Litany

Re: “Confused!?!”

To LalehGilani,
That is exactly the point: You will see what you want to see. I grew up in the same society and it's impact on me was in general phenomenal. I lovethe soceity there, I love the society here in the west and I enjoy no matter where I am. There are kafkas, Hemingways, Russells and otheres in societies. You choose to be possesed by demons.

DO NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF "I" WITHIN YOUSELF.
DO NEVER BLAME OTHERS FOR YOUR OWN MISERY.

WE MUST NOT; WE MUST TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY.
THIS IS A MUST IN A DEMOCRATIC AND PEACEFUL SOCIETY.
YOU CAN NOT SUBCONTRACT RESPONSIBILITY TO SOMEONE ELSE.

I'm amazed how familiar you are with freedom and democracy!

Blame Game

You say-repeatedly[ This “answer” or “collective responsibility” isn’t in the form of corporal punishment or any other type of punishment for that matter.
The “answer” and the “responsibility” are first and foremost to one’s conscious and someday to a grieving nation that is still dumbfounded at the extent of Shi'a cruelty…

Additionally, if a Shi’a faithful claims to possess the knowledge and existence of another Shi'a, then Iranian people are entitled to know
what that Shi'a is, where it is coming from, who is defining it, etc...]

Let give this another shot. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which I have been basing my arguments upon, sets forth following argument FOR and AGAINST [collective responsibility] and its coherent relationship to [blameworthiness] and [Causal Responsibility] and I quote:

-----------------

Since the notion of collective responsibility is part of what many contemporary philosophers refer to as group morality, it has
undergone a great deal of scrutiny in recent years by methodological and normative individualists alike.

Methodological individualists challenge the very possibility of associating moral
agency with groups, as distinct from their individual members, and normative individualists argue that collective responsibility violates principles of both individual responsibility and fairness.

Defenders of collective responsibility set out to show that the majority of critical arguments made about collective responsibility are unfounded and that collective responsibility, along with its assumptions of
group intentions, collective actions, and group blameworthiness, is both coherent as an intellectual construct and fair to ascribe in at least some, if not all, cases.....]

While the notion of moral responsibility traditionally understood grounds moral blameworthiness in the wills of discrete individuals who freely cause harm, the notion of collective responsibility associates
both causation and blameworthiness with groups and construes groups as moral agents in their own right. Hence, it does not fit easily into the prevailing philosophical literature on moral responsibility, which generally asks about the relationship between free will and
determinism. Nor has it been readily accepted by those who are used to construing moral agency in purely individualistic terms. Indeed, the notion of collective responsibility has become the source of three
major philosophical controversies over the years by virtue of its very nature as a group-based construct.

The first controversy focuses on the relationship between collective responsibility, on the one hand, and the values of individual liberty, justice, and non-suffering, on the other. How, participants in this controversy ask, can we ascribe moral responsibility to groups
in society for harms that only a few of its members directly caused without eroding individual responsibility or violating principles of individual freedom? How can we ascribe collective responsibility in
such cases without treating those individuals who did not directly cause harm unjustly? What happens in cases where the harm in question is
both very serious and genuinely the product of many hands or the group as a whole? How can we not ascribe collective responsibility
to groups in these cases and still hope to prevent such harm from occurring in the future?

The second controversy also places the group-based nature of collective responsibility at the center of our attention. But it does not, like is normative counterpart, concentrate on the consequences of
ascribing collective responsibility in practice. Instead, it concentrates on the metaphysical foundations of collective
responsibility and its coherence as an intellectual construct. How, its participants ask, can we understand the notion of collective responsibility as a matter of moral—and not just causal—responsibility? Is it possible for groups, as distinct
from their members, to cause harm in the sense required by moral responsibility? to act as collectives? to have intentions? Is it
possible for groups, as distinct from their members, to be morally blameworthy for bringing about harm? to be guilty as moral agents?

