REVOLUTION

Dear Amir

I have also noticed that this "sargord" character never replies to farsi comments. It's best not to take him seriously, as he is clueless with regards to Iran. 

Pahlevan jaan

Below is my response to "Sargord" Pirouz re: his lie. BTW, I am virtually certain the "Sargord" speaks little to no Persian:

"Let me say straight from the outset that I am not a Pahlavi supporter. I want to see a democratic republic established in Iran. Okay, now let's deal with Sargord Piorouz the Liar:

I've never seen a "government figure" of 10,000. Sargord Pirouz is plagiarizing from an article by Dilip Hiro, whose pro-IRI sentiments have been manifest in anyone who has read his articles or books (not to mention his ridiculous judgement; Hiro predicted that Iraq would inflict huge casualties on the US and win the first Gulf War--we know how that turned out). Emadeddin Baghi, a researcher at the IRI's Bonyad Shahid did a detailed study of the Revolution and could only discover 2,781 killed in the 1978 and 1979 clashes between demonstrators and the Shah's army and security forces. Moreover, the bloodiest incident of the 1978 Revolution was the burning of the Cinema Rex, which was committed by Islamist revolutionaries. Khomeini and his gang of criminals claimed that the Shah's troops killed over 4,000 people in Jaleh Square. The true number was 88 (according to Baghi's research).

Now, we can certainly talk about the number killed by the IRI after the revolution, and we'll see that Khomeini's murderous republic killed an exponentially greater number of Iranians than the Shah's dictatorship (of which I am NOT a supporter). Not only is talk cheap, but in the case of Sargord Pirouz the Liar talking means lying. It just comes so naturally to IRI groupies..." 

Abarmard

I remember an earlier blog of yours, about how the 1979 revolution was so “great” and "glorious" and how it brought Iran “independence" and "prosperity". Of course when I gave you a dose of reality and proved that in fact Iran was no more independent under IRI than it was under the Pahlavis and all the talk about IRI's "independence" is just a fallacy, neither you nor any of the Basijis supporting your blog could respond to my points. However, it looks like, now, you are saying that revolution in general is not desirable!!! … This is in total contradiction with your praise of 1979 revolution. It seems to me that you are constantly contradicting yourself to support the most brutal and anti-Iranian regime in Iran's recent history. Now I am not calling you an anti-Iranian IRI supporter but you can see how someone might.

"Velvet revolutions are not "revolution" ..." 

Abarmard, in your ignorance of history (or dishonesty) you might categorize them (or rather spin them) as whatever you want but the fact remains that in 1989 communist regimes in Eastern Europe were overthrown by national referendums and secular republics were instead established by popular votes similar to 1979 Iranian revolution. These new governments were based on ideals 180 degrees different from the pre-revolution communist ideals and were run by former opposition activists and former political prisoners. Additionally, as I have mentioned before, one of them was even a violent revolution (the Romanian revolution) yet it brought about democracy nonetheless.

"There are no realities in term of non violent revolution. No system in the world that is holding to power will allow itself to be replaced with a new and different class systems. Revolutions can be defined as replacement of one class in a society with another ...." 

Your definition of revolution is, not surprisingly, a made-up definition that has nothing to do with the actual definition of revolution. Revolution is simply the overthrowing of a regime (system of governance), nothing less and nothing more. Now what comes after the revolution, as I have mentioned before, depends on mentality of the masses that carried out the revolution. As for the "class in power", naturally they will initially resist giving up the power but they will be eventually overthrown and whether or not it’s violent depends entirely on them.

"-Any system after a revolution needs to adjust itself and take control. There would be foolish for a system to openly allow all kinds of ideologies to  be practiced ..." 

Immediately after a revolution there is no system to allow or not allow certain ideologies. Again get this through your head, the system that is established after a popular revolution is established according to the support of the masses; if the masses favor a secular democratic system that includes everyone in the political power structure and not just a certain "class", the system will be so as was the case for eastern European countries in 1989. Otherwise if the masses favor communist or Islamist systems it will be so as was the case for Russia and Iran in 1917 and 1979. The key word here is "the masses" not "the class".

