and with every Friday prayer, with every speech Khamanei or any akhond gives, with every word that comes out of their dirty mouth, more and more young brainwashed Muslims around the Islamic world, especially Arab world, get inspired to become human bombs.

The IRI substantially changed the rules of the game and did substantial damage to International security. Wars have come and gone, countries win and get defeated, but if you obey the rules of the game, your not gonna see world security at danger. I’m not saying there haven’t been unjust wars, nor I’m saying there isn’t injustice in the world, but what’s important is how you confront those injustices. And if you claim that “Well, these people are desperate and have no other way”, then anything, and I mean anything, can be justified, because you gonna find any justification for any action, including, lets say, the U.S dropping an atomic bomb on Iran. So you can’t justify it.

I don’t have any issues with a Palestinian youth blowing himself up killing Israeli soldiers who have been occupying their country, that’s completely justified and all nations under occupations have done it. But I damn sure have problem with someone in Iraq going inside a bus blowing himself up killing 100 innocent Iraqi old men and women, or going to a night club in Bali blowing himself up killing 200-300 innocent people, because Khomeini regime inspired him that he’s is doing it for Islam!

Late happy 4th to you too my friend!

Anonymous7

Let me add to your comments regarding the claim that IRI is "the beiggest threat to the world peace."

How is this possible?

(i) With an army which has been designed to defend the country against invading forces, with no ability to stage a long and sustained invasion of another nation? The IRI could not even take Basra, which is just on the other side of the Iran/Iraq border!

(ii) With an air force that belong to museums? The IRI still flies F4 and F5 fighters that were built in early 1960s.

(iii) With a navy that consists mostly of several hundreds small speed boats, and three submarines that are most of the time in Bandar Abbas? A Navy which is no match for the US 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf, with aircraft carriers, cruisers, etcs, and thousands of well-equipped marines? In 1988, in a matter of three days the US Navy destroyed most of Iran's Navy that the Shah had built with the West's help.

(iv) With Shahab-3 missiles that are purely defensive weapons? Ballistic missiles are offensive weapons ONLY if the nation that has them can also project power. That is, after it attacks a nation with those missiles, it can also send its air force there to finish the job; it can also send its army and navy to invade and occuppy the attacked nation. Does the IRI have such power projection capability? Even the Shah did not have it.

Despise, hate, or oppose the IRI, but for the right reason, not based on lies, exaggerations, and half truths.

Mammad

  It may be too late to

  It may be too late to interject my remarks into this crucial discussion but hopefully they are not repetitive and still pertinent. I read her article carefully. I must admit that she is a superb writer, an open-minded debater, and the key argument of her article is valid and defensible.

As expected, most social issues are normative; no one can prove who is right and who is wrong. That is why we often engage in endless arguments to elucidate different sides of the subjective issues. However, some people resort to irrational means such as name calling, unsubstantiated accusations, blaming, or inaccurate claims to prove their point. And, most nonsensically, if someone comes to this site and express an opinion not in line with theirs, then they label him/her as IRI agent? Ms. Sepahpour. Has expressed her opinion so eloquently on this crucial issue and has exhibited her love for Iran. Loving your country doesn’t necessarily mean approving everything done by, or being an agent of, its government. Even if you want to criticize, or even insult, someone, the rules of etiquette require that you wrap your remarks in a soft polite coverof plausibility. Outright rejection of one’s opinion with slanders, personal attacks, and false accusations is indeed counterproductive. 

Even though the US and Israel have countless number of nuclear weapons, they are determined to prevent Iran from exercising its legitimate right to use nuclear technology to generate electricity. They deceitfully warn the world about Iran’s attempt to produce nuclear warheads. Even if their hypothetical claim is correct, why a few more makes the world a dangerous place and not the thousands that are already existed?

And, to those of you who wish that the United States will attack Iran and you can get your old job back, keep dreaming.  Varjavand    

Well Kashani!

