The number of those who used to openly support IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic without reservations has dropped drastically in the recent months. So has the number of those who were all into pretending Iran under the IRR rule is a work in progress and the outcome is an indigenous democracy which can be a model for the entire region.
A whole lot of the latter group have come out and said publically that democracy and IRR are incompatible, a whiplash causing turnaround but without admitting they were part of the group who advocated the nonsense in the first place.It is amazing how people change color without admitting to their former convictions that they were so adamant about.
Be that as it may, there are now those who advocate appeasing the IRR till, well till what? and till when? Till there are no not-raped/tortured men, women and children left in Iran? Till the IRR has caused a war? till the cows come home?
No one of right mind is advocating removal of the Islamist rapists by force, those that do are either nuts or have short memory on top of being nuts. What is left is to either help Iranians to overthrow IRR or live with nuke seeking, Iranian raping/murdering terrorist IRR.
Those who advocate the latter are in essence condemning enslaved Iranians to indefinite continuation of a horrible life under the yoke of the Islamist Rapists.It is easy to live in freedom and be willing to bet on whatever to eventually change the plight of enslaved Iranians.
Before it is too late and IRR imposes a devastating war on the enslaved Iranian nation and the region the sane world has to impose an airtight sanction and at the same time help Iranians with material and moral support to overthrow the Islamist menace.
|Recently by Fred||Comments||Date|
ادا اطوار اسلامی
|Dec 05, 2012|
|Dec 05, 2012|
|Iranians are legitimate target|
|Dec 04, 2012|
|نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز||Dec 04|
|Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day||Lawyer says death sentence suspended||Dec 03|
|Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day||Iterview with mother||Dec 02|
|احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱||Dec 02|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day||46 days on hunger strike||Dec 01|
|Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti||In Barcelona||Nov 30|
|گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی||Nov 30|
|Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day||Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years||Nov 30|
|محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین||Nov 29|
|Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day||Kurdish Activist on Death Row||Nov 28|
although I am the one who is clowning around! (to Bijan)by kharmagas on Sat Oct 17, 2009 02:12 PM PDT
Bijan, as far as I am concerned, at this juncture if there happens to be a change, Iranians win only if progressive greens come to power, and they will not gain anything/loose if moderate greens come to power or if Monarchists, MEKs, and right wing greens, ... mange to to drag Iran to civil war.
You and Fred (and AIPAC in general) are going to be winner even if there is a civil war in Iran, as a matter fact you guys will be celebrating if that happens. ..... so at this point you have many more reasons to be happy, ...., although I am the one who is clowning around! (ironic, isn't it?)
Masoud khan,by Bijan A M on Sat Oct 17, 2009 08:18 AM PDT
Thank you. Before anything else please let me declare that anything I post here is simply an expression of my opinions which are in many instances formed without the depth of reading and knowledge that many others on this site have demonstrated. I feel totally ignorant when it comes to having a clue as who are the true elements of the current opposition movement(s). I doubt if Mousavi & Karroubi are the only ones. Unfortunately I don’t know if there are any other names out there. Is there any group with a visionary leader that is quietly organizing (as our friend benross pointed out) with secular democracy as their agenda? I hope that is the case, but my fear is that most who are protesting are united “AGAINST” something and not “FOR” something. The same phenomenon that 30 years ago got us to the hole we are in now.
You hear Reza Pahlavi’s name in some circles as the uniting figure for secular democrats. But, unfortunately (in my opinion again) he may not be a uniting force simply because of his association with Pahlavi dynasty. This is by no means a judgment of his character, but simply the fact that people still have distrust.
I personally do not believe in a reformed theocracy. It is still a theocracy and hence non-democratic by nature (no matter how you slice it). Therefore I am of the opinion (as unorthodox as it may sound) that if this movement replaces IRI with a reformed IRI, it will postpone Iran’s freedom by several more generations.