"Constitution and laws that are not in line with concepts of freedom will be a matter of importance once a nation follows them. If in a country that laws are not followed or respected, good laws or bad laws become irrelevant. In any system, the government becomes the sole power and perhaps takes decades to gradually form a civil society, if the system is very adaptive, otherwise longer (hint:The Islamic Republic)" 

If the Poles, the Czechs, the Slovaks & ... had the above mentality their countries would still be communist shit-holes …

"The question here is what it is that people want and in what time frame. Realistically. Given that "right here, right now" is nothing but a romantic idea ... "

Well, it's obvious that people don't want IRI; anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless about Iran and its regime. Majority of Iranians are excluded from the political power structure and the national wealth is distributed between a fringe minority. Saying that majority of Iranians don't want IRI is common sense not “romantic”. On the other hand, saying that majority of people want IRI stems from either ignorance or dishonesty.

"Reformists are ultimately revolutionaries, in time, with ideologies and precise demands ... " 

Let me just make something clear, I am not against reform, in fact I am for it, although I believe it's only a temporary relief for people and the real solution is a revolution. This blog, however, was a response to those so-called "intellectuals", living in the west, who supported Khatami  when he said people who chant "esteghlal azadi jomhurieh Irani", "marg bar asleh velayateh faghih", "margbar jomhurieh eslami" & so on are "sakhtarshekans" & and have to be dealt with. There is nothing wrong with supporting reform per se, but when people join voices with the oppressor to crush a revolutionary movement with the excuse of "revolution is bad" and "reform is good", "reform" becomes nothing more than an excuse to keep tyranny in power and keep the parasites fat and happy. When a revolution is underway, reform becomes meaningless ... you can't tell people "naghd-o vel kon nesiar-o bechasb".

" ... I strongly argue that still the most followers of green movement are those who are against Ahmadinejad and conservative camp rather than revolutionaries. They want more relaxed laws and a better image from their future government. As Khatami had said, the constitution is not a word of God to remain the same, we can change it ..."

You say a lot of "things" Abarmard non of which are rooted in reality and show that you are clueless and out-of-touch with the Iranian people. Iranians today are forward-looking and modern people who simply cannot be ruled by a group of backward minded, incompetent murderers, including Khatami. Young Iranians are chanting for "jomhurieh Irani" and Khatami calls them "sakhtarshekan" and you support him. Khatami is a staunch supporter of "asleh velayateh faghih" and the Islamist closed-loop system that keeps the power away from the people. He might say a lot of things but at the end of the day he is not on the side of people, and only struggling to remain in power. In 1989, there were also some reformists who tried to advocated reforms and keep the communist system in power but people wanted none of that, they wanted true democracy.

To Mehdi & Tahgord Dirouz

"That's what this article is essentially saying, isn't it? It says that we should ask the West to bomb Iran and give us the power. Otherwise where would the "violence" come from? The last violent opposition was the MKO (Rajavi's cult). "

Mehdi, I suspect you are still under the influence of the "colorful chemicals" you talked about in another thread because your reading and comprehension abilities are obviously impaired. How else can someone related support for an internal revolution to a foreign intervention? or conclude that someone who is against Islamist and Communist ideals (MKO's ideals) is actually supporting MKO. Let me just tell you, that I am a supporter of the Green movement and find supporters of MKO equally as disgusting as Hezbollahi parasites and IRI supporters. 

"I wish the writer had bothered to explain to us what he considers is violent and what is not. During the 79 "revolution," such individuals considered Shah a blood thirsty dictator who was torturing and raping and killing our youth. So, how was he revolution non-violent then? ..." 

Mehdi, here's some education for you: A violent revolution is when there is war between people and those in power until those in power are violently overthrown and executed. The communist regimes in eastern Europe like the Pahlavi regime in Iran tried to contain the opposition by imprisonment and execution (I am afraid raping the opposition is exclusive to the Islamist maniacs in Iran though), but when they saw mass uprisings by the people both voluntarily gave up the power.

