IRI

Kashani, it's over...

I honestly don't think you are a war propagandist anymore, but the problem is your knowledge is so extremely limited and you do not even care to educate yourself, nor are you open to any new ideas. And you have a strong tendency to make up lies as you go along, almost as if you have a problem with reality.

over Two days ago I asked you to show me the law, the ruling, the court... anything objective that says IRI is illegal. You are making a claim, can you back it up with something other than your own opinion?

Sadly you can not. Anything else that can be called "illegal" has a law associated with it. This was explained to you multiple times. You are still repeating the same old lines as if I had said nothing. How can any discussion continue if you are not willing to accept the most basic logic, basic evdidence? and just make up lies as you go along: "Assembly of Experts are not elected", "UN monitors US elections, and elections of most countries", etc. etc. this is just the stuff I remember on top of my head. IN addition you put words in my mouth like I said "Esteghlal is not Independence", or "Shah's government is illegal".

These are dishonest things you are doing. If you did this in a public setting, people would stop arguing with you and leave the room, or redicule you heavily for being such an ignorant.

I have tried to show you an authority, a respected publication or an expert for every claim I have made. Your response is that "I can't think for myself."

Your only source is yourself or you repeat yoruself and say "as I said before." Who are you trying to convince? Just yourself? Don't you understand why people use evidence?

The problem is that you are not arguing facts, but emotion. In your state of mind, illegal is a "negative" term, therefore it should be applied to IRI which is something you hate. This is not logical.

You are under the impression that just because you don't like it, you can make absurd declarations. Well, that's the extent of it since you have no other evidence.

Governments of China and Saudi Arabia, are undemocratic, far worst than Iran, but are not "illegal". They are considered the legitimate representations of their people within a given context (such as the UN) because other countries and consider them so. There was a time, for example when the Government of China was not considered the representative of the Chinese people, the one in Taiwan was. At that time, you could make a good case that China's government was "illegal" at least according to one source of broadly-agreed international law. Likewise the Taliban government was not recognized by many other nations. That's another good candidate for "illegal". But that's not the case with Iran.

You made the increadibly idiotic statement of saying that IRI has come to power "by illegal means." Illegal only according to the Pahlavi regime. This is what a revolution is by definition. That's not how everyone else understands the situation in Iran. Iran was probably one of the most legitimate revolutions that ever existed getting 95% approval immediately after.

If you think Iranian revolution was done by "illegal means" and that makes the Iranian government "illegal" than you have to consider American, French, Russian and Mexican government illegal just because they had revoltions which were illegal from the point of view of the previous government.

At last, I really didn't realize I can "bully" people by writing words on a website that no one is forced to log in and read and at any moment, anyone can choose to go somewhere else completely. This tells me you don't understand the concept of a bully either.

Kashani jan, Bullying involves an element of force, like for example when US invades other countries and kills people by force.

What force or power do I have over you, Kashani or ASDF? All we can do is type words on the screen. Are you guys actually afraid of free expression? Is anyone forcing you to spend hours responding?

Things like this combined with your willfull dishonesty (see above) basically make it impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you. Only people who basically couldn't care less what you wrote as long as it was something against IRI, would agree with you. No evidence, proof, logic or witnesses necessary.

That's not very comforting.

Now, watch me as I "bully" all of you by leaving this discussion! I hope you don't call the police over it...

asdf

As I have posted my question before, what have you learned from our last revolution? This? That there is NO ROOM for what you call Islamist!

How can one be sure that other groups won't be called Islamists in order to have them killed. I guess I'll stop here. What do you think happened in the last revolution? Maybe you were young or not born yet, but it's good to learn to enhance your historical memory. It was only 30 years ago. I hear the same things here!

As I remember well, all the things that most of you are talking about against the IR was being said against the Shah before. This has nothing to do about supporting IR, I am just reminding you of that. How dictatorial it is, how poor people are, how corrupt the system is, how it's against the Iranian people, how it steals our oil, how our societies are being destroyed, etc etc. Who do you think I am talking about? Shah or IR?

Loop and loop... Just because we have not learned. Now given this regime a thirty years let's change it. We don't know what to, just know we got to change it...Sounds familiar?

loop and loop...We'll have people who are democratic and will make us a great nation. A nation that is respected... Sounds familiar? Shah or IR?

loop and loop...We want freedom. Sounds familiar?

When are we going to grow up as a nation and learn?

Iranians have not learned who is our main obsticle in reaching our goals.  many think that because we are good looking then we just deserve to be a great and free nation. Yes the west wants that too and will give it to us!!

As I have said many times, we are not ready.

Doctor Shariati

Dr. shariati was a thug just like doctor yazdi and doctor ahmadinejad, doctor velayati, doctor larijani, .... only that he never got a chance to show his potential for thuggery.

I still remember his lecture saying that worst people are those who elevate pre-islam iran to something better than post-islam.

What a vatan-foroosh jerk!