I know that I have not directly addressed your comment with my rambling, but there is not a whole lot that we (Iranians in Diaspora) can do other than raising world’s awareness of human right violation in Iran and hopefully creating a better climate for open debate about separation of church and state and the ills of theocracy. We can hope for access to publications, airwaves, internet, and other mass media to more freely discuss the true meaning of secularism and the private nature of one’s religious and spiritual beliefs with ordinary people, with those who sincerely believe in their faith.
Whether sanctions, directly or indirectly can help with this aspect of public’s maturation, remains to be seen. Although such sanctions are not intended for this purpose, but they MAY (as a side-effect) make people more open to engage in secularism discussions. I realize that these are day dreaming on my part but, that’s the best we can hope for sitting out here and genuinely concerned about our people. There is a real and desperate need for emergence of a visionary leader that can organize and excite people behind his cause of secular democracy. An Iranian Obama (Although I may not support Obama's political views, but no one can deny his talent and ability to excite people and move them towards his vision).
With all the risks that come with arming the public, I believe strongly in freedom fighter’s ability to defend themselves against lawless killing and invasion of protesters homes by the Basiji and Pasdar thugs or the Hezbollahi reinforcement from Lebanon.
My apologies for responding this late to your post (I was away).
benrossby masoudA on Fri Oct 16, 2009 07:17 PM PDT
We are on the same page. Now that you mention it - Yes I agree, before we can do anything - we need a unified and strong voice. So guys - if you agree - the question now is: How can we create a unified and strong voice for Iran, outside Iran.
BTW - you are also correct about the arms
The problem is what is "help"? Like 1953?by Anonymous8 on Fri Oct 16, 2009 04:12 PM PDT
Fred, you say moral and material support. Wasn't this exactly what was given to overthrow Mossadegh? what do you mean exactly and how much will it cost the US tax payers?
that's the whole problem with this. why is it so difficult to understand that sanction and "material support" to "overthrow the IRI" is just as bad?
at best this will lead to a civil war with one side supplied by americans. that is what many people in US want, it will be very good for business but destroy Iran in the process.
masoudAby benross on Fri Oct 16, 2009 02:38 PM PDT
Does IRI have an organized opposition? How about uniting in a single organization and with a single voice first? then let the organization decide what is the best course of action. Don't worry about arming people. Arms are already in Iran, getting oiled everyday by solders and pasdarans and police. We need an organization.
And don't make a mistake about it, all this diversions are only aimed at stopping this goal.
Bijanby masoudA on Fri Oct 16, 2009 01:53 PM PDT
Excellent post - The key to engage in a constructive debate here is to ignore certain posts which are DESIGNED to derail all serious talks such as this one. If we believe in Democracy we have to allow them speak their minds - inspite of allowing posts that are meant to break-up the debate.
Anyways - here is my question 2 you and fred and others - What should we do outside Iran?
I used to think there is no way to free Iran unless we got "military" support from the international community. But after the events of the last several months - I have concluded that we can win this war - and we still need support from the world - but not in the shape of military intervention. Right now the IRR lobby outside Iran has succeeded into making sure a military assault does not place - and they are working now to make sure America and the rest of the world does NOTHING that can be considered meddling in Iran's affairs. Again the question: What should we do? I think as a minimum we should help arm our unarmed population. America has benefited from "The Rights to Bear Arms" (in never having to face a dictator run government) - The second amendment to it's constitution. Why not Iran? Do you think arming Iranians is a bad idea? I have yet to make up my mind on that - but one thing I am sure of is that I as an Iranian/American will always push my government to FREE Iran and Iranians.
One more time.....by Bijan A M on Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:55 AM PDT
"Shame on those who undermine educating the masses."
Khar mag ass, why is it so hard to get the gist of my points?
Of course if eliminating the akhoonds would have been the solution, we would be "there" by now. But the problem is the masses don't know where is "there".
to prepare you for your operation! (to Bijan)by kharmagas on Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:23 AM PDT
Bijan says: "If assassination of the mullahs is what it takes, let’s do it."
