Iranian Liberal Democrat

Masoud

I’ve criticized specific acts of TWO, you want to label it “attacking us” is fine with me.

The big fish and the only target is the warmongering Islamist Rapist Republic, its compensated lobbies and planted employees in the sane world, to my mind this misunderstanding is irrelevant and passing.

Fred

Fred,

You have every right to criticize, condemn, and attack us. Not only you attacked us, you used vulgar insults. We also have the right to criticize, condemn, and attack you back.

Masoud

Mammad

Mammad,

You do not get it. I am a civil libertarian. So, when someone who supports NIAC comes and threatens Fred to silence him, I did then and I would do it again: I would support Fred from any threats from the supporters of NIAC or the vf regime. I did the same for DK although I strongly oppose DK’s views.

Moreover, in my opinion, the main enemies are the vf regime and NIAC. I was very very happy to see Fred engage in activities that waken the vf regime and NIAC. I might disagree with some particular policy that Fred may advocate. But in general, I want to see the vf regime and NIAC to be made as weak as possible. In my opinion, the weaker the vf regime and NIAC are, the better it would be for the pro-democracy forces. We want to weaken and defeat the vf regime. NIAC’s many policies help the vf regime.

I try to be as objective and truthful as possible. I think that Fred is very smart and sophisticated. Whether I oppose what he writes or support it, he is very smart.

As far I know, Nasrin Soutudeh strongly supports separation of religion from the state. She was among the leaders of SDHRI: //iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/prospects-and-obstacles-solidarity-democracy-and-human-rights-iran

This does not necessarily means that she could not be a supporter of Dr. Shariati. Dr. Maleki, a top Melli Mazhabi is also a member of SDHRI. SDHRI strongly and unequivocally supports separation of religion and the state. SDHRI is NOT an Islamist group. SDHRI is a secular group.

Also one of the charges against Ms. Soutudeh was that she appeared on tv without hijab (her usual roosari). As far as I am aware, the liberal Islamist female activists wear hijab (roosari).

If you have any concrete evidence that she is a supporter of Shariati or is a liberal Islamist, please provide the evidence.

=====================================　

Mammad: By calling NIAC an enemy of Iran on par with the VF regime, you MK give too much credit to NIAC, regardless of whether your statement is true or not.

Masoud: NIAC is a small group of apparently about 600 or so members. I oppose what it does. I have never ever said that it is a powerful group. All I say is that those of us who want to see the vf regime overthrown should oppose NIAC. We want regime change. NIAC opposes regime change. Those of us who live in the U.S. are not directly involved inside Iran. If my opinion is correct that NIAC engages in activities that help the vf regime, then it would follow that if we want to see vf regime gone, we should do all we can to weaken NIAC.

In my opinion, NIAC is a small weak group. The weaker the NIAC becomes, the better it would be for the pro-democracy Iranians who want to see the vf regime overthrown.

If you think that I am wrong, then you need to prove the following:

1. NIAC President opposed placing IRGC on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. Is it good or bad for the vf regime to have the IRGC on the terrorist list? Did the position of Trita Parsi good or bad for the vf regime? Trita Parsi did what is in the interests of the vf regime; yes or no.

2. Is it good or bad for the survival of the vf regime to have total economic sanctions on the sale of crude oil and natural gas? The policies of NIAC help or harm the vf regime?

3. Arranging meetings between vf regime officials and various other officials benefits the vf regime or harms it? Did NIAC staff push members of Congress to meet with officials of the vf regime? Did NIAC’s action good or bad for the vf regime?

4. Is it good or bad to strongly condemn the vf regime and openly call for regime change? Does the vf regime officials become happy or angry when various organizations and individuals call for regime change in Iran? Does the NIAC publically opposing regime change good or bad for the vf regime?

In case after case, I observe that NIAC does what benefits the vf regime. I gave the four examples above.

If I am wrong, please prove me wrong. If you have any logical arguments that would refute my assertions, please do so: en goyo en meidan.

In conclusion, in my opinion, if someone opposes the vf regime, it would make sense that he or she should also oppose NIAC. And in my opinion, if someone supports the vf regime, it would make sense that he or she should also support NIAC. That is all I am saying.

I prefer to answer you right here where everyone could read my responses. Why in the world I would send the response in any other way.

Masoud

NIOC compensated

The NIOC compensated Haji in part says about me:

“He is the one who was an ardent supporter of Hosni Mubarak, because he was a stooge of Israel. .… advocating war and destruction for Iran and Iranians,”

Prove it Haji nuke, prove it!

NIOC compensated Haji nuke, coming back or not, a la VOA fiasco is of course your choice.

Dear ROOG

Dear friend ROOG,

Thank you so very much for the links and the materials. I read and watched them all.

On Bagherzadeh’s article. Fundamentalism in Iran grew from the following:

1. Fadaian Islam. FI predated NA and Bazaragn.

2. Motalefeh Islami, also had nothing to do with Bazargan and NA.

3. Khomeini’s views that emerged around 1963-1978.

I use the term Islamist to mean all those who use Islam as their political ideology. It is different than the orthodox Muslims who do not mix Islam and politics. Islamism could be liberal Islamism (NA, Bani Sadr, Melli Mazhabis) or communist Islamism (PMOI until 1984 or so), and fundamentalist Islamism (Khomeini, FI, Motalefeh). There is also the weird case of Hojatieh group (a gang of bigots, right-wing, SAVAK collaborators, many of their members left it to join the VF regime and got top positions).

The various Islamist groups influenced each other. Although Al-Afghani (Asadabadi) was not fundamentalist, but fundamentalists as well others got ideas from him. Al-Afghani, is the number ONE dude who brought Islam into politics in the late 1890s, way before Bazargan.