Wise up ...

IRI does not give a damn about iran or iranians, young and old, male or female, let alone Palestinians. They have been saying that from day one when khomeini said that "he had no feeling returning to iran" to khalkhali saying that "he was first muslim then iranian" to recently during last election that rafsanjani said "it does not matter if he is first muslim or first iranian." They have been killing iranians by tens of thousands, prolonging the war that led to hundreds of thousands of iranians dead, and for what, for a vendetta that that idiot khomeini had for saddam. Are you kidding me that they care about anyone, iranian or non-iranian? They only care about power and wealth. That is the way it has been from day one for the past 30 years. Qods, nuke, elections, assembly of this, counsel of that, are all tools of their trade to fool some of the people all the time.

Khamenei had a rusted Citroen, begging people for 100 tomans before the revolution. Gharaati has changed trade from mulla-ship to building high-rises in tehran. Rafsanjani is a mulla in flying airliners. and on and on and on. If thugs like beheshti and shariati had also survived they would have turned into the same kind of SOBs. Same goes for montazeri who sided with khomeini in setting up the shop of VF.

Islamists who fell for deceits of khomeini, are simply either still too naive or have no courage to admit mistake, big mistake, in 1979. Legitimacy is not in a fraudulent election or deceitful name, but in action; and in that regard, shah's regime was infinitely more legitimate than any period of mullas' rule. islamists are just fooling themselves. The good news is that they are rapidly shrinking in number in iran.

For everything, there are two kinds, good and bad; for mullas and islamists, there are only one kind, bad for iran, since by definition, they are for islam before they are maybe for iran.

Let me finish by telling you a true story from a cab driver in tehran...

We had a long way to go, so the cab driver started talking about his experience the day before when he went to Qom for ziarat. On his way back he decided to pick up a few passengers, but in hot afternoon there was no one on the street. Until he saw this young but mature woman pointing towards tehran. He stopped and the lady hopped in.

After a while, they started talking about the hot weather of Qom, and the cab driver told her that he had some personal difficulties that drove him to Qom to ask Hazrate Masoumeh for help.

The lady reciprocated by saying the same thing. He wished her well. She responded: I already got my answer from Hazrate Masoumeh.

He was thrilled with joy but then she started crying.

Well after some exchanges, she started bitching about islamic republic and told him her story...

She said: I am getting old, and I came to Qom to ask for a good husband from H. Masoumeh. I was in haram praying when I noticed this mulla winking at me from the other side. First I ignored him, but then he came closer and pointed to outside. I first ignored him, but then I said, maybe he can be a good husband, and being a mulla, he must be financially secure.

So I followed him outside where he asked me if I am available for sigheh. I said no, but I am in search of a husband. He said, let's go to my home so we can discuss this matter. After some assurances that I would be safe, I followed him thru Qom's alleys, where he finally unlocked the door to a house and entered a quiet garden area with lots of rooms around it. He unlocked the door to a room and pointed me inside. I entered. He then stated that I should become his sigheh for an hour so he can take a good look at me and decide. I reluctanltly accepted, for a price of 10,000 tomans. He read the sigheh and I accepted and removed my scarf.

He took a good look at me and asked for you know what, and before I know it he was all over me, left and right, up and down, etc.

After some half an hour of struggling, he disengaged, and told me that he should jump in the pool for "ghosl". But before leaving the room, he knocked at the door separating the room from an adjacent room. A big mulla guy opened the door and entered. He seemed to have known the routine and jumped on me, again left and right, up and down, etc.

After another half an hour, the first mulla was out of pool and got a hold of my arm, telling me that I should get lost or else he will inform the komiteh to arrest me. With insult and without the promised 10,000 tomans the two mullas throw me out of the house in the hot afternoon on an empty stomach.

I passed by haram, looked at H. Masoumeh and told her: F**k you H. masoumeh, I asked you for a good husband and you gave me two bastard mullas? The hell with you.

Yes, this is islam that islamists blindly cherish. We should get rid of the cancer that is islam and cancer cells that are mullas and mulla lovers. The sooner the better.

FK

I had decided not to ever comment on or respond to your "writings," but anonymous7 correctly pointed out that it is necessary to counter your baseless "arguments," because other people benefit from it. So, let's see:

 "The political science is not taught uniformly around the world."

Yeah, therefore, let's take your absurd definition of legitimacy!Who are you? A political scientist? A political analyst who has published in major print media and major political sites? A political scholar? Just who are you who acts so self-righteously that expects us to take HIS way of defining political legitimacy?

"When Shariati ..... brainwashed our best and brightest..."

I wonder why the best and brightest of Iran were so dumb to be brainwashed by Dr. Shariati's "trash?" Or, perhaps, they used their brain to understand Dr. Shariati's teachings and realize how correct they were for that era?

You have zero understanding or knowledge of the social/political conditions of Shariati era; otherwise, you would not make such an absurd, baseless statement. The fact that people like you attack him tells me that he did somethings right. 

