Capt Ayhab

Mr.'s Shah gholam, Anonymous8

I am glad you gentlemen enjoyed it and thanks for your time

-YT 

Capt

though late due to much activities in the news section, add me to those who enjoyed your view point which I have kept trying to spread among anti Iranian crowd there. I find the composition of these group of people interesting day after day. But staying silent in these tense times simply embolden's Iran's enemies and their sick plans for Iran.  

Thank You Captain

very good article.

Thank You Captain

very good article.

benross

thanks for the great response.  Now as to your question:

Now you tell me Onlyiran, if Palestinians eradicated hostility toward the existence of Israel, do you really thing the whole democratic society of Israel as a nation -not those nut cases only- would have supported these annexations? do you really can qualify these annexations as 'expansionist' NATURE of Israel? I wouldn't.

It really is a tough call as to whether or not settlement expansion would have continued had all hostilities against Israel's existence ended by paletinians at some point.  One would tend to think so, but real estate is a pretty precious commodity, especially for a small country with limited resources such as Israel.  So, I wouldn't rule that possibility out completely.  And no, I wouldn't say that settelement expansion is demonstrative of the "expansionist nature" of Israel, and that is why I used expansion with a small (e).  Whatever the cause of it is, though, it has been ongoing for quite some time (since 1967) without any indication that it will stop anytime soon.  So, the end result, regardless of the cause, as we see it today, is expnasionism with a small (e).  BTW, IRI's existence has been a gold mine for the Israeli right wing on this issue in that they use it to silence all opposition to their plans...just like the IRI does on the other side with Israel.

Mr. benross

Thanks for wonderful and civil debates, has been a pleasure sir.

-YT 

capt_ayhab-Onlyiran

Sorry for the late response. As usual, I lost the track.

I stand corrected on everything you pointed out. Not that I fully agree with you, but because I don't want them to stand on the way of the main issue.

As a democrat do not be offended on your stance about Israel because this is exactly where we did not do our job as democrats. Recognizing that Israel exists is not enough. It should not be verbally. It has to be wholeheartedly, otherwise it will not end the perpetual hate and sorrow. And I'm not talking only about Iranians, who don't have any beef in it either way, as the last Ghods day clearly demonstrated. I'm talking about Palestinians primarily, and Arab world in general.

Have you ever tried to discuss the matter with a Palestinian? of-course they are of all colours like ourselves. But for the most part, and to simplify my point, discussing the matter with a Palestinian is like discussing the matter with Ahmadinijad. THIS IS THE PROBLEM NOT ISRAEL.

As a matter of fact I discussed the matter with a group of Palestinians and other Arabs. I was in contact with them in an apolitical context and we were having a very thoughtful and rich exchange of ideas... until the event of Gaza occurred and we lost contact with one of our members who happened to be living in Gaza.

Naturally the expression of concern and worry about the whereabout of this member led to some political discussions, where suddenly this group of knowledgeable and intelligent intellectuals suddenly changed to a mob of hate mongers not very far from the likes of Ahmadinejad, only with better vocabulary.

My question to democrats is this. How much did we stand for secular democratic values DESPITE seeing human suffering around us? If we are true democrats, we KNOW  that this human suffering which is the result of perpetual hatred can not end WITHOUT enforcing secular values and democracy and respect of freedom of expression. We failed Palestinians because we were not democrat enough.

And I'm talking about true values of modernity and secularism not a token election result. We have election in Iran and we had election in Palestine. But where is the respect of freedom of expression? There are more Palestinians killed by Palestinians than by Israeli army. Why is that? because we make posters glorifying children with arms. Because those armed children grow-up eventually and they see 'betrayal' all around them and they take action to save the 'cause' of Palestine. We know the drill yet we don't do anything about it. Israel also know the drill, but it does something about it. Not for the sake of Palestinians, for the sake of its own security. I've seen some nut case Israelies, much worse than worst Palestinians (and they mostly come from U.S!), but Israel as a nation, is not like that. It is a democracy, reacting to its fear.

And yes, that 'security shield' Israel is constantly building up for itself, includes those territorial annexation, ignoring U.N resolutions, doing atrocities against Palestinians... you name it.

Now you tell me Onlyiran, if Palestinians eradicated hostility toward the existence of Israel, do you really thing the whole democratic society of Israel as a nation -not those nut cases only- would have supported these annexations? do you really can qualify these annexations as 'expansionist' NATURE of Israel? I wouldn't.