"During the 12 months of the revolutionary movement that stretched from 1978 into 1979, the indiscriminate use of live fire by the Shah’s regime led to between 10,000 -- the government figure -- and 40,000 -- the opposition’s statistic -- deaths. Not exactly bloodless by any reckoning!- wouldn't you agree?" 

"Sargord" koochooloo, I understand your "dumbness" with regards to matters related to Iran since you are not even Iranian. So I am not going to humiliated by taking apart your ridiculous comment and just leave you with the following two facts for educational purposes:

1. according to IRI's own "Martyr's Foundation" there are no more than 768 [1], martyrs before the revolution and I suspect that includes the number of executed people as well and not just casualties of street fights.

2. IRI, has executed over fifty thousands of political prisoners and killed thousands more in street fights since its establishment 31 years ago. More than a hundred thousands of Iranians have been imprisoned, tortured and raped by the Islamist parasites in Iran. One thing is for sure, Khomeini and Khamenei make Shah, a brutal dictator, look like an angel. That said, I prefer a nonviolent revolution myself.

Now go comment on something related to your own country.  

[1] Kurzman, Charles, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran, (Harvard University Press, 2004), p.71 

revolution ? Oh sure, that sounds so romantic.

 I know VERY little about Iran,but accept the truth of the relationship between ideals,and outcomes, But are those useing the word"revolution" willing to accept the possible blood,and chaos.

The discussion of the post-revolutionary government seems to assume some calm interregnum where folks of good will can craft a new government. Am I the only one that fears the music for this period might be played on machine guns ?

     I have no solution for the mess Iran is in, but I will posit that another generation of struggle within the framework of the ( perhaps irredeemable) IRI might be less risky than its destruction.

Thanks for the comments

Dear Jamshid, Harpi-Eagle, tabar, VPK, Masoud, Bijan, AI, amir, shushtari, vildemose, areyo barzan & others, thank you for your kind comments. 

Dear tabari, I am 100% with you on equal rights for all and the rights of minorities to have education and media in their own languages in parallel with a unifying official language. I should also mention that the Pahlavi regime was neither democratic nor secular. The most fundamental pillar of a democracy is its bill of rights that guarantees equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender. In a true democracy a law cannot be passed if it violates equal rights for any group of citizens, even if that law is supported by a majority of people. It's important to distinguish between democracy and dictatorship of majority over minority which is, as history shows, bound to become a dictatorship of minority over majority eventually. 

Dear Abarmard

Firstly I am glad that you have finally came around to accept revolution as one of the ways out of the dead end that our country is at this moment.  However if you argument is about the manifest and “strategy of this movement”,, then I should say I am also in total agreement with you on this issue.  

This is why I think at this moment of time it is too soon and Immature to talk about the type of (republic monarchy, or socialist) the future regime in Iran.

But we can all gather around a set of un-compromiseable principals which separates the true democratic movements from the phoney pretenders.  

At the moment this is not time to choose the type of government as there is a lack of essential information. 

Please note that the same mistake was made in 1357 and people chose Islamic republic without knowing that is the Islamic republic. That is why first we need to create an atmosphere where all political parties can talk freely about their aims and principals and they can be questioned and scrutinized by people before we can select which one of these types of democracies we want and before having this information making such choice is immature and will prove to be fatal.   However at this moment of time we can gather around a set of principals and demand like  

1-     Freedom of press

2-     Freedom of activity for all political parties

3-     Mutuality of armed forces and their separation from the government

4-     Independence of judiciary system from the government

5-     Separation of religion from state

6-      And parliamentary democracy

And I am sure that other people can add to these points.

Fighting for a secular democracy is the clearest direction that one can wish for.

Now the type and name of that democracy can be chosen by our people over a free referendum. However for that referendum to be valid first all the political parties should be free to talk about and promote their principals and political views.