The third controversy, interestingly enough, is not really about the moral responsibility of groups at all, even though it is couched in
the language of collective moral responsibility. Instead, it is about
the moral responsibility of individuals who belong to groups in cases where these groups are themselves thought to be morally responsible for particular cases of harm. How, its participants ask, can we
distribute collective responsibility across individual members of such a group? Does it makes sense to distribute collective responsibility in general? Is it appropriate to hold individual group members morally
responsible for harm that other group members caused? that the group
itself caused? that the group as a whole failed to prevent? If so, under what conditions and with respect to what particular kinds of groups? random collections of individuals? interest-based groups? corporate entities?

Almost all of those now writing about collective responsibility agree that collective responsibility would make sense if it were merely an aggregative phenomenon. But they disagree markedly about whether
collective responsibility makes sense as a non-distributive phenomenon, i.e., as a phenomenon that transcends the contributions of
particular group members.

In this context, as in many others, skeptics
set the agenda. Two claims become crucial.

The first is that groups, unlike individuals, cannot form intentions and hence cannot be
understood to act or to cause harm qua groups.

The second is that groups, as distinct from their individual members, cannot be
understood as morally blameworthy in the sense required by moral responsibility.

END QUOTE

-------------------------------------

Additionally, you, as it appears to me, are starting a POLITE name calling when you say [ Please forgive me for being blunt, but it appears to me that you are intentionally sidestepping the message that I am attempting to convey: If you choose to defend Shi'a, then you must answer for the harm it has done to the Iranian people...]

This comment perhaps is among a dozen comments I have posted on this and the identical prior thread. I should suggest that you review my comments and show me one[word] that can be construed as [defending "Shi'a" ,or trying to SIDESTEP your MESSAGE.]

My dear lady, If you do not like me to post on your threads, just ask, I will not be heart broken. What I have been crystal clear about , has been 2 major flows in your [MESSAGE TO THE WORLD].

1. Your notion of [Collective Responsibility] can NOT be applied to a NATION as a whole(see above)

2. With history as a witness,  Once one assigns collective responsibility, and  collective punishment has to follow- hence blameworthiness.

capt_ayhab [-YT]

p/s one final question. Majority of men in Iran been suppressed as bad, if nor worse, in Iran, some if not majority of these men are in fact Shi'a. What is their faith in your revolution?

As We Move On…

As we move onto another blog, article, or news clip, I would like to thank everyone for their posts and contributions. It has been my pleasure to visit with you on this thread… We shall meet again.

Holding Women Responsible?

“You are holding WOMEN responsible... so far so good. however you are holding responsible BOTH [khaharane Zaynab - the OPPRESSORS] and ordinary women[THE OPPRESSED].”

The ordinary Iranian women, regardless of their faith, don’t defend the Khaharane Zaynab and their action. Hence they are not accountable for the crimes of Khaharane Zaynab.

Please forgive me for being blunt, but it appears to me that you are intentionally sidestepping the message that I am attempting to convey: If you choose to defend Shi'a, then you must answer for the harm it has done to the Iranian people.

This “answer” or “collective responsibility” isn’t in the form of corporal punishment or any other type of punishment for that matter. The “answer” and the “responsibility” are first and foremost to one’s conscious and someday to a grieving nation that is still dumbfounded at the extent of Shi'a cruelty…

Additionally, if a Shi’a faithful claims to possess the knowledge and existence of another Shi'a, then Iranian people are entitled to know what that Shi'a is, where it is coming from, who is defining it, etc.

If Shi'a believers on this thread feel that my blogs are hatemongering, I have news for them: The day will come that you must answer to the Iranian people for the physical and emotional harm the Shi'a faithful have inflected upon this great nation.

Preying upon people’s emotions will not absolve you of that responsibility. Not this time…

The collective responsibility I spoke of comes from WITHIN

the hearts and minds of individuals through dialog with others and ahieving as close as possible a true narrative of history. It is able facing up to on'es mistakes and wrongoings in the past, remote and recent, as well as others, WITHOUT judgment or blame. In accepting and forgiving each others' invidividual responsibilit (except as I said in the most heinous of cases) there emerges a closer cohesion in the society, an understanding that it is one family, all assume the responsibility together. The past is not forgotten but it is learned from, collective responsibility that comes from within looks hopefully toward the future. Collective responsibility bringspride.