Mr. benross

Thanks for your response and allow me to clarify one point you made in your last comment.

You stated that[ Frankly I'm still bewildered why the issue of Israel pops up every time we are discussing about anything. It shouldn't be in our IRANIAN
discussions at all.]

With all due respect, comments indicate that you were the one who first brought up the subject of Israel[3 times in your first comment], with the exception of Mr. Kadivar who made one point about possible Israeli attack on nuclear installations in Iran. His comment was more in line with the thread, since threat of attack on Iran are primary posed by state of Israel. It is them who have been either threatening to strike Iran OR they have been   hard at work to get US do their job for them as it was in the case of Iraq.

Secondly you stated that[ This is the nature of the situation in Palestine. It is not about expansionism, it's about survival.]

Israel is signatory to the peace accord that requires them to go back to pre 1967 defined boarder, which they came to negate. This action of Israel, to me and many others is nothing BUT expansionism in its most brutal way. As the gentleman Iranonly noted, their policy been  annexation of  occupied territories by establishing ILLEGAL[according to various UN resolutions] settlements, which resemble more like military garrisons than townships, with walls, military check point and whole enchilada.

As to my personal views on existence of Israel, I do trust even asking such a question of a person who has a clear record of advocating democracy and human right comes across as insult. No matter, my position is as it has always been, Israel has all the rights for existence as any other nation in the region. BUT she will never see lasting peace so as long as she keeps establishing illegal settlements, breaking cease fires, attacking defenseless encamped people in Gaza and elsewhere.

Now that we are on the subject which you brought up, allow me to ask you the same question. Do Palestinians who have lost their homes have the SAME right to exist in peace as Israeli's do?  Do they have the right to be able to defend themselves as any other nation?

In answering such, please keep in mind that I categorically and fundamentally condemn any form of terrorism, be it in part of IDF , Hamas or IR sponsored.

Respectfully

-YT 

benross

I enjoy reading your comments.  I agree with you that the problem with the IRI's beef with Israel is that it disgarees with Israel's existence and not its policies.  As you point out, Israel is not going anywhere anytime soon.  So, this whole fantasy that "it will liberate ghods" is just fantasy, the reliance on which will bring nothing but adversity for Iranians, not the IRI, but Iran and Iranians (between the two of which there is a huge conflict of interest). 

But I have to disagree with you that when it comes to Israel, expansionism is some sort of an obsolete Cold War notion. israel is definitely interested in expansionism with a small (e).  It is grabbing land as fast as it can, the purpose of which is quite obvious:  it wants to 1) permanently annex as much Palestinian land as possible before any peace deal, and 2)circumvent the possibility of a strong Palestinain state at its borders.  I mean, let's face it, these settlements are going nowhere.  More than 200,000 settlers cannot be evicted, period.  So, Israel's policy is to grab as much land as it can, move as many people into it as possible, and then, at some point, come out and say that it simply cannot move these poeple out, and that it needs the land.  Hence, expamsionsim with a small (e).  I agree that Israel is going nowehere soon, but boy, at this rate, I just cannot see how it can live in peace in the long term.   At the end of the day, it will be lose / lose situation for everyone.

Just my thoughts on the issue.   

Kharmagas

Come again?

no worries KouroshS, have fun storming the castle!

Kourosh says: "Sorry, But you were the....."

No worries Kourosh,  have fun storming the castle ( //www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-8kc3-VG4g ). As depicted in the clip make sure you take the chocolate coated miracle beans!

capt_ayhab

Thanks for your reply. I still don't follow some of your points but it's not really important.

Frankly I'm still bewildered why the issue of Israel pops up every time we are discussing about anything. It shouldn't be in our IRANIAN discussions at all.

Israel is a new state, created in a land that didn't welcome it and it still doesn't welcome it. This is the nature of the situation in Palestine. It is not about expansionism, it's about survival. Everything else, including territorial expansionism or political overpowering in the region derive from this basic need of survival. The whole issue is about the region to recognize (not verbally but whole heartedly) that Israel EXISTS. If we achieve this, the rest will be resolved in one generation. Who knows, in five generations, there might not even be a state of Israel. There might be an amalgamated democratic country. But for now, the whole issue is its existence.