Today all the political parties should move beyond certain political interests and unite around some shared principals.

Also you seem to still have some major problems about understanding the nature of IRI and Velaayat e Fagheeh. The concept of Velaayat e Fagheeh puts a person like Khamene-e or Khomeini above the law automatically and if your knowledge about IRI and its rules was half what you claim. You should know that Velaayat e Fagheeh is the main concept of the IRI and the IRI without VF is no IRI. Now what ever you want to call it is you choice.

But anyway we can continue this argument till the end of time, but in order for this discussion to be useful and get somewhere first we need to open our mind and look at the situation from a mutual point of view. Now if you and I do not know about the principals that a healthy revolution should be based on then we can be told about it. But if we do not want to know that’s another story.

As one can always awaken him who is asleep but can never awaken him who is pretending to be asleep

Dear areyo barzan

We can debate about the role of law and civil society for a long time, and that's great. Before I continue, let me just say that at this point, if one believes that revolution is the answer, must have a clear and pre defined agenda. For example, if Iranian people agree that Constitutional Monarchy is what they want, revolution would be the answer. By defining the system, we can limit the cost of uncertainty.

In reform strategy, the concept drives from lack of direct and clear outcome. The movement focus is on shortcomings from the current system. Suppose that the leader of the country has unlimited power and does not answer to the law. That's an issue for reformists. If this gets resolved, by people's demands and force, then future under whatever system is a bit better. Things in that nature.

While there are no specific direction to form a revolutionary movement that agrees on a system today, reformists are clear about their struggle and the focus is defined. Unfortunately, for many people reform path is not fast enough. Is this a problem? That's why we need to define outcomes, time lines, and clarify our objective.
If Objective is to reach democracy, through constitutional monarchy, as I have mentioned earlier, then we are on the right path when we speak about revolution. Otherwise, reform is the best alternative.

NOTE: I am not advocating either strategy, using names and systems as examples.

Exactly similar to the

Exactly similar to the nuclear game that they are playing with the West and China, where by sending contradictory messages to different parties by different people, they play these countries

against each other.  

Now countries like Russia and China might have certain short term economical and strategic interest in participating at such  sick game, but we DO NOT. I don’t know about you but I am not willing to allow IRI to use me for guarantying its survival

Excellent observation. Abarmard is here to sell those contradictory messages to cause more division. That is his job.

Dear Abarmard

Although you have raised a few valid points in your post however you have overlooked some very important issues and that eroded any validity from your argument.  

You have rightly mentioned that for a government who does not imply with the law, having a law and constitution would eventually become irrelevant.

At the first glance your analysis might sound logical. However the first attempt scrutinizes this issue, would get us to an even more important principal and that is:  

Firstly implementing bad roles and keeping unfair laws in much worst than fighting the system and trying to defy that law.

Secondly no one is fighting the principal of having laws, but we have problems with this particular version of law.  For example today in the IRI’s constitution the rights of a woman is half that of a man. Now before you try to tell me that this is not the real Islam I suggest you go and read the book “Hellyat al Mottaghin” written by “Allame-ye Majlesy” and you see the same. Also for a country like Iran that have people of many different religious and ideological background a regime that favours a particular religion and ideology is not acceptable in its entirety. That is why we want the separation of religion and state.  Another major point of difference is the “Asle Velaayat e Fagheeh” which we do not accept in its entirety and regard it as contradictory to our most fundamental human rights.  You see if our differences were over the small minor methodologies or interpretations of constitution then a reform could have been a solution. However today our argument is over the identity and ideology of IRI and its constitution, not the other shapes and forms in which it can come.   On other part of your posting you argued that: 

“The slow pace of changes allows the reformists to have a better sense of the bottle necks in the society and simply be allowed to establish a better control system.” 

  Again to an untrained eye at first look this argument might make perfect sense, however under the first attempt of scrutiny this argument will also fall apart. 