Kashani_jAn, let me replace the word "when" with "currently" to eliminate your understandable confusion. Here we go..., I believe by far the biggest threat to world peace, democracy and the future of the world ARE Israel and the U.S (currently run by AIPAC and extremist republicans). (Note the word ARE)
I believe that your claim that IRI IS "the biggest threat to world peace" does not make any sense not because I think those who run IRI are angles! Your claim simply does not make any sense because Iran's power including its military power is nothing compared to those of the U.S and Israel. Even IF Iran wants to be "the biggest threat to world peace" it does not have the capability for it!!!! (Note the word IS and IF)
Additionally as you claim over and over agan IRI is very unpopular, so assuming you are correct, Iran doesn't even have the man power to become "the biggest threat"!
To know AIPAC and the extent of its power read George Soros' book or articles instead of jumping all over the place!
BTW happy 4th Kashani!

Anonym7, Well, now

Anonym7,

Well, now you’re saying something different!!!! That’s interesting. All this time, I never heard you saying anything about being anti U.S, only when a specific group “runs it”! All I’ve been hearing from you is bashing the U.S, going back to its early days as a country! So , that’s a significant change.

Second, explain how the AIPAC is “running” the U.S? Let me just give you one, out of many examples, that illustrates your claim is wrong. U.S government sends your and my tax money, to support a group called Fattah in Palestine. Fattah’s nominee, Abbas, was democratically elected as Palestinian president, but Fattah itself is still in a state of war with Israel. Many anti Israeli operations inside Israel itself are done by the Aqsa Brigade, which is part of the Fattah movement. U.S aides Fattah with arms and money. So, if according to your exaggerated and illogical definition, U.S is “ran by AIPAC”, then that means Israel is giving money and arms to its enemies! Also, U.S didn’t participate in the 1956 war helping Israel, it had close ties with Iraq during the same year the Israelis bombed Osirak, has called for a Palestinian state, has helped Palestinians with money and arms, helped them get the current Palestinian territory, helped them have democratic elections….and others.

The U.S, just like any superpower in history, is paying the “superpower” tax. You cannot find a simple superpower in history (including our own Persian Achamenian empire) that was loved by the world. (Actually U.S was loved until the Iraq war!). It does not matter if that superpower is democratic in nature, if it’s fair, if it works for world peace, if it’s spreading noble ideas,,,none of that really matter. By reading history, one can find that superpowers had always smaller and ambitious groups and nations ganging up against them, do bad things in the name of being anti superpower and unilateralism, be suspicious of its activities, and ultimately try to either bring it down or establish a multilateral power structure. That happened to Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, Mongolians, Ottomans, Spaniard, French, British, Russian (And later Soviet), and American empires. The history just kept repeating itself. Once there was an article written on this site regarding U.S humanitarian aid to Tsunami victims in Indonesia (Which by the way, only the private sector part of it, was more than the combined aid provided by all Islamic countries to their “Muslim brothers” in Indonesia), and one of the responses on that article was by a well known leftist Iranians on this site who called the aid “an attempt by the imperialist U.S to plunder Indonesian markets”!!!

The time is near when the U.S Israel relations will take a turn in its nature. More and more voices are speaking up in the U.S demanding the U.S to stop some of its support for Israel. However, some Iranians try to justify IRI or Hezbollah or Hamas actions based on U.S Israel relations. Those have nothing in common. Now if someone like Jimmy Carter calls for end of apartheid in occupying territory, that’s something different, that’s respected. But fascist groups and regimes such as IRI and Hamas and Hezbollah have hijacked and are using the Palestinian issue to further their fundamentalist agenda.

Now worries folks, Hassan policy is replacing Hossien policy

We are all saved, war has been avoided. Looks like the serious threat of use of force and real danger of annihilation of their illegitimate regime has made IRI to bring Hassan out of closet again and he is heard to say “ Hasteh o Tokhmeh may not have been our rights so much to begin with, of course still mixed with heavy flavor of the famous velayat’s hot sauce of we are resisting o ready for martyrdom o death to great satan o Zionist o in harfa as always”. hossien agha on the other hand is no where to be found and is absent from any sightings right now. IRI is getting omat islam o momenin ready to gulp down the poison once more in great tradition of poison swallowing of imam Khomeini(aj).