The notion of Israel 'expansionism' is a residue of the cold war era, and defined by 'anti imperialist' camp. According to this definition, Israel, as a protectorate of U.S, is a base for expansionism of Imperialism in the region. Naturally, under that definition, the regional countries which where pro soviet were free and independent countries, in danger of such expansionism.

No matter how you cut it, you can't transplant this obsolete geopolitical understanding to the 21st century. Israel is there, doing everything it can, and being a capable and powerful state, to protect itself in a hostile environment. As long the hostility toward Israel -not its policies but its existence- is not eradicated, don't expect much change. You have to either opt for eradicating Israel, or eradicating hostility toward its existence. Your choice. 

Kharmagas

My apologies for not remembering that you are not Moslem.

I do agree with you that there are definite pluses to gradual change especially in the case of a nation that will have to 'adjust' to democracy (please don't all rush me with clubs - Just my opinion!). But I also agree with how Captain has laid out the conditions in his response.

haha Ostaad jan

My delay was caused by 3 factors,

1) I seldom have time on Sundays to read[my ME time is when I read or comment on threads], I know that I am weared in that aspect . ;-o)

2) I had one exam to prepare and one to grade, which none took place.

3) I was sick as a dog, and still am, and fortunately or unfortunately I am not good friends with drinking due to my ulcer issue.

On a serious side, ANY religious law be it moderate or fanatic is contradiction to today's civil liberties. I say this while being a Muslim who tries to observe as many as of MY religious duties by choice.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly that Zionism and IRism are absolute identical twins of one another. Each are repressive in their own peculiar way, be it to their own people or people of other nations.

Sepaas sir. 

-YT 

P/S Unfortunately I do not know where one can find those bumper stickers, but if you want few dozen Obama sticker I'll be more than happy to send them to you. That is what you get when you donate to moveon.org  :-o|

PP/S that is some 30bil you got bro, looks more like 40bill

Captain

Of course you may interject Sir...Manzel'e (Blog'e) khodetooneh ;)

Yes I agree with you wholeheartedly on all your points. I was just trying to get clarification on whether we are talking about a 'constitutional IR' or an absolute 'IR'. I'm not suggesting either is a good thing but heck, if some Monarchists can advocate similar nonesense I figured others might be too ;)

Mr. kharmagas

You stated[ No Ayahab, I don't consider IRI an enemy.]

Let me pose a question then if I may. Suppose we wake in the morning, and with some magical event in Iran, Ahmadinejad and khamenie announce that[ hence forth Iran should be called Republic of Iran], without any change in the laws that govern the country[currently Sharia Law] and without any change in the power structure of the country. Khamenie will still be supreme leader, with Ahmadinejad as president, IRGC will change name to only be called RG and so on and so forth.

I am certain that this will not be acceptable to you, since there are NO real change that has taken place.

On that note, I read somewhere that in fact Ahmadinejd has suggested dropping the word [Islamic] from IRI, withOUT ANY change in the constitution, power structure and etc.

But as to your statement that gradual BUT fundamental change in constitution, civil and criminal laws and power structure MIGHT be somehow desirable and MIGHT in long run yield to a more democratic society, I have to say that short of complete and fundamental change at this juncture, I will, as I have in the past support such a movement, GIVEN that people have the final say so in the voting booths.

Regards

-YT 

cap, I am not sure that...

Iran's hard line government has caused the coming to power of the Israeli hardliner right wing government coalition.

Israel has has hard line governments from its inception. The current government coalition in Israel came to power as the result of the Israeli population's fear of having to give up occupied land for peace. That's like saying the bloods, which is an urban crime gangs in Los Angeles, was formed as a counter-weight to the crips another crime gang in LA.

As I have said before Eslamism and Zionism are two sides of the same coin. They both are dogmatic extremist criminal political gangs that base their reson de etre on Eslam and Judaism, and BOTH must be eradicated for peace to visit the people's of the ME.

PS. I hope you delay was due to a good cause and not a jail stint becaus of a DUI ;<{)

Ms. HollyUSA

If I may interject, having a religious form of government and calling it democratic is contradiction in terms.

Any form of religious law and government is repressive in nature since it advocates restrict set of laws that was written at best 1400 and at most 2500 years ago, where societies were not as evolved as today and at their primitive form.