More to the point, who brainwashed you about the US being "the punching bag" of the world?

"The agha argument was a satirical approach"

Yeah, once again, the history is revised, so as we believe that you were being humurous!! That is a last-resort explanation of things!

"These parties do not hold the slightest qualifications"

Yeah, according to who? The great political scholar, FK? What is your qualification?

"Yes, China is an illegitimate power."

Wow! I am impressed! 

A nation does not hijack power. A group does. More importantly, even if we assume that, in the heat of the moment, you mis-spoke, tell me, who China hijacked power from? Chiang Kai Shek, the US stooge, in 1949, who was ruling a great nation of addicts, illiterates, and dirt poors? For an illegitimate power, China has done great for its people; thank you very much!

"Are you saying that any country that allows UN observers is not sovereign?

Do you have a problem reading? No, I said a sovereign nation has no obligation to allow UN monitors, but also said that a sovereign nation HAS the right to invite the observers, if it wishes to. 

"Why wouldn't Iran allow the monitors?"

Ask the IRI, but I am glad they do not. As I said, Iran, REGARDLESS OF WHO RULES IT, has no obligation to do so. Iran is a sovereign nation, and there is absolutely no treaty that commits it to the invitation. I would say this, REGARDLESS of who rules Iran. Repeat after me: ELECTIONS ARE AN INTERNAL MATTER FOR A SOVEREIGN NATION.

"Don't be consumed by this U.S. political science method of defining world realities."

(1) Yeah, instead I should listen to you, the great political scholar, who invents and revises everything as he goes!

Carl Rove, Bush's "magician," had told Ron Suskind, "We create reality as we go." I believe Rove can learn a lesson or two from you!

(2) This is the 1st time in my entire life that I am accused of being consumed by the U.S. political science. In particular, the same FK that used to say that I am blindly anti-US, now says I am consumed by it! Oh well, what is one more revision?!

I know this is not "real life" for you, because in real life no one can invent, revise, and state so many baseless statements, as much as you do in this column.

Mammad

Abarmard azeez, I never

Abarmard azeez, I never showed intolerance. Please read my posting carefully. I never disrespect anyone, but I do defend myself. My friend, people like Q and Ananomys8, try to “bully” others, not have a mature discussion or a civilized exchange of ideas. When you get bullied, it is normal to get defensive. That being said, I do not use foul language or offensive words. I am however; unhappy with the fact that these leftists and Islamic Marxist bullied everyone who disagreed with them for the last 50-60 years and that caused the true silent majority Iranian voice not to be heard. Now, the silent majority has spoken and refuses to get bullied.

Like yourself, many Iranians have quittances who are from different political backgrounds. Me personally, had and have, relatives and friends, ,who were close to the Shah, people who were communists (One of my cousins refused to wear a watch because he would consider it an “imperialist invention”), and people who are currently working in the Iranian regime. Currently, I have American friends ranging from conservative Republicans to Atheist democrats. Since I’m a political activist, we always engage in mature political discussions, without anyone insulting the other. Offcourse, the conversations get heated at times, but no one tries to bully anyone else. People like Q, try to bully others, and that is a sign that their argument is weak, so they try to forcefully silence you. They don’t understand that trick doesn’t work anymore.

asdf please add me to your list!

asdf says: "Since the Islamists will be forever trained circus monkeys, it behooves the rest of us to stop responding to their predictable comments, which emanate from that small portion of their head, which is still somewhat functional."

Your majesty, I am not a Muslim but I'll be honored if you add me to your sh!*t list.
Your majesty I basically don't post here to convince the extremists such as you and Mr. Kashsni. I post here to influence the reasonable majority, I post here so that Mr. Kashani does not speak for "all Iranians".
Your excellency as you are aware Mr. Kashsni's political knowledge is less than mediocre but his ability to exaggerate is excellent.

Abarmard: In the future

Abarmard: In the future Iran, there should be no room for Islamist Jihadists who have a mandate from Quron to feel entitled and superior to others. We have allowed them once to hijack the country in the name of Islam, never again.

Mammad has already admitted that he is a proud Islamist and he is a disciple of Shariati...He should be bothered by my labeling him as such.

And in regards to Q, I don't have a clue whether Q is an Islamist, Marxist, or an abused child... All I can decipher from reading Q's commentary are his defective and disjointed thought processes and a severe sense of narcissitic entitelment. Maybe he is related to Khomeini..

He comes across as a very disturbed and violent individual who has nothing to offer to anyone including himself.

asdf and kashani come down your donkeys

You want to instaure democracy on Iran and don't have the tolerance to hear something on which you disagree! let me laugh... We are all iranians don't forget

لبم خموش ز آواز مدعا طلبي است
كه مدعا طلبيدن ز يار بيادبي است

asdf and Mr. Kashani

Two of our Iranian people who disagree with you should not be labeled.