When Mr Velayati speaks antari-nejad and the rest of monkeys will keep quiet and listen. The real decision maker has given the green light for policy called Hassan sazesho o maslehat to replace Hussein policy of reshadat o shehadat. Ms Soraya, would you please write an essay to compare and contrast these two policies and when velayat esmat o taharat switches from one to the other to save regime’s behind, to explain to those whom may not be familiar with these concepts in diaspora. This would be a great service since some people here are really having a tough time to separate reality from all the hypes and what media tells them. One day security, protection, anti-terrorism is in fashion and the next peace, diplomacy, negotiation, let’s all be green, they go from one extreme to another. No one really seems to think beyond what’s being fed to them. Of course hasteeyah and those who invent nuclear energy with forks in their kitchen know everything but I am talking about the rest.

I wish Iran total success!(RE: Kashani)

Kashsni_jAn, I believe by far the biggest threat to world peace, democracy and the future of the world are the Israel and the U.S (when it is run by AIPAC and extremist republicans).
And that is why despite my many disagreements with IRI, I wish IRI, and more specifically all those Iranian engineers, technicians, and workers total success IF they are building the nukes.
Again Note the word IF there! Per many U.S agencies Iran is not building nukes.

Anonym7, it’s interesting

Anonym7, it’s interesting the way you have put it saying you “disagree” with some of the things IRI does. You can still disagree with a government policy, or some government policies, and still support them at the end of the day. For example, I “disagree” with some of the things the Swiss government does, but overall, I think it’s a democratic, peace loving, responsible government and I support their system and government structure. All governments make mistakes.

So let me ask you sir/madam, do you disagree or despise these facts about the IRI regime:

1-     It inspires and supports Islamic fundamentalism ideas, which has proven to be the biggest threat to world peace, democracy and the future of the world.

2-     It’s declared position is to “export its revolution to the world” (i.e. promote and use scare tactics and terrorism to promote a way of life that is undemocratic, violates basic human rights, and confronts our country with the rest of the world).

3-     It imposes Islamic dress code on half of its population (the only country in the world), and the other half, do not have basic freedom with that regards.

4-     Statiscaly, it has one of the highest rates of executions (for crimes such as political dissidents and homosexuality), is one of top 4 enemies of the internet, has some of the worst records in freedom of press and expression, one of the closest economies, one of the most hated countries according to world public opinion poll (Yes, even during the Bush administration!), and has violated most of its people guaranteed human rights.

5-     It has turned Iran into one of the most isolated countries in the world.

Thanks to the regime’s action, I can go on for days, but I only mentioned the above. 

For me, I do not only “disagree” with those policies, but those policies talk about the nature of this barbaric regime. To me, that regime not only should not have nuclear weapons, but it should not have any weapons, even a Kalashnikov. To me, based on those facts, the regime needs to be removed. A great country like Iran deserves nothing like this.

We all know where you guys stand. We know you guys support the IRI, but since the vast majority of Iranians don’t, you won’t admit it publicly, so you guys, cleverly I should say, resort to tactics such as victimizing the regime and bashing the U.S, to try to gradually change Iranian public opinion towards the regime. What we’re trying to tell you guys is, spare the effort. Its not gonna work.

What a discovery! (corrected version)

Nouraee says: "I found some of her writings published on Al-Jazeera Magazine's site."

George, what is your point? U.S also uses Al-Jazeera to present its views and improve its image in the Arab world. Why should the writer not present her views there?

Al-jazeera=Fox news of the

Al-jazeera=Fox news of the Islamic world

why?

Ms. Ulrich you try and try
to ignore, denounce and deny

Why are you so indifferent to lies or truth
Did you lie or did you stretch the truth

you can always yell but I always knew
That you can never be further from true

I will turn my back on you
because I am sick of your hateful spew

never truthful always lied
never said but always implied

so many secrets and IRI support they were hard to count
thought you would hide it at least to a certain amount

Nows the last chance If you want to be saved
speak up now or have you just caved

Anonym7

My "point" as you call it, was not directed towards you, was it? What the U.S. does is not relevant here either. You're going off-topic. The writer can present her views anywhere she likes. I didn't say otherwise, did I?

By the way, who is Nuraee? I don't know your name, but if I did, I would be sure to address you with the proper pronounciation and spelling. I expect the same in return.

What a discovery! (Nuraee)

Nuraee says: "I found some of her writings published on Al-Jazeera Magazine's site."

Nuraee, what is your point? U.S also uses Al-Jazeera to present its views and improve its image in the Arab world. Why should the writer not present her views there?