This was proven to be bloody and disastrous during dark ages where 1000's upon 1000's were subject of the most brutal tortures called Inquisitions, and again proven to be brutal and disastrous in IR form of government, Afghanistan and etc.

Trying to marry these two, being DEMOCRACY and THEOLOGY is just like trying to mix water and metal shavings. True democracy can only exist where there is clear and concise separation of religion and government, in every single aspect.

Regards

-YT 

Mr. benross

Firstly sir, my sincere apologies for such an unavoidable delay in responding to you.

Secondly, I am not trying to place the blame entirely on Israel or USA, since I am well aware of the reactions that some miscalculated, inflammatory and Anti Semitic comments and rhetoric that was dished out by hardliners in Iran's RULERS part.

I am not going to attempt to even defend Ahmaghinejads statement about [wiping Israel of the map] as to how it was not said in that particular context, but We can not ignore the fact that hardliner being in power in one nation[Iran/Israel] has brought another hardliner government to power in the other nation.

Asides from this, one fact can not be ignored, and that is expansionist policy of Israel in the region, and her thirst for wanting to be the one and the only powerful nation in the ME. I am certain IF those rhetoric by IR was never made, there would have been other event[s] which would have caused same crises between the two countries. 

As to alleged  nuclear arm that IR is allegedly seeking, the entire allegation, despite the 2007 conclusion of US national security findings, are based on content of ONE lap top that was allegedly acquired by Israeli security organization. The content of the lap top in question was allegedly given to IAEA, which is considered unreliable at best by the agency as being fabricated . 

Source to full story: //current.com/items/90156179_how-israel-fabri...

Now even if we assume IR comment and anti Semitic remarks and attitude were in fact said, and even we accept the fact that Israel feel threatened by all this [Marg/death/down with Israel], is this a justification enough to one country to attack another one?

And finally, when you state[ I simply don't blame U.S for what it can do to us in the region. We are to be blamed for what we can be subject to.]

Let me answer this by posing a question to you: A woman is raped, she is known to wear updated and beautiful clothing[lets say short skirts and what nots] Do we blame HER for being raped? If not how can we blame the attacked and not the aggressor, where the only provocation are nothing but rhetoric?

-YT 

P/S I will be the last person to defend or even justify what IR says or does, But I will be the first to defend Iranians. 

PP/S Yes I do live in USA

Progressive greens (to Holly)

As I stated in your blog I am not a Muslim and (therefore) I don't advocate laws of Islam..... all I am saying is that I am only for gradual changes to IRI through whatever movement. More specifically at this juncture I see progressive greens (Dr. Sahimi (*) and likes ) as the best political force that can bring about that kind of change.

..... and let me emphasize that I am not a progressive green, and I am aware that they are not a well defined camp at the moment.

(*) In case of Sahimi I see his ideals as ideals that will not expire with time.

Better late than never

My thanks and apologies to each and everyone for your comments and contributions and for my inexcusable delay in responding to some direct questions that was asked of me. It has been unavoidable I assure each and everyone.

Mr. Kadivar.

To clarify my post, I was not singling out any ideology, particularly  monarchist. As I have always told you, I do wish more of our hamvatans who call themselves patriots had fraction of your true love of Iran. And I say this  while being in total opposite spectrum as you. 

I will never claim to know position of every person that is supporter of monarchy, but I can be pretty confident that there are many of them, in the very same city that I live, that are avid supporter of military attack on Iran. To me this has absolutely no justification, even though I agree with every monarchist as to removal of IR as RULERS of Iran.

Regards

-YT 

Kharmagas (not just 'to' but also 'in reference to')

Kharmagas still hasn't said if he is advocating the law of Islam being the law of the land. Personally I don't care if we call it 'Jomhooriyeh Kharmagas' as long as it is truly democratic republic. I'm not personally offended by the name of Islam or by the private practice of it for that matter by anyone who chooses to do so. I do however object to its laws governing the state. Women and children are by far hardest hit in terms of liberties and equal rights. I don't think any intelligent fair minded person will argue with the inequities it creates at large and if they do I'd like to hear their reasons...which is why I am still patiently waiting for Kharmagas to answer my question :)

Kharmags

I asked you to look in the mirror so you know for sure, where i stand on the "who is more Kale Khar" question.

Sorry, But you were the one who started with the "dorr afshani".