There is no desire for bloodshed in collective responsibility and even if bloodshed seems immanent (which it DOESN'T have to be in Iran), people refuse to accept it as inevitable.

There is no judgement, there is no BLAME in collective responsibility and there aren't any visions of streets red with blood.

Historically Christianity represented a step forward in the evolution of the God of Justice (Judgment) to the God of Mercy (Forgiveness.). In actual fact Islam was a synthesis of Christianity and Judaism, it favored the Old Testament Judgement instead o the New Testament mercy, but it also adopted the idea of a universal missionary faith, as in Christianity, rather than a parroquial one as in Judaism.

I am speaking of the core tenets and basic IDEALS of these faiths according to their Scriptures, not the various and often nuanced ways in which they played out in history.

Laleh, you do realize that when you talk about all this judgement and punishment and whatnot you sound very much like an exoteric doctrinal literalist Muslim or Jew, don't you? You need a little wafer and wine, a little communion.

You need to partake of the body of Christ, that is to say, the collective body, the body of God. You need a little bit of the Passion, the idea that the living God suffered and died FOR our sins and as we are part of his body, we are absolved from them. But only insofar as we live in peace and harmony with each other.

IMHO you need a little of that ol' time New Testament.

No I am not a Christian. But you sound as bellicose as Mohammed.  Or the Jehovah that slew all the first-born sons of Egypt.

Oh boy I know who I'm gonna get what for from now.

My post stands.

Cheers.

Aboli: My response to your malicious attack against me

Dear Mr. Aboli:

Sir,

I don't have any chip on my shoulder ("oghdeh").

That being said, it was, may I say, a funny statement indeed. Your humour is awesome.

On another note, I have always said that religion was important to Iran. Religion was, is and will be a factor in any government existing within the borders of Iran.

That is a statement that you and I agree upon.

You also agree that the Shah made a lot of errors.

I agree with you on that statement.

Where is there disagreement?

If you love Freedoms, like those given in the United States and most Western European countries, why is heavan's name, or in your situation, "in nothing's name" are we disagreeing about nothing?

I don't see your argument.

You just say that to "even try to be a secular leader in Iran", you have to hide it, and pretend to be religious.

Why would anyone want to live a lie?

Iranian People would "riot"? Why? Aren't they civilized? Why would anyone riot for no reason what so ever? What is the incentive to riot?

Is anyone giving out free parsley stew, "Khoresh Ghormeh Sabzi" for rioting? I don't see the logic.

You make it as if Iran has a riot a day. Does a riot a day keep the doctor away?

This make believe religious leader/closet secular leader plan to change Iran is a big "bache K**ni" game plan.

And if that was the game plan of the Pahlavi Dynasty, then it was a disaster waiting to happen.

That's what you get when you hire a Colonel (Mir Panj) from a stupid village named Savad Kuh, in the Mazandaran Province to be King, Shah of Iran.

Baa Kamaal Ehteraam (Sincerely Yours),

His Imperial Highness to all Persians Big and Small from the United States of America, An American...

Jamshid Niavarani IV

By the way, I picked up a crown at Burger King and crowned myself Shah of Iran in abstentia.

I refuse to return to Iran as the "American Shah of Iran". The Iranians must first clean up the smog in Tehran before I return.

All the Best.

Re: Typical

Words of peaceful defiance, and [Renaissance of shi'a] coming from a Zionist who stands responsible for some of the most horrifying atrocities and criminal acts of the 21st century is a total insult to all DECENT human being to say the least. Thanks for the JOKE Ms. Zion

Have a nice day  ;-)

capt_ayhab [-YT]

P/S But hey, I do not hold all Jews responsible for GENOCIDE, only kinds of you. 

PP/S wouldn't you like to know that I am NOT even a Shi'a??? 