Simply for any change and reform to come about, first there should exist a suitable atmosphere and background to implement this change. Most of all there needs to be a system, government or individual who accepts its short-comes and that it needs reform.

The IRI lacks both these factors. First of all the IRI does not believe it needs to be reformed and that was why they silenced any reformist voice even within their own small circle of trusted. If the IRI was open to reform then the ten years of Khatami should have been more than enough to reform its misconducts or at least Khamene-ey would have respected peoples vote and would have let Mosavi to get on with his reforms.

Now the fact is that despite all talks there has been no reformed and things only got worst. These cat and mouse games of “shol kon sef kon” that the regime has been playing with the people are only to create confusion, division and demoralisation. Just like the opening and later closing different news papers at the time of Khatami this is also noting but a deceit and strategic retrieve when it suits their interest.

Exactly similar to the nuclear game that they are playing with the West and China, where by sending contradictory messages to different parties by different people, they play these countries against each other.  

Now countries like Russia and China might have certain short term economical and strategic interest in participating at such  sick game, but we DO NOT. I don’t know about you but I am not willing to allow IRI to use me for guarantying its survival.

Abarmard

3-There are no realities in term of non violent revolution. No system
in the world that is holding to power will allow itself to be replaced
with a new and different class systems.

You put your finger on the root of the problem. That is why there are violent revolutions. That is why the Mullahs are going to be not just replaced but thrown out kicking and screaming to the Hague. 

The sad part is that that Shah did allow himself to be replaced without violence. The result: 32 years of misery; a disastrous war; loss of much Iranian life and treasure.

Shushtari

first of all, it is a well documented fact that britain, carter
adm., and france, and heads of big oil wanted to get rid of the shah- the mullahs had professional help in toppling the shah- the shah could have resisted and unleashed hell on the mullahs and their goons,

You are 100% right. We all know who was behind the 1979 disaster. Jimmy Carter got rewarded by losing the presidency and losing the Democrats power for 20 years. We suffered much more. Last night I was watching some videos of the days of the Shah. It filled my eyes with tears. How great we were and how far we fell. At least now our people know a bit more and are not so stupid to believe all the BS from Iran's enemies again. We are going to kick out the Islamists and rejuvenate our nation.

nice points....

yet, you have oversimplified the situation in iran.

first of all, it is a well documented fact that britain, carter adm., and france, and heads of big oil wanted to get rid of the shah- the mullahs had professional help in toppling the shah- the shah could have resisted and unleashed hell on the mullahs and their goons, but he chose not to spill blood and left the country- that is why it was relatively bloodless.

the fiasco of 79 was not simply iranians wanting to get rid of the shah.....the country had a population of 35 million....and out of these, no more than a few million were hell bent of changing the government...

if was a massive foreign-led conspiracy to hold iran back and ensure that the flow of cheap or free oil continued....and what better of way of doing that than by installing a bunch of iran-hating thieves with no respect for human life!

these are the facts....pure and simple 

Abarmard: LOL You're

Abarmard: LOL

You're still trying to redeem the butchers in Iran by this mumbo jumbo of yours???  Geda parvari, Hegart parvari ta che had?

Some points

1- Iranian 1979 revolution was one of the least violent in the history, therefore your argument from reformists camp is not being presented properly here. The most important factor in regard to revolution, reformists would argue, that is too costly. The cost can be ranging from many levels, but one of the most important thought is to understand the cost of uncertainty. Historically no revolution has been established with peaceful means. The concept of revolution, generally goes hand in hand with revenge and it is during that time that the next generation dictatorial regime forms.

2-Velvet revolutions are not "revolution" but rather system wash and cleanup reforms. Most of the administrators of those revolution and wealth owners remain in charge but certain level of policies change. I would categorize that as systematic reform rather than gradual changes in policies.

3-There are no realities in term of non violent revolution. No system in the world that is holding to power will allow itself to be replaced with a new and different class systems. Revolutions can be defined as replacement of one class in a society with another. Those stakeholders in a particular class will not want to change if their benefits are in line with those in power.