It is this undemocratic style of thinking and wording that might be ruling rest of Iran. Putting this as a base, one could argue that it is not the system of Iran that is undemocratic but also the people.

Not to bring the people of Iran in to this discussion, since one could argue that they have no sense as what democracy is because they have not experience it, I would ask what about you?

Hate was our biggest enemy going in to 1979 revolution that revenge provided solution rather than thought process and law. I would ask both of you as an example to let me know what has changed?

What have we learned from the revolution and thirty years later?

Is it possible that Q has a point that you may try to see, and you have a point that Q can see? Is it possible that there is room for both thinking process as a political parties and future Iran?

My cousin agrees with the IR, but I don't want him killed, if the regime changes. He is not part of the system and worked as a teacher in Minab. Now retired, so he held his ideas and likes the system. How you ask? It's possible that this system has support.

My Uncle is against the IR and he is willing to die to get rid of the Mullahs. Iran is not a Cyrus the Great Persia. It's a diverse country with many cultures and beliefs. I have realized that even within this IR system, there are many voices that given the constitutional right, would speak for many more Iranians.

We all know that our problems are not constitutional base. To ensure that another dictator won't take over our rich land, we need to advance ourselves hence our culture. At least we, who are in the west should have learned better than what we are. I am not happy nor satisfied with our Iranian growth and understanding about Rights, Religion, democracy and freedom.

Nothing is absolute, the support or not supporting something is not the conclusion but rather the evolution of our culture and social understanding. We need to become modern in the thought process.

I certainly do not agree with this system, yet I do not want another dictatorial system, a secular or whatever as a replacement. We must have learned more than this.

In future Iran I do not want your mentality only, I want Q, Myself, asdf and mammad...even Zion to be a part of it.

The more I hear discussion, to me, the more obvious it becomes that we are not ready, and until we are ready the IR is what we have as a system of governing our nation. We can work and fix it or overthrow it, either way we need to work on ourselves first.

initially when I started to view the iranian.com, I have written articles explaining this in detail. I still believe in my initial argument that our society needs to evolve much more than the system!

If we were smarter nation, being here in the US or the west, we would be better equipped to help the Iranians inside reach what we are taking for granted. Yet I have noticed that majority of the Iranians who oppose the system, just want something done for Iran that benefits "THEIR" ideology and life, ignoring rest of Iran. It's not fair.

We all hit the "Sang e sineh" for the Iranian people, but when the Iranian people such as Q or mammad speak, then they become the enemy!! Hate takes over logic.

Only donkey falls in the same hole twice. We should know better. Until then, enjoy IR (or alike).

I have noticed that Mammad

I have noticed that Mammad and Q also attempt to police/derail the terms of any anti-IRI debate in the manner that undermine robust and legitimate responses to core issues Iran and Iranians face. They both argue from a dogmatic/didactic standpoint while being incapable of using their own minds to come up with anything original.

Q's ignorance is a pity because he appears to be sufficiently satisfied with the knowledge he possess, and which will never grow beyond what it is now. For simplicity's sake let's call it "Qs' voluntary and perpetual ignorance". I believe this to be a religious disease that predisposes you to process information through rote regurgitation without questioning or considering other abstract perspectives. The Islamists's brain is limited and incapable of processing new information; hence, their sticklerness to rigid meaning of words and inflexible conceptulization of abstracts and intangibles.

Since the Islamists will be forever trained circus monkeys, it behooves the rest of us to stop responding to their predictable comments, which emanate from that small portion of their head, which is still somewhat functional.

I always scroll passed their comments as soon as I see their names.

asdf, yes azeez. I agree.

asdf, yes azeez. I agree. The whole outlook they have on world politics, and politics in general, is wrong. They don’t understand that if they apply the “subjectivity” term that they try to justify the IRIs action with, then, it should apply to other arguments also. Like this Q guy says “U.S elections are worse than the IRIs”. OK, based on what? Don’t you guys say that “each country has their own way of doing things”? Then how you define “worse” in this case? Where is the written law? Where is the source? That method of explaining things is just wrong, every way you look at it.

Asdf, these guys are simply parroting something they were told by some leftist professor or some leftist organization, and trying to apply that into reality. They’re either very naïve, very confused or very sneaky, or all of the above. They simply deny reality by coming up with these “subjectivity” terms. To them, everything that the IRI does is “justified”, because there is no “law” (That they claim) against it. Political science is a science that allows different interpretations of political phenomena, and those are just theories; we’re dealing with reality here. There is a difference between ideologizing something and facing it.  That’s why the world says that the U.S in unable to understand it, or that Americans don’t understand politics. Because of arguments like this.

Q is a schoolyard bully

FK: Q's heap of tirades have continued nonstop for many months now to our great amusement. We must give him credit for being tenacious peddling his immoral crusade to depict the Islamic Republic as a benevolent entity.