Ms. Laleh

Lamely put [on my part i mind you] there you go again. You say

[I agree! There is an organized and well trained military and police
force consisting of Shi'a women. Let’s not forget about the Hijab
Police: Shi'a women walking around the streets of Iran, terrorizing
women who don’t comply with the Hijab laws.

Shi'a women are also actively involved in Iran’s prisons, performing
a variety of tasks including interrogations and torture. In some cases,
prisoners have seen more cruelty from these women than their male
counterparts…]

You are holding WOMEN responsible... so far so good. however you are holding responsible BOTH [khaharane Zaynab - the OPPRESSORS] and ordinary women[THE OPPRESSED]. 

You are holding ordinary women, which is proven fact that have taken the brunt of the brutal regime's inhumane suppression, by being belittled, beaten, spat at, cut with razors, jailed, raped, killed and humiliated RESPONSIBLE along side Hijab Patrol?????????????

I do not like your JUSTICE madam. history has proven that once [collective responsibility] is imposed upon a nation/faith, [COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT] is sure to follow. Evidence you say??? you bet,,,,,,,,,,, 1979 Akhund Mutiny in Iran....

Shall I detail how many innocent men, women and children [collectively] were punished for their association and approval of Pahlavi dynasty?????

capt_ayhab [-YT]

Lady Rosie

Allow me to clarify my comment. When I made reference to [collective responsibility] I did not mean to point to your post. I am merely making analogy by bringing in [collective punishment] that Israel dished out in Gaza.
in my humble opinion, once an entire population are made [responsible] for the acts of their leader, [collective punishment] will be inevitable. History is witness to this fact.

Underlying tone in Ms. Gillanie's original thread, as well as this one IS [collective responsibility] at least that is my understanding.

capt_ayhab [-YT]

Re: Logic or Lack Thereof (2)

“The US is an officially democratic state governed by democratic persons. Do we agree? If we do, then democracy and anyone who defends it is directly or indirectly responsible for the horrors of the American dark ages, including the killing of over a million Iraqi's since 1991 in the name of democracy.”

Democracy isn’t an ideology. Democracy means “governed by the people; rule of the majority; a government in which the supreme power is held by the people.” In a democratic state no ideology is encouraged or suppressed. People are free to choose their religion and political ideologies.

Hence, I can rephrase your statement as follows: “The US government is democratically elected by its citizens. Do we agree? If we do, then the US government and American citizens are directly or indirectly responsible for the horrors of the Iraq war.”

I agree with this statement. The US government waged an unpopular war and finally was voted out of the office by the majority of Americans who wished to wipe this stain off their hands.

Re: Logic or Lack Thereof

“The Soviet Union and Chairman Mao's China were officially atheist states governed by atheists. Do we agree? If we do, then atheism and anyone who defends it is directly or indirectly responsible for the horrors of Soviets’ dark ages.”

Religious believers have always maliciously equated communism with atheism. This is a very narrow and selective definition of communism designed to frighten the masses: “Godless communists are coming! Rise up to save your God and religion!”

Communism is an ideology whose political goals and ambitions can’t tolerate competition. As a result, religion is discouraged or suppressed in communist states.

Having said all this, I would rephrase your words as follows: “The Soviet Union and Chairman Mao’s China were officially communist states governed by communists. Do we agree? If we do, then communism and anyone who defends it is directly or indirectly responsible for the horrors of Soviets’ dark ages.”

I agree with this statement. Communists have much to answer for…

Re: Peace Now

Every time an Iranian woman walks out of her house with improper Hijab, she is waging a war against the Shi'a state. Every time students rise up to voice their opposition right into the faces of the rulers, they are fighting a battle of defiance against the Shi'a religion.

The sea of satellite dishes in Iran, the blogs, the mass email messages distributed, the rumors and jokes told and retold time and again, the popular secular music, and even the attire Iranians choose to wear foretell of a resilient spirit that refuses to bow to Shi'a.

Under this façade of peace, we are waging a war…

Logic or lack thereof منطق بسیار خاص این مقاله

The Soviet Union and Chairman Mao's China were officially atheist states governed by atheists.