4-Any system after a revolution needs to adjust itself and take control. There would be foolish for a system to openly allow all kinds of ideologies to  be practiced. There would be lack of trust and fight for position. Revolution, keep in mind, is not controlled and slow systematic change but rather a form of a rush, uncontrollable and chaotic socio-political change.

5-Constitution and laws that are not in line with concepts of freedom will be a matter of importance once a nation follows them. If in a country that laws are not followed or respected, good laws or bad laws become irrelevant. In any system, the government becomes the sole power and perhaps takes decades to gradually form a civil society, if the system is very adaptive, otherwise longer (hint:The Islamic Republic)

6- The question here is what it is that people want and in what time frame. Realistically. Given that "right here, right now" is nothing but a romantic idea. to change a culture/system of a mid size company, it takes years. To do the same for a populated country as diverse as Iran, one must be realistic.

7- Reformists are ultimately revolutionaries, in time, with ideologies and precise demands. They have those clarity of needs because they realize the positives, however few, and very concern about the negatives. The slow pace of changes allow the reformists to have a better sense of the bottle necks in the society and simply be allowed to establish a better control system.

8-Regardless of harsh IR policies, there are some good portion of the population that supports the regime. They, perhaps either have extreme religious beliefs or (more commonly) have some financial stake with the regime. The rest of the population range from working based, pro Shah, revolutionaries for change:no matter what but not this!, and many others. As they all can come together for a revolt, the idea of an accepted system has not yet been seriously debated, in or out of the country. Even the flag of Iran is an issue of debate without a clear resolution. One can say: in time we can have open polls to decide, or let the majority decie. The fact is that in a country such as Iran, no one would accept that the polls are correct: Is it romantic to think that UN will be conducting Iranian elections and the results will be respected? Knowing the population of Iran, it's a hard piece to swollow.

-Islamic groups would claim the foreign involvement (If lose of course)

-The loser of the election would disagree, no matter who it is

-The winner might be able to hold on to power permanently (by killing and getting rid of "criminals" and "anti democratic forces" etc.

Although many in IC might not accept this reality, the foreign hands would play a huge role in any revolution and during its chaos.

None of the above is to scare the society, but exact account of characteristics of revolutions.To remind you again, all reformists are revolutionaries once their demands are not met, in a time-line.

*Before the election, the entire debate was whether there are any difference between the candidates, and most of the IC members (revolutionaries) agreed that the debates were fake. The after math must be a clear indication that reformists were serious about changing the country and bringing a more moderate and better civil rights laws and rules in place. I strongly argue that still the most followers of green movement are those who are against Ahmadinejad and conservative camp rather than revolutionaries. They want more relaxed laws and a better image from their future government. As Khatami had said, the constitution is not a word of God to remain the same, we can change it.

Moderation

Harpi-Eagle, the comment box is for those who wish to have a civil discussion. You are not exchanging views with murderers, rather ordinary people who may or may not have the same view as yours. Calling another commenter a "hypocrite" invites that person and others to start calling you names as well. And then this whole thread becomes a shouting match. You can accuse politicians of hypocrisy or genocide or... but not another person who has left a comment that you don't like.

JJ, There is nothing wrong ...

with calling Brother Mehdi a "Hypocrite", this is not an insult or "Fohsh o Bad o Bira".  This is merely stating facts, just re-examine his post right here, specially the 2nd paragraph.

Now, I know you are the web master of this site, and you ultimately make the call whether a comment should be deleted or modified, and I know you and I have had this same philosophical discussion several times in the past, but I really think you are taking the liberalism to extreme measures, things are nt always Black or White in real life.

To clarify my position, let me ask a rhetorical question, Let's say on this very site, if Asadollah Lajevardi had posted a comment, and I would call him a "Jallad" in my response, would that be name calling?  Not in my book, it would be honesty and factuality. 