To prepare you for your covert/cofart operation:
Oostaby Bijan A M on Fri Oct 16, 2009 08:28 AM PDT
All I have to tell you is what I said before:
" let the world deal with the nuclear issue, and let’s focus on helping our sons and daughters educate the elders, the business owners, the government workers, the Pasdars, the Basijis, their fathers, mothers, aunts and uncles. They will be the most lethal weapons against these bastards."
You go ahead and nitpick all you want, it does not bother me a bit.
Just keep on looking for the right leader (a leader). I'll be the first one to give my life for it. My whole reservation about this movement and overthrow of IRI is "what's next?". We already made that mistake once. I'm not doing it again.....
BTW, the oil industry (ashamed to say, myself included) went on strike without any aab added to the abgoosht.
Shame on those who undermine educating the masses.
To Bijan the lengesh kon consultant...by Ostaad on Fri Oct 16, 2009 07:31 AM PDT
Are you willing to go to Iran and "assassinate" mollas? Just barking "I personally vote for whatever it takes without risking" is another way to say, I'm a coward and I want someone else to do it for me!
How exactly are you going to do "whatever it takes" oil strikes? By doubling the water in the oil workers aabgousht or giving them extra cigarette?!!!
In other words, look at my avatar, it's saying something to the likes of armchair generals like you.
Amen brother....by Bijan A M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 06:48 PM PDT
How could anyone argue against what you’re saying.
“No one of right mind is advocating removal of the Islamist rapists by force, those that do are either nuts or have short memory on top of being nuts. What is left is to either help Iranians to overthrow IRR or live with nuke seeking, Iranian raping/murdering terrorist IRR.”
There is little doubt that getting rid of this rapist regime requires force and blood. The most effective and long lasting results would come from the force from within.
For that to happen, there is a desperate need for a leader. Someone who can unite the masses against the brutal suffocation of IRRRRRRR (Islamic Rapist Reprehensible, Rotten, Ruthless, Randomly Ravaging Republic.
The key point is that the uprooting has to come from within. People need to be educated. The armed forces have to come around and see the freedom fighters for who they are. This could take a generation or two for the children of the armed forces to abandon their parents (the way our lady hero abandoned her dad and sought asylum in Germany).
I know we are all anxious and would love to see the demise of this barbaric regime before we die. But we have to be realists and accept the scenario that it could happen after we’re gone.
I personally vote for whatever it takes without risking innocent (non combative) lives to do this. If assassination of the mullahs is what it takes, let’s do it. Let’s do whatever it takes to encourage the oil industry workers to go on strike. Iranian people (the masses) have to rise in support of their sons and daughters before this shame is wiped off our history.
So, let the world deal with the nuclear issue, and let’s focus on helping our sons and daughters educate the elders, the business owners, the government workers, the Pasdars, the Basijis, their fathers, mothers, aunts and uncles. They will be the most lethal weapons against these bastards.
Let’s ignore those who out of their nationalistic sense empower the same murderers that they claim to oppose.
Thanks Fred for your untiring efforts.
"Sanctions of mass destruction"by AMIR1973 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 01:10 PM PDT
sanctions, sanctions, sanctions....by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:01 AM PDT
Its the only feel good option for you guys isnt it? We say not to sanciton because it hurts people and make the regime more powerful, you respond, isnt the regime hurting people already? What kind of a twisted logic is that?
Dig deeper fred, either you dont care about the people in Iran or you are delluded enough to think that sanctions are going to work, or perhaps both.
Perhaps one should starve your family members in order to make you stop parroting AIPAC talking points, see how much you like being sanctioned for your destructive policies.
Amir1973by Fred on Thu Oct 15, 2009 09:11 AM PDT
Amir you said:
“Does Fred want Iran to end up like Iraq? Perhaps not, but shouldn't an Iranian be wary of treading down the same path as Iraq went down? “
First, unlike some who have and still do summarily diagnose me as someone hell-bent on having his homeland destroyed, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Second, I agree with the second part of your statement above. Most definitely not only Iranians for obvious reasons, all others should be wary for different reason.Iraq, a British made up country with much less than a century since its birth, beneath the surface does not have that much in common with Iran or any comparable wide spread regional cultural influence.