HollyUSA Right on.

Thank you for your comment.

That is exactly my point, To erudites such as kharmags the deeply embedded with islam regime has somehow room for serious and extensive reforms. I mean if that doesn't make you laugh and sad at the same time i don't know what does.

I guess we will just have to continue witnessing more oppression of all kinds for another half a century, until this swiftly and unhindered green movement finally and eventually bears fruit. After all, it is only a matter of time before Khamenei and AN and sepah and baseejees and help people reach their goals.

LOL

Baba... Kharmagas

To masalan Kheili In-touch hasti with reality??? Get real. LOOL. You crack me up. 

First. I never argued about who is more kale khar. Again, Your "Laat" side is rearing it's ugly head. Of course, you in a much sickening manner refer to it as "exchanging humors" yeah. Ok. whatever.

Second. You don't even know what storming the castle really means do you?  You see and read what you want to see and read. The moment one mentions something about overthrowing the IRI, which you happen to only have disagreement with and would not consider it your enemy (which makes me doubt your true peaceful intentions) Your mind wanders off and immediately picture and label that person as wanting and advocating to destroy everything in iran and leaving a rubble behind. How much more twisted can one get?

It is a sad day when those who think IRI is not the real enemy think that they are more in touch with the reality, than anyone else. I hope that one day you and AN , khamenei, mousavi, karoubi and rafsanjani...can sit around the table and hob-nob while working out your disagreements.

LOL.

Kourosh, have fun storming the castle!

Kourosh says: "I will only go along with a leader if he or she come to power in an
iran WITHOUT the IRI in charge. To me personally There are no such
things as "the new leader has no choice" or "a badly managed country
has no option" but incremental changes. Period. Sare khat..."

Kourosh, While you and I, with at least two MSc (in Engineering) between the two of us, have been arguing about who is more kalleh_khar, those "retarded" akhonds and their noches have been diversifying their investments in Iran and abroad! Maybe you and yours truly would have been better off if we were "retards"?

...........seriously Kourosh, how much more out of touch with reality can you get?

At any rate, Have fun storming the castle:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-8kc3-VG4g

KouroshS & Kharmagas

I'm really enjoying your exchange here. I must say Kharmagas, when I read your comment last night (the one about IRI not being the enemy) my head was spinning with questions (to myself). I am a complete advocate of the notion 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' but if the IR remains in any shape or form, I assume that the laws of Islam will have to continue to be the laws of the land. How do you suggest (or do you suggest for that matter) we get around that?

wow

Elegance is your second nature isn't it? You just can't talk about something, just TALK about it without being snobbishly elegant ha?

Just go look in the mirror and be honest wih yourself. You got no competition.

Dude jan. I will only go along with a leader if he or she come to power in an iran WITHOUT the IRI in charge. To me personally There are no such things as "the new leader has no choice" or "a badly managed country has no option" but incremental changes. Period. Sare khat...

Don't you think that we should come together and think of a way to get rid of them without chaos, instead of throwing our hands up and surrender and sheepishly admit that we have no other way but to reform a bunch of retarded akhoonds and their noche?

You are one hezbollahi at heart aren't you?:)))

two prominent kalleh_khars (to Kourosh)

Kourosh, suppose there exists such a great leader in the opposition that even you and I, i.e, two prominent kalleh_khar(*) members of iranian.com with dissimilar views, recognize as the future leader of Iran.

Furthermore suppose he takes the power tomorrow,..., he will have no choice but to work with a faction of IRI.  A country that is so badly managed for decades that spends some $90 billion a year on subsidies has no option but to go through gradual change....OR there will be total chaos (//www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...).

(*) with all due respect to you and yours truely

kharmagas

You preach Reform. Well. You have got to have a refromaeble entity before you can actually make that reform happen.

Suppose you were able to get over your disagreements with IRI. Very well. You have given it enough time, hmm, i dunno, how does 10, 20 years sound? Too short? Not long enough? Do you actually believe that these Bastards, The same Rajal who now run it are going to let the transformation From IRI into RI actually get a chance?

How could any type of Eslahat take shape when every single move that is made in that direction or every single piece that is written or every speech that is made, Turns into an opportunity to take someone into EVIN or some other god awful shit hole?  Are you actually looking forward to Reforms in the midst of all this suppression???