I know what you're going to say, oh don't put Lajevardi and Bro. Mehdi in the same category, and I'm not.  I'm just using that evil monster to make a point here.

So, hamvataneh aziz, calling Sargord a Mozdor, and Bro. Mehdi a hypocrite really don't qualify as "Bad o Bira". 

Payandeh Iran, our Ahuraie Fatherland

Brother Mehdi

You say, "I wish the writer had bothered to explain to us what he considers is violent and what is not."

Let me clarify that for you. 

Raping and killing in Kahrizak = Violent

Acting according to even your own "Mickey Mouse" Constitution = Not Violent

You got that?

Payandeh Iran, our Ahuraie Fatherland

The Iranian Revolution does need a "George Washington"

and not a Vladimir Lenin or Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Once again, Sargord is lying

Let me say straight from the outset that I am not a Pahlavi supporter. I want to see a democratic republic established in Iran. Okay, now let's deal with Sargord Piorouz the Liar:

I've never seen a "government figure" of 10,000. Sargord Pirouz is plagiarizing from an article by Dilip Hiro, whose pro-IRI sentiments have been manifest in anyone who has read his articles or books (not to mention his ridiculous judgement; Hiro predicted that Iraq would inflict huge casualties on the US and win the first Gulf War--we know how that turned out). Emadeddin Baghi, a researcher at the IRI's Bonyad Shahid did a detailed study of the Revolution and could only discover 2,781 killed in the 1978 and 1979 clashes between demonstrators and the Shah's army and security forces. Moreover, the bloodiest incident of the 1978 Revolution was the burning of the Cinema Rex, which was committed by Islamist revolutionaries. Khomeini and his gang of criminals claimed that the Shah's troops killed over 4,000 people in Jaleh Square. The true number was 88 (according to Baghi's research).

Now, we can certainly talk about the number killed by the IRI after the revolution, and we'll see that Khomeini's murderous republic killed an exponentially greater number of Iranians than the Shah's dictatorship (of which I am NOT a supporter). Not only is talk cheap, but in the case of Sargord Pirouz the Liar talking means lying. It just comes so naturally to IRI groupies...

Flawed article

During the 12 months of the revolutionary movement that stretched from 1978 into 1979, the indiscriminate use of live fire by the Shah’s regime led to between 10,000 -- the government figure -- and 40,000 -- the opposition’s statistic -- deaths. Not exactly bloodless by any reckoning!- wouldn't you agree?

(For purposes of comparison, in the six months of the street protest since the 2009 election, the total, according to the opposition, is 106.)

Most "Velvet revolutions" are characterized by a claim of post election fraud and are provided valuable Western assistance, in an attempt to bring forward a regime more favorable to Western interests- plain and simple.

Given the author's taste for violence and revolution, I suggest he/she get on board the first jet and head for Tehran, to put his/her "ideal" in actual practice.

Talk is cheap. Especially when it's intellectually flawed and itself "dumb". 

In short, let's bomb Iran

That's what this article is essentially saying, isn't it? It says that we should ask the West to bomb Iran and give us the power. Otherwise where would the "violence" come from? The last violent opposition was the MKO (Rajavi's cult). They were not successful, last time I checked. In fact during their 40+ years of existence, they have done NOTHING for Iran, except geting it into trouble. Clear;y, a "traitor" such as Hoveyda, with his reform ideas, accomplished a lot for Iran, where these fellows, with their violent strategy, failed utterly (except causing destruction).

I wish the writer had bothered to explain to us what he considers is violent and what is not. During the 79 "revolution," such individuals considered Shah a blood thirsty dictator who was torturing and raping and killing our youth. So, how was he revolution non-violent then? Do we need more killing than what took place in order to call it a violent one? What is the number or percentage? The writer seems to arbitrarily assign violent or non-violent adjective to certain "revolutions" in history. It is not even clear what he considers to be a revolution and what is not. When you don't define terms, of course, it becomes very easy to "prove" something, as one simply is redefining things as he wishes.