... The shameful legacy of Islamists can never be whitewashed

What Q does not realize is that morally and ethically he mirrors the zionists and the Christian fundamentalist. In fact, Mammad and Q are Iranian versions of racist American rednecks. Their ideal world is a tyrannical Islamic Caliphate run by Islamic Marxists a la Shariati. Do not waste your time. Q seems to pathologically, enjoy displaying his belligerence and violent and offensive disposition in a public forum. Do not give him the satisfaction by pointing out his incohrent and fragmented logic.

Mammad,   I think my

Mammad,

I think my civility gave you the wrong message. Your words are becoming more offensive as you get more desperate to make reasonable arguments. Thanks for your tip on my career, but please, keep that to yourself.  I do understand that it is hard for you and like minded people, to have an open mind and discuss things in a civilized fashion, but please, do your best. I always thought you’re a bit different that the rest of them, do not disappoint me.

Legitimacy argument: Mammad, the political science fields is not uniformly taught around the world. It s a science, that like other sciences, is unable to define many things. Each country has its own unique political characteristics, for the most part. One of the goals of globalization, is to unify terms such as human rights and democracy, so regimes such as the IRI do not take advantage of the fact, declaring “ we will do things our own way”. That doesn’t fly anymore. When Shariati wrote those books, who brainwashed the best and brightest of our country into destroying our country, those principles were just in the beginning state of formation. Looking at things such as human rights principles “subjectively” or “overcomplicating” them, are not “scientific”. That’s the biggest mistake you’re making.

The agha argument was obviously a satirical approach to show how much IRI believes in tolerance. Nonetheless, its absolutely true; show me one sentence from an Iranian publications, that refers to Khamenei as “Aghayeh Khamanei”. There is a difference between calling him “Agha”, which is like the word “Godfather”, and calling him “Aghayeh Khameni”, which means Mr. Khamenei. Please be reasonable.

Like I said before, if you want to call “Jammeh Rowhanit Mobarez” a political party, go ahead. These parties do not hold the slightest qualifications of any available definition of political parties (Except the IRIs). That goes back to the argument I made about looking at this “subjectively”.

Yes, China is an illegitimate regime. It has hijacked power.

I wanted to answer your Guardian council argument, but you said spare me.

Are you saying that any country that allows U.N observes is not “sovereign”? Then you must be the only person in the world that thinks like that!

Mammad, offcourse a country has the right to invite U.N elections, but the question that I ask is, why wouldn’t Iran allow U.N observers? Can you answer this?

Mammad, don’t be consumed by this “U.S political science method of defining world realities”. The whole world thinks, and rightly so, that U.S is “Naïve” when it comes to understanding the world, specially the Middle East. Why do you think they are naïve? Exactly because of this “subjectivity approach in understanding world realities”. The subjectivity that they have been taught in the same classroom that you and I attended.  That is the source of all issues we’re talking about here.

Actually, in real life, I’m not the “attention seeking person”. Do not make this about me.  Do your best to show some civility.

rooshanbeen, IRI is

rooshanbeen, IRI is consisted of a group of 200 individuals whom have been swapping positions for the last 30 years. One or few, out of those 200 doesn’t count.

Q, your arguments are so flawed and confused and based on lies, that each response will take an entire book to write about. However, here’s a few:

Legality of the IRI: IRI is both illegal and illegitimate. IRI has taken power and remained in it, using “illegal means”, which, again, we all are been trying to tell you why. There are numerous reasons; lack of electoral process, lack of political parties, lack of dissident, lack of opposition, its just scratching the surface. …If you achieve something illegally, that achievement and the outcome of it are illegal. If you win a match game by bribing the referee, that victory is “illegal”, therefore, declaring you as a “winner” is “illegal”.

U.N, hosts all member “states”, which means, every “country” is a member, despite of the government they have. It appears hat you live in a such a small bubble that makes you unable to understand the big picture. The U.N’s responsibility is not to overthrow regimes that are illegal, although, that hopefully changes. However , when the U.N elections observer declare that an “elections” meets standards, that means the winner of that election did not “illegally” take power. Why is it that so hard for you to understand? The Iranian regime is one of the few last remaining regimes in the world that does even allow U.N observers to monitor elections. If that doesn’t show you the legitimacy or legality of this regime, I don’t know what will. Explain to the readers why doesn’t the IRI regime allow U.N elections observer?

It seems that you are not willing to accept the truth and keep repeating the question hoping that we say something different than last time, thus, proving your augment that IRI is “legal” or “legitimate”. Its not gonna happen no matter how hard you try, because reality is in front of everyone.

Q, the extent that you contradict your own argument is amazing. You’re saying the revolution gave us “Esteghlal”, not “independence”. Last time I checked, Esteghlal meant independence. What on earth are you talking about? Furthermore, are you saying that Iran under Shah, was not “an independent” nation? Trust me, you are digging your own intellectual grave and answering your “legitimacy” question by bringing this “Esteghlal” subject up. Also, based on what do you claim that Shah’s regime was in fact, legal? Answer this.