Do we agree? If we do, then atheism and anyone who defends it is directly or indirectly responsible for the horrors of Soviets’ dark ages.

*** better yet:

The US is an officially democratic state governed by democratic persons.

Do we agree? If we do, then democracy and anyone who defends it is directly or indirectly responsible for the horrors of the American dark ages, including the killing of over a million Iraqi's since 1991 in the name of democracy.

"The holy book Quran itself,

"The holy book Quran itself, similar to other holy books, is an ocean of contradictions. It is kind and merciless; it advocates war and peace; it soothes and threatens… But more importantly, it is full of imagery that may be interpreted in many forms, opening the door to human mischief. "

You expect the Quran or Bible or whatever book to have one ONE UNIFIED TONE or theme throughout to be consistent and logical. These books which purport to be guides of one's life cannot convey one feeling or mood as you'd like because life is not so consistent. The Quran is kind in things that require such emotions: charity, God's forgiveness, repentence of one's sins and changing your life around, helping the orphans, widows etc. Then it is merciless in things like oppression, evil, etc. That's how any moral system operates. There has to be threat and promise to correlate with what that system perceives as evil or good. And as for advocating war and peace...well what rational human being wouldnt advocate both? There is a time to be peaceful and a time to be belligerent, anyone who says we must always be in a state of either of the two is living in la la land. In other words if the Quran is to be taken seriously at all, it has to reflect the inconsistencies of REAL LIFE. And in fact the verses of the book were purportedly from different times in the PRophet Mohammad's lifetime so at a time to defend his followers there are warlike verses, and at times when this wasn't a problem, why not push for peace?

ps taqleed marja and the office of "ayatollah" were 19th century inventions, the first i believe was Murtaza Ansari...after the Usulis defeated the Akhbaris who claimed religious law should be based on text alone and never on the reasonging of an allameh.

Peace Now.

Fardaa roshanast.

Peace or Inferno?

“Don't you know you could envision peace and maybe even come up with some ideas to achieve it...slowly..but still..do you really WANT a vast conflagration?”

A peaceful transition of power from IRI to a democratic government requires one and only one element: The Shi'a State willingly giving up power to a transitional government which in turn conducts a referendum and ratifies a new constitution.

This will never happen! Do you honestly think otherwise?

Typical

It might be hard for your kind of minds to conceive it, but the main battle for "the soul of Persia" is not fought with weapons, but with words, arguments and open acts of dissent that deliberately refuse to abide by shia practice regulations home by home.
Typical of degenerate minds to immediately reduce everything to the application of physical force. Pretty much corroborates what Laleh was saying. As your kind of reaction shows, such acts of defiance and words of liberation will not go "unpunished" by those who like you only comprehend the language of physical force. A price that has to be paid.

No, Cap'n, the "collective responsibility" first appeared in

this blog from me and I never heard it about Palestinians. I used it to Laleh about ordinary  Iranians for the Revolution, I have said basically the same things recently in posts about the ordinry Germans during the Reich and the ordinary Zionists today. (not to equate or even compare the three situations, just the concept of collective responsibility). You can read up the thread and see how it got started. I was going to clarify and narrow down what I meant by it within the Iranian historical context but once this Apocalypse Now discourse gets started...well what can one realistically say?.

As far as this Apocalyptic thing is concerned, sorry Laleh but it's CREEPY! Do you realize you sound like...how can I put it...like you LIKE the prospect, like it ENERGIZES you...don't you know that what people envison can determine what may be...don't you know you could envision peace and maybe even come up with some ideas to achieve it...slowly..but still..do you really WANT a vast conflagration? You sure sound like you do..

As for your fellow Armaggedonist here...well well well, finally got the real answer to my previous blog...

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's Rapture Time!

Incredible.

Not Just Shi'a Men!

“It is his MOTHER who cripples Leils with so much guilt…to take on a second wife…which totally destroys this really sweet love match irrevocably. It impressed me because I came to Iranian studies thinking yes, terrible patriarchy, mostly the men will be to blame. That film totally changed my way of thinking.”