Excellent Article

Very good observation with respect to revolutions and their different outcomes.

Thank you!

Extremely well said Pahlevan

You write:

 “I submit to you that the outcome of a revolution is less related to the manner in which it is carried out and more related to the goals and ideals of the masses that carry it out.”.

I believe in this statement wholeheartedly, without any doubt or reservation.

What puzzles me is how and what does it take for masses to unify their goals and ideals. I think presence of religion is the greatest hurdle in unification of messes. Economic injustice and systematic violation of human dignity and freedom are among the greatest unifying elements in any revolution (reform or transformation). However, when the masses are sedated with the drug of religion, unity becomes difficult.

Current situation in Iran has all the ingredients that call for a revolution, the only missing element is the unity in a well defined goal. If the goal is to just rid of IRI we will be where we were 31 years ago. It is encouraging to see that the voice of secularists is getting stronger every day (at least in diaspora). I hope their message penetrates the masses who will be the true executor of this transformation.

Many thanks for a well composed and timely post.   

My fight is for

SANITY

What is an intellectual?

Pahlevan,  before I go on I want to thank  you for a most insightful article. I agree with almost all of it. 

Now to my rant about intellectuals:

I very much question the term "intellectual". There was a time when relatively few Iranians had higher education and many of those who did were gullible. That led to a handful of so called "intellectuals". Many of these spent a few years abroad; then came back and were treated like the second coming by other people. Those days are gone.

Now we have a very high number of Iranians (diaspora included) with bachelors; masters; and Phd. People are more sophisticated and not gullible. So what does define an intellectual now? Does that mean that we now have millions of intellectuals? The whole term is outdated.

Just see how supposed intellectuals like Bazargan and Ommani are treated on this site. How about Boyle or Leveretts? This is proof that we are not falling for the "intellectual said it so it is true" argument anymore. Good for us!

I completely agree with the article

Or whatever people call these, I think blog for this piece is kinda undermining. But yeah I think it's the ideals we're fighting for are the most important thing. We can't have a dictatorship if we chant for a secular democracy and ensure we get this through introducing new laws to be changed and etc. I think the reformists times are over and Iranians see beyond this now, it's too late to go back. I personally think it's only a matter of time before this regime is gone...

One thing I should mention is that we do need to be more unified in our ideals - what exactly do we want? We want secular democracy but is that enough? As someone from a ethnic minority and a rural background for us it won't matter what regime we have if we continue to be in poverty, don't have food, don't have access to /free/ healthcare and education. It also won't matter to us if we continue to be discriminated against by our government because of our ethnicity as was done in the Pahlavi regime, and are denied self governance or the right to education in our mother tongue WITH Persian. These I believe are basic human rights that we must obtain that the Green movement has yet to 100% agree/accept on. There are many that do but these need to be guaranteed and not pushed aside as something that we can bring later once we have a secular democracy in place, because again for us it won't matter. Those rights, along with a secular democracy, are what I'm fighting for.

Integrity ...

Pahlevan,

Your point about ideals is valid, however, the individual at the helm is also of extreme importance.  Case in point is General George Washington, this man of integrity and honesty is one of the main reasons for The American Revolution being the most successful revolution in the history.  The colonists offered to make him a King and he turned that down saying this was exactly what they were fighting against. 

Then you have Khomeini or Lenin at the other end of spectrum claiming to be of the people, for the people, where in reality their thirst for absolute power and bloodshed had driven them both to verge of madness.  You see in any important historical event such as these, the general populace tends to idolize their leader and this level of power and autonomy is a dangerous thing in hands of most.  Let's hope the leaders of the current events in Iran heed these history lessons.

Payandeh Iran, our Ahuraie Fatherland

"Either these “reformist

"Either these “reformist intellectuals” are ignorant about history or they are dishonest opportunists who intentionally fudge the facts for their own purposes."

Our past thirty years of history shows us that the latter is the case rather than the former. "Lie and deception" is their bread and butter. They can't survive without it.