Iran, on the other hand is as old as history and there is not a single major regional event which has in one way or other not inspired by or originated from Iran. So the non-Iranians should be very much wary too.
I do not agree with your injecting S. Africa next to Iraq. In conjunction with geopolitical realities there are many lessons to be learned from the successful S. African experience. I see more commonality between the Islamist rapists' M.O. and murderous Afrikaners than with Saddam.
Amir and javad, you both are missing the point...by Ostaad on Thu Oct 15, 2009 09:58 AM PDT
Amir, to answer your question. Yes, Fred does want Iran to end up like Iraq! Fred's aspirations is to be someone like Kanan Makiya, google him to know what I'm talking about.
The difference is Fred has not been able to climb higher than a lowly tea-and-crumpet server at AIPAC informal gatherings, and I don't think he's got it in him to climb any higher.
javadagha, in my humble opinion, in Iraq's case the sanctions DID work. The goal was to keep pounding Iraq until it was ripe for invasion and occupation with the aim of looting it by the Anglos.
Fred's real wish, like all Iran's enemies, is to destroy the Iranian middle/working class in order to get to the regime. Why doesn't he come out and say it openly, you may ask? The answer is...well read Makiya articles before the invasion, occupation and looting of Iraq, you'll know why.
BTW. Fred's contributions to this site are very educational, therefore they are invalualbe. We need Fred to educate us on how Iran's enemies are going about spinning the destruction of the Iranian middle/working class in order to achieve their aims. Remember how the sanctions destroyed the Iraqi middle class while Saddam, his cronies, and Amerians like Rich made made billions.
Good Post and to the pointby Artificial Intelligence on Thu Oct 15, 2009 08:47 AM PDT
Comparisons to Iraq have no merit. Iraq had invaded another country and it was getting the treatment it was getting as a consequence of such actions.
The IRI can not change in a peaceful manner from within as some had argued. IRI does not represent the will of the Iranian people and Iranians are responsible for changing it.
WHY I.com "allows" people to voice their opinion?by Cost-of-Progress on Thu Oct 15, 2009 08:30 AM PDT
Because there's this thing called freedom of expression. Of course, for you Islamists, this is very alien notion; the fascist ideaolgy you support makes sure of that.
Have you people no shame?
FAN TAS TICby masoudA on Thu Oct 15, 2009 07:59 AM PDT
Great post Fred.
Message to all Iranians: Learn to aknowledge past mistakes - it makes it easier to move on.
Why iranian.com has noby Javadagha on Thu Oct 15, 2009 07:58 AM PDT
Why iranian.com has no problem to give space to Chicken Fred to post his non-sense on a daily basis calling others lier, rapists, terrorists, etc.?
Good points Amir. Also, Secretary of State, Madam Albright said . . . it was not a concern that the U.S. sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children, it was a necessary thing to do. How about Iraqi arti-facts now being displayed in New York Metropolitan museum?
The free country of USA drives 40% of its business (revenue, employment, etc.) from its military might. Therefore, we are going to have devastation in some part of the world so that American people (including Ey-ranians) enjoy their freedom.
Should one study Iraq's experience?by AMIR1973 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 07:44 AM PDT
What was the result of sanctions in Iraq and the "material and moral support" provided to enslaved Iraqis (e.g. Iraqi National Congress, no-fly zone in Kurdistan, plus overt and covert support for various Iraqi individuals and organizations)? Well, after 12 years of devastating sanctions, the Leader of the Free World declared that sanctions didn't work, and it was necessary to invade Iraq. Should one learn some lessons here? It strikes me that sanctions weren't an alternative to a hot war in Iraq. Rather, they were a prelude and a preparation for a hot war. Isn't the example of Iraq at least as relevant as that of South Africa (and probably more so, given the fact that it was an immediate neighbor of Iran ruled by a dictatorial regime)? Does Fred want Iran to end up like Iraq? Perhaps not, but shouldn't an Iranian be wary of treading down the same path as Iraq went down?