I agree! There is an organized and well trained military and police force consisting of Shi'a women. Let’s not forget about the Hijab Police: Shi'a women walking around the streets of Iran, terrorizing women who don’t comply with the Hijab laws.

Shi'a women are also actively involved in Iran’s prisons, performing a variety of tasks including interrogations and torture. In some cases, prisoners have seen more cruelty from these women than their male counterparts…

?

When logic gives away to emotions and [collective punishment], we will see the second coming[Gaza].

And now that Ms. Zion has placed her seal of approval... LETS GO and kill them all..... Just make up some [ARM BANDS] that says [SHI'A], 65 million of them.
Because, with this type of mentality, the NEXT leader ain't gonna pardon nobody, no way no how. It has never happened and never will. Just get yourselves ready for 1000's of innocent to parish in the [wrath] of your collective responsibility and collective punishment.

vooooooosh

capt_ayhab [-YT]

p/s... when, where, and who used the [collective responsibity] last???? it was in recent weeks.... uhm ........... let me think........

ooo I remember....wasn't it Isreal using same CONCEPT to justify the blood bath in GAZA????? 

The battle..

Just can't wait for the battle to begin. I got front row seats.

You two sound excited about it too.

//regmedia.co.uk/2006/09/04/armageddon.jpg

Go Team Go!

LOL

Double post..

double post 

Beautifully said

Laleh you said it better than ever:

'That day is not now… We have a battle brewing in the horizon, the battle for the heart and soul of Persia.This battle will be fought in the streets of our hometowns block by block. We will receive no mercy from the Shi’a believers who will not hesitate to spill our blood in the name of their God. As the thirtieth anniversary of our uprising approaches, it is time for us to face this fact…'

The free world owes its allegiance to you but unfortunately is completely ignorant of this. When you win your well earned victory, the entire humanity will be in your debt and it will be time for this to be finally recognized.

Bless you, and may you all come out victorious in this battle of all battles.

Not Now!

“The first step toward a comprehensive serious scrutiny of the recent history of Iran will not be approached until a COLLECTIVE responsibility is accepted which ABSOLVES INDIVIDUALS OF BLAME (except in the most heinous of cases…”

I agree with the notion of “Collective responsibility” as you described it. However, this is not the time to absolve the individuals of their sins. Hitler didn’t bring about the Holocaust on his own. Little Eichmanns were collectively responsible for those horrors.

The day will come that the future leaders of Iran must issue a national pardon to absolve individuals of their sins. That day is not now… We have a battle brewing in the horizon, the battle for the heart and soul of Persia.

This battle will be fought in the streets of our hometowns block by block. We will receive no mercy from the Shi’a believers who will not hesitate to spill our blood in the name of their God.

As the thirtieth anniversary of our uprising approaches, it is time for us to face this fact…

Laleh--Responsibility, Shia Men, Shiism

The first step toward a comprehensive serious scrutiny of the recent history of Iran will not be approached unti a COLLECTIVE responsibility is accepted which ABSOLVES INDIVIDUALS OF BLAME (except in the most heinous of cases, certainly the old man with the eyebrows being one of them for sure..) I did not talk about "blame". Blame implies guilt or remorse. Collective responsibility does the opposite. It reminds us that as humans we are "a family of fools" and that is our condition so how to overcome it. Yes, I also implicitly spoke of individual responsibility but specifically of facing this responsibilty, then absolving self and others of it..

"Shia Men": When I first started studying Iran in 2003 I saw the 1998 Dariush Merjui film "Leila". You probably know it but here is what impressed me: The young husband does not care whether the wife is fertile, i.e. can produce a male child to carry on the great patriarchal name. It is his MOTHER who cripples Leils with so much guilt that together in cahoots they push the husband to take on a second wife (who turns out to be a swindler anyway) which totally destroys this really sweet love match irrevocably.

It impressed me because I came to Iranian studies thinking yes, terrible patriarchy, mostly the men will be to blame. That film totally changed my way of thinking.