You’re problem is that your simply unwilling to accept the truth. Your political analysis goes as far as listening to “opinions” from clearly ideologically driven groups such as Democracy now. You are unable to make your own judgment. Q, and I said this to you before twice I believe, if the regime “appoints” a bunch of people and let the people chose between them for assembly of this and that, that election, is false, illegal, illegitimate, a big sham and comical and unaccepted by most of the world.

The IRI regime has cleverly oversmarted the world, specially the West, in many things. One of the things was declaring itself “ a republic” and holding “elections”. If you wanna take things at face value, and be so incredibly naïve and confused about things by believing that IRI said and Democracy now parroted that IRI has “elections”, remain that way.

Political parties argument: Political parties should adhere to a constitution that is written based on Universal declaration of human rights. They should play by the rules, and if win an election, uphold the constitution, and do not take way minority rights. That’s what we see in the U.S. For example, if it was up to the Republican Party, they would’ve amended the constitution to change abortion land marriage laws, but they didn’t.

Damn right the lack of political parties is not a sign of democracy. Politics have evolved, and most countries now have multi party systems. It is universally accepted that a uni party system is a sign of dictatorship and tyranny. IRI doesn’t even have a single party system, it’s a no party system. Also, your argument that “each country does it differently” is absurd. That’s IRI’s trick to fool the world. It always says “we have our own way of doing things”, and that’s why our country is in this shape now. But they ain’t folloing anyone anymore. If you wanna call “Majmaa Rowhanion Mobarez” a political party without the slightest regard of what a political party actually means, be my guest.

U.N observing U.S election: Again, like I said numerous times, U.N sends monitors to observe elections, including the U.S, and you asserted my original argument that is based on the country’s invitation. Like I also said, even NATO monitors NATO membering countries elections. That was the case in the 2004 presidential and congress elections. Yes, there were attempts by Republicans to discredit the U.N, and they shouldn’t.

Q, your arguments are obviously ideologically driven and your sources are groups that have the same opinions as you. “Opinions” are just that, not necessarily, facts. You use offensive words o try to bully the audience to listen to you. I’m not like that, unless, someone initiates it. So, I would urge you to use civilized manner in your future postings directed at me.

If we accept your creative skills in making up theories, the entire population of the world will be enslaved by now by dictators who use these type of arguments to legitimize their rule, if we accept your argument, there will be no human rights principles, because, those could be viewed as “subjective” terms. For example, Iran could say that “the way we do things is not to have gay rights, or let a non Muslim becomes president”, so whos the source to determine whats right or wrong? There is no right or wrong in giving women the right to vote, because everyone has a reason to be a against it or for it, don’t you agree? So, why is it important for women to vote? And why as we speak, there are women all around the world, including Iran, fighting for their rights? Who determines who should have rights? Who determines why Q has the right to express his opinion without any repercussions? The government? What does the government base that philosophy on?

So, I’m gonna reverse the trend here, and ask you these questions:

-         What makes a regime legal or illegal, legitimate or illegitimate?

-         Whos is the source that determines what human rights are? (Please don’t say Democracy Now)? What are human rights? If a dictator hijacks power and enslaves his people, hows that to be viewed? Right? Wrong? Subjective? Necessary? Runs in the people’s DNA? No one’s business? Who is to determine that? What are the principles?

-         How is tyranny, or dictatorship defined? Who defines them? Dictionary? Where the dictionary does gets its definition from?

Lets start with this for now, and I’m sure, by thinking about these for a second, you can determine how lost you are.

Anonym7

Thank you , you are too kind. I try to read and listen more and use my common sense when I try to make my point. I look at realities on the ground and am not bound to any particular idea or faction. I recently visited Iran and got the feeling that no one wants war and bloodshed. All these saber rattlings are to be in better position when it comes down to negotiating which I think is inevitable. look at Syria, lebenon and Palestinians in Paris confrence. We have not been this close to peace than ever before. with peace comes elimination of radicals in every government and country. radicals feed on each other. My prediction is implementation of peace in middle east in 4-5 years.

Mammad

Mammad says: "I suggest to all those who agree with me to simply ignore FK, with the hope that he comes to his senses. It is useless to argue with FK. Let him have a "discussion" with all those whom he pats on their backs."

Mammad I do more than agree with you that God Father is not by any means objective. He will rewrite history (as he does with CIA coup to remove Mosadegh), if the current news doesn't benefit his arguments he claims it is all "corporate news", etc.
God Father and many other extremists (e.g. Imani, Rashidian) have to demonize IRI and Iranians (as Shadooneh exposed below) at any cost. I doubt very much if our discussions change these "true Iranian nationalist" demonizers, but these guys are not the only readers .....
They know that many others read and learn from Mammad, that is why we see so many personal attacks against Mammad.
-best regards

A third point

The thrid point of why IRI makes hateful rhetorics against Isreal is that it seeks the support of arab people who in majority have anti-israel feelings especially the Hezbollah and the palestinian Hamas. Mullahs are seeking sympathy over these forces in order to use them for defending its interests (the enemy of my enemy ...). And till now mullahs haven't been disapointed as both Hezbollah and Hamas have acted and act as separeh bala for them

tired

I'm really tired of having to read various forms of arguments talking about why Iran is a democratic government or why it's not a democratic government. IRI never intended to be democratic, never said it was democratic, and would never be democratic. It called it self ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of Iran. Although you would think the name is SELF EXPLANATORY!