Thanks Kaveh

Thanks for the link! She's going off on the UN in that little gem of an "article". Well, we knew that she "hated" "Zionists" (which, in her lexicon, is probably an amorphous term that refers to all the "bad" Jews, you know....the non-Chomsky types) and the "U.S. foreign policy", but in her response to me she did not put the UN on her hate list. Now we know though.

You see, this is where all these haters of Israel and Iranian people belong: on Al-Jazeera and other Arab sites. I've been advocating it for a very long time. Her and Dabashi (the self proclaimed "expert in Palestinian Cinema"!!!) and the rest of the pseudo-intellectual Israel bashing, Iran destroying, out of touch socialists.

244

Craig: What are the laws regarding freedom of speech in a state of war
with Iran?? I remember you mentioned them before somewhere??

The laws don't change, but what's acceptable in peace time is not necessarily acceptable in war time. Somebody who is acting as an agent or advocate for an enemy power could easily be charged with espionage (and treason if a US citizen) for instance. I'm not really sure what would happen though, and I'm suspicious of anyone who says they are. It's only fairly recently that people have had such easy access to the internet and the platform it provides.

Bijan

You mentioned that Soraya's post belongs on Bin Laden's website.

FYI, in case you didn't have the opportunity to come across it yourself, I found some of her writings published on Al-Jazeera Magazine's site. I pasted the link for you.

//english.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=133703

Have a happy and safe 4th of July (INDEPENDENCE DAY) weekend.

Iranians generally like to

Iranians generally like to be the power of the region.

Can you elaborate? What do you mean by regional power? Power in the hands of hardcore jihadist to achieve what goals? To bring Islamic Justice and equality to the region??? Do you think other Islamic nations are stupid and can't see through the Islamic Republic???

Do you mean that IRI has imperial/supremacist/Islamist design on the region and that doesn't bother you??? You want the US and other secular entities to leave the region in the hands of martyr-seeking Islamic revolutionaries ??? Am I right?? Do you think it is in Iran's national interest to establish a Islamic Caliphate in the region??? Do you really think the world and other Islamic states are going to sit by and do nothing???

If I'm right, then you believe in Khomeini's manifest destiny:"Islam is an alternative to the current global system, not a candidate for becoming a small part of it."; this is the true essence of Khomeinism and the underlying ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you do believe in that ideology then are you prepared to take on other competing powers in the region: Israel, Saudi Arabia, US, Jordan, other gulf states via proxy terrorism (you might call it jihad for Islam) or military actions??

"Those who think that if Iran gains any technological advances, especially in the field of defense, allows Iran to be free of a foreign interference and therefore there would be room for the poeple of Iran to drive to the democratic destination"

Do you think nuclear weapons in the hands of Shia ideologue mullahs will result in democracy and non-interferance of Foreign powers??? Talk about myopia.

Reply to Amarmard

It would be better to divide Iranians abroad in those(group A) who want the IRI to get lost and those who don't(group B). Then both groups have the following characteristics:

Group A:
do not travel to Iran ever, have no iranian passport,have no property in Iran, don't vote for IRI, don't go to mosque, don't vote for Rafsanjani and co. and wish thier homeland to also have a free government one day that can represent them properly.

Group B:
do travel to Iran, have the latest IR passports, some have even a house in Iran, do vote for IRI, some go to mosque, some have the picture of Rafsanjani in their houses and don't like western societies but they like the life style and they prefer $/EUR to Toman.

Now you tell me Mr. Abarmard which one of these groups are more decent and honest?

Payandeh Iran

Craig: What are the laws

Craig: What are the laws regarding freedom of speech in a state of war with Iran?? I remember you mentioned them before somewhere??

Mammad

I do appreciate your response as always. While I may disagree with you on many issues (not the factual aspects, but the resolutions), I never found you dishonest in your expressions. I will not argue over my fairness with Soraya, and as I said in my post to Khounani, I apologize for my Gitmo reference as it was intentially inserted to make a point.

You have raised many valid and debatable points that deserves a respectful response. Unfortunately I am about to leave town and don’t have the opportunity to compose a response, even in haste.

I am sorry. I’ll get back with you in a few days.   

Sincere regards,

Bijan