(I saw another film then about a female health worker in a village clinic who was pressured by BOTH her husband and her mother to quit. Yes, both, but BOY that mother of hers was a hellcat. Actually it was a Sunni vilage in Khuzestan but still...you get my drift...)

Shiism and Khomeinism--other people here can argue this far better than I but until someone proves otherwise to me, my understanding from my studies is still that the theocratic POLITICAL system first proposed by Khomeini had nothing in historical Shia writings to substantiate it. If I am wrong I will gladly retract this statments. Could you argue that Shiism inevitably led to this state of affairs? Well yes you could but you would have to be wary of falling into a logical fallacy which is called post hoc ergo propter (Latin for after this therefore on account of  this, meaning because this happened before, therefore this which happened later was caused by it). Very wary..

P/S

If you want to abolish IR, and sent them all to hell[or where ever you see fit], i will lend you all I have in my being. Just stop blaming [MY] 70 year old[Shi'a] Mother for crimes of Khomeini. Sorry to say, but I am really NOT getting you.

capt_ayhab [-YT]

Ms. Laleh

Why just change the title, if you still seeking consensus to convict the entire [Shi'a] men population?

And Why only men?

Why not all the women and children as well?

here is how[hateful and racist] your logic sound: Verbatim from your post, with small modifications.

First, let’s see what we can agree upon: IRI is a Shi'a state[Nazi Germany was a Christian state] governed by Shi'a[Christian] authorities, SS, and Gestapo. We like it or not, the Supreme Leader[Hitler] together with the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists [Nazi Party] is dishing out Shi'a justice[Final Solution] to all Iranians[World]. (Do we agree on these points?)

If we do, then Shi'a[Christian] religion and anyone who defends it is directly or indirectly responsible for the horrors of mullahs’ dark ages[Genocide].

If we don’t, I have to speculate that the only argument you or anyone else might have is this: “This is not my Shi'a[Christianity].”
Of course, this is a fair reply, and on the surface it might sound very
logical and promising. Having heard that statement multiple times, I am
responsible for finding out what your Shi'a[Christianity] is, what distinguishes it from IRI’s Shi'a[German's Nazi], and who is defining your Shi'a[Christianity]. (So far so good, I
hope.) .....

........ and so on and so forth .......

I truly find your notion of demonizing the entire population a one faith absurdly preposterous. I gather that you are either atheist or agnostic. If you are happy believe me I am happy too. However rather than trying to send entire population of Shi'a to hell, just tell us about your faith[or lack of it]. You never know, you might convert few people here.

capt_ayhab [-YT]

Laleh jon

Shi'a believers have done me and millions of other Iranians harm, physical and emotional harm, and we hold the Shi'a religion responsible for empowering its followers with the Sharia laws to do those harms…

Eloquently put. thank you!

Christianity and Judaism are

Christianity and Judaism are NOT the same

i have news for you: n saudi arabia women cannot even leave the house without permission. so be careful not to bad mouth all those countries nearby.

by the way in judaism they believe that the child from mother is going to be jew no matter who the father is as long as the mother is a jew. who knows maybe this was a way judaism created somethign to protect their women so they will not be touched by arab s from desert. it is clever and maybe this is why they feel comfortable to let them go out of house and out of country.
they know at least their women are safe in the hands of arabs because arabs would not want to create a baby who would be automatically a jewish.

i hopw this helps

Who Is Responsible for the Last 30 Years?

“Overwhelming majority of Iranians supported Khomeini as you know… From the most extreme secular Leftists to moderates they believed this delusion. So they are also responsible for this "dark age"…”

I agree! There is a lot of blame to go around.

In my last two blogs, though, I attempted to present what Shi'a has done to Iran not only in the last 30 years but also long before IRI existed. In order to build a better future, we must glance at the past and examine it shrewdly… Otherwise, we will continue as usual, making the same mistake.

Even Shi'a scholars and intellectuals who oppose IRI keep repeating the same rhetoric day in and day out: “This is not Shi'a!” If we don’t question the validity and merits of this statement, the masses are destined to fall into the same trap again…