Thanks again.

You`re too kind.

OK, good luck waiting!

Wish you all the best.

Thanks

Q. That`ll be jolly good. Looking forward to hearing them whenever you feel ready. No rush. Whenever you feel ready.

Zion: have you ever cared about anything in your life?

No wonder you don't understand. No wonder you are so cavelier with the truth and accusations. I really can't explain it to you if you don't know already. Why do you want to know anyway? Just continue calling me a terrorist to make yourself feel better. And then go to bed thinking you are G-d's gift to humanity. Tomorrow morning go read some right wing Zionist propaganda, it'll make you feel all better: wash-rinse-repeat.

Inquiring minds like to know..
I don't see any "mind" but I'll let them know when I do.

LOL.

Cheer up baby, no need to cry. I promise to buy you a candy if you stop crying? Maybe the school master JJ will bring you on more candy too? How about that? Hush now...hushhh.

(Once you calmed down please take your time and riddle me this: I have a real question for you: What is really lurking behind that troubled mind that drives you to make such a spectacle of yourself? Inquiring minds like to know... .) ;->

OK Zion, just close your eyes and ears and yell: LALALALALALA

that's what you're doing right now.

Oh, you have a new definition called "true direct vote" now? Where is it? I already told you your opinion is worthless and I showed you very diverse set of authoritive opininion that considers the AE elections a direct and popular elections What do you have as a way of countering that evidence? That's right, just your worthless, self-serving thoughts.

Saddam, Kim Jong Il and all Soviet premiers were also chosen with such a vote and no one in their right mind would claim , as you did, that this is just like a real election in a democratic state.

These are cases where there was only one choice. There are hundreds, sometimes thousands of choices in Iranian Parliamentary elections. Multiple ones at the AE level and at least six people who were very much different in the Presidential elections. Another major difference is the high participation rate, usually much higher than the US. None of those countries have a high participation rate in their one-man elections.

Saddam's elections are not even comparable. You really have to know better than this. That's why I'm concluding you are just playing dumb for the sake of some small satisfaction. How pathetic can you get?

You also refuse to understand the concept of "vetting candidates" which can be criticized but is done by every country on Earth, including US and Israel. There is such a thing as "eligability" and you are just playing stupid when you deny this.

You shamelessly lied twice as an apologist for a terrorist criminal system.

I have not lied at all and you're too pathetic to admit it. Two other poeple on this thread have, but your big fat ego is just too much for you. Someday when you fall flat on your ass you'll understand what I mean.

Until than, go "have fun" and play, leave the real thinking to the grown up.

JJ, please assess this situation, as I described and remove Zion if you agree. She has accused me of lying multiple times and now called me a terroroist apologist. That is slander by any definition

AnonymousIrooni,

I agree that those things were "unjust" but the main question is, was America democratic or not? The answer has to be that it was, even during Slavery, it's just that it wasn't a perfect democracy.

So we have to admit, there is such a thing as a continuom. You can make a good argument that the process in Iran is not perfect and is corrupt. I would not have a problem with that, likely it means it moves on the democrataic continuoum. The system as it is designed currently can deliver much better democracy. For example: if the Guardian Council starts vetting candidates less and less. The Supreme Leader could show less and less initiative. The foreign policy council could be dominated more and more by the popularly elected President (That's Ahmadinejad by the way). The system can move very far toward perfect democracy.

You have to vote for Sharia. Sharia has not changed (or changed minimally) in the past 1400 years. Are you suggesting that the Iranians should wait for the turtle speed of modifications to the Sharia? Is Governance by a leadership that looks at Sharia as its main and only ideological inspiration a "continuom" as you say?

Irooni jan set aside your emotion and just think logically for a second. Does Sharia law have elections? Does it have a "Assembly of Experts"? A "Majles" even? What does Sharia say about Energy policy? What about Internet Censorship?

So, why do you call the Iranian system "sharia law"? If you think about this for just a second, you'll see how silly your question was. No one has to "wait" for "Sharia law" to be "modified". People will quite readily allow different and more open interpretations, more spiritual, less literal readings of Islamic inspiration. We alrady know a great variety is possible under Islam, look at Malaysia, Paksitan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, all Islamic inspired system and even more diversity is available under Shia Islam.

Stop digging

You only humiliate yourself further.
Your dear leader gets indirectly to appoint all members of the Guardian council (the other 6 via judiciary as is noted in the wikipedia article), so as I said, and you called it wrong and stupid, the leader appoints the Guardian council who get to choose who can run for the Assembly of experts who oversee the same leader. The people can vote directly only among those this circular process has allowed the leader to choose as best fits his reign. This is not a true direct vote. It is not about expert being chosen. It is about the circularity that makes the whole thing a sham. The leader who has power over the armed forces, the judiciary, the president and directly as well as through the Guardian council the legislative assembly and who is chosen in power indefinitely, unlike the president in any real republic, get to choose what he sees fit and people only can chose among those he has already chosen. A direct election is not defined by people just going to drop a ballot directly in a box. Saddam, Kim Jong Il and all Soviet premiers were also chosen with such a vote and no one in their right mind would claim , as you did, that this is just like a real election in a democratic state. You lie and no mater how much you want to twist and spin, it remains what it is.

Don`t drag yourself so low Q. Unlike your shameless lie, this is nothing like the vote for the supreme court in the US where no such circularity exist and no such concentration of indefinite power is given any one person. You shamelessly lied twice as an apologist for a terrorist criminal system. Seriously though, what really makes you defend the regime in Iran with such energy and dedication? is it the inferiority complex? What is it that drives you to so vehemently defend the criminal and the indefensible?

Have some shame and stop the bullsh*t! (and cheer up!, life is short baby... ;-)

A note of clarification

Salaam,

One has no intent to further enter into disputation in this matter. This is a final note of clarification.

The original comments on Zionistaan and Islamic Revulsion of Iran stands.

The implied critique of the contrived and illegitimate theoretical and theological basis for both also stands.

These have not been, and will not be, retracted.

(Due consideration of the context of the cited Sign of Sura Al-Anfal from Al-Qur'an, and the book cited, is further recommended.)

/& Salaam

shameless, AND double-tongued, a new low for Zion right here!

Zion, the vote for the Assembly of Experts is direct that's what I wrote, and you called me a "shameless liar". Did you not? It's right down this page.

But this is the absolute truth and your arguments are worthless!

I will make 3 points, and then I will ask JJ to come decide which one of us is lying, and remove the other. Fair?

Point 1. You say the Supreme leader gets to appoint 6 members (1/2) of the Guardian Council (A different body). The guardian council oversees the eligabilty of all candidates for the AE. Yes, that's true. But by law these are supposed to be "experts." And some government body oversees this to make sure they are qualified. It's like that everywhere!, read the analysis below that I made in the other comment.

This is like saying the Secretary of State of Kansas or the Kansas election commissions (a body that determines eligability of Kansas candidates and certifies votes) is appointed by the Kansas Governer so that makes the governor vote not direct. Aboslutely nonsense! Yes, it's true, the election qualifiers and overseers are appointed by the same people who are in charge!!! But that doesn't mean the governor controls their individual votes. Just like the Supreme Court of the US. The President appoints does that mean they are not democratic?

Point 2. The Guardian council vets candidates for the Assembly of Experts. You have finally figured this out, great, it's true. But after they have been found eligable, the public at large votes for them. This is what "direct election" means. Do you have a problem with the language?

Point 3. Even if YOU decided this does not qualify for "direct elections", your legal opinion is worthless. You don't get to decide what is "direct" and "indirect". Other people, who know what they are talking about call it "direct". Read the Wikipedia article it specificvallhy says: "by direct public vote to eight year terms.

Read the expert on Democracy Now (Dilip Hiro) that I linked to below.

And that electoral college is called Assembly of Experts. All 83 members of Assembly of Experts are directly elected.

From encyclopedia.com:

The popularly-elected, 86-member, supra-governmental body

From Stratfor:

Iranians directly elect the 86 clerics in the Assembly of Experts, which appoints its Supreme Leader, oversees his performance and removes him if he is unable to execute his duties. //www.stratfor.com/twisting_maze_iranian_poli...

From Daily Telegraph:
he answers to the popularly elected Assembly of Experts.

From BBC:

Direct elections for the 86 members of the current assembly are held every eight years
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/...

You see, no matter how you slice it, it is direct elections, according to experts. Not me, not you.

Please click on the BBC link above, it has a nice graphic picture if you want to understand little more about Iranian politics, just so you won't have to rely on lies and assumptions so damn much.

To be honest though, you are a lot of fun to watch, and you always crack us up so we love you regardless.

Whatever you need to do to cope with your own lies and racism. If this gives your life a bit of meaning, OK, call me "fun to watch."

Zion & Q are not debating the same thing Anonymouse 8

One is talking about the "Assembly of Experts" and the other about the "Guardian Counsel". These are two different entities? According to my understanding, The Guardian Counsel, among other stupid things, chooses the Assembly of Experts.

And they are not "directly elected by the people". This is not accurate. The "people" according to our Islamic Jurists are not qualified ti "directly" elect anyone. The Islamic Jurist choose who the people can vote for. This does not equal "directly elected by the People" Anony8.