Clerics from the Tobboca movement to Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri to Kashani to sort of underhanded way Brujerdi were involved in politics. Because they took opposing positions and got to kill each other (e.g., other clerics issued fatwa to hang the number one cleric Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri) the emerged a period that many clerics stayed out of politics. They gradually became involved. Yes, it was a fault of Bazargan who assumed that if the clerics get involved, he could use them against the Shah. So, Bagherzadeh is correct on that point. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Shah also was using the Shia clerics to be on his side. The Shah had appointed to a very top position, Dr. Seyyed Hussein Nasr to come up with an ideology to help the Shah. And this dude wanted to have the ideology to be ISLAM.

So, in that period there was an effort to use Islam (and use the clerics) by the Shah, Bazargan, and Shariati.

What none of them expected was that Frankstein that emerged was Khomeini and fundamentalism.

Thank YOU sooooooooo very much for the videos by Mohammad Amini and Shariati. I fully agree with Amini and with you. Amini is correct and you are correct.

The part by Shariati that you showed is the WORST and most totalitarian work of Shariatri. When we hear it today with the experience of the IRI and fundamentalism, we can clearly see how such views lead directly to a totalitarian and dictatorial regime.

Shariati was YOUNG. He was born in 1933. In 1968,   the poor soul was only 35 years old. In his many publications he presented a whole bunch of ideas. Some horribly bad, some a little bad, some average, some good, and some very good. His talk (and later pamphlet on Imamat) is regarded as his WORST and MOST oppressive idea. Shariati also has other talks where he talks about freedom and democracy. The question is what would he do if he was alive during the revolution and after wards. Overwhelming majority of his supporters opposed the vf regime and Khomeini. Shariati’s own father and household opposed Khomeini. His family members are close to Melli Mazhabis.

In my opinion, had he and Ayatollah Taleghani lived longer, the balance of forces might have been different in 1979-1980s. Many who sided with Khomeini might have been attracted by Shariati and Taleghani.

In conclusion, I 100% agree with you that Shariati’s speech on Imamat that you posed is 100% against the views of Mossadegh and JM on democracy. Mossadegh and JM do NOT want a government that guides the people on every aspect of their lives to make them grow on some sort of state-defined utopia. JM and Mossadegh view the role of the state as a minimal set of institutions and rules. The people have the right to choose for themselves what makes them happy. If some want to drink and dance and go to beach, it is 100% their right to do so and it is NONE of the business of the government to tell them what is moral and what it is not. Mossadegh and JM then and now 100% oppose the notion of Imamat that Shariati presented. We view such views as dangerous and harmful.

If Shariati was alive today (or in 1979) and still advocated his view on Imamat, then JM would 100% oppose and condemn such views as dictatorial and oppressive.

Best regards,

Masoud

P.S. Again thank YOU for posting these very informative links and arguments. Mamnoon.

Masoud

Masoud.

Again, I gave my opinion along with corroborating facts about TWO historic persons, if you want to call it “attacking various pro-Mossadegh forces” that is your reading of it and it is fine with me.

Your explanation/defense of these two does not sway my opinion; neither does your condemnation of Bakhtiar makes any sense to me.

As a political scientist, you should know criticizing and condemning political acts of public individual(s) is a right which is exercised every day in all free societies.   

Lastly, Mossadegh was a consummate politician who knew politics is the art of compromise and practiced it constantly. To my mind, now is the time for all opposition to the Islamist Rapists to practice compromise and unite.

Ps. I’ve been labeled all there is under the sun, my allegiance is to freedom for Iran and Iranians. I will speak my mind whether some supporters of Mossadegh, Shah, traitor Tudeh party … like it or not.  And will not be cowed by anyone, the only 2 things that will silence me is death & freedom of Iran and Iranians.

Take care

Souri khanum

Souri khanum,

As a matter of principle and practice (and perhaps security), Iranian political parties do NOT share what other parties have had actual negotiations with us for coalition. Several years ago, I was told by our leaders inside Iran about a group (arguably the largest civil society group) that had officially asked to join the JM. The JM leaders after some discussions decided to reject the coalition to my great sadness. I wanted to write about it in one of my scholarly articles, but was told that such matters are 100% confidential. The same thing with other groups that have asked the INF-OA to join us. We keep ALL such discussions 100% confidential.

Therefore, I could not provide the answer to your question about the specific organizations. I could only provide general criteria. As long as a group accepts multi-party system based on free and democratic vote, is independent from all other governments, and accepts civil and political liberties (freedom of expression, press, parties of other forces), we would be willing to make coalitions with them. This means that they could have as their ideology Marxism. What matters is that they accept democracy, civil liberties, and human rights. In other words, we welcome democratic socialist parties as coalition partners. The objective would be a broad based coalition for the establishment of a secular democratic republic.

As a matter of our strategy, we do not consider making a coalition with monarchists at step 1 and step 2 and step 3. However, if there ever was a true urgent emergency that the survival of Iran was at issue, JM and INF will do whatever that is in the national interests of Iran. In other words, we have not absolutely ruled out an ad hoc coalition with anyone including the monarchists.

JM/INF objective is the establishment of a democratic secular republic. Thus anyone who supports such a constitutional system would be considered and welcomed as coalition partner in the struggle against the vf regime.

Some thing that those who are not directly involved is that they think it is very simple and all it takes is to say lets make a coalition. In actual practice, we have found out that it is very very hard. Many Iranians prefers to be the LEADER in one small group than be part of a large group that they have to compromise and only have a say and some vote on many issues. However, I have observed that when there is an emergency, all of the sudden many activists change and are willing to work with others.

I hope this is helpful.

Masoud

Masoud

Masoud,, in follow up to my last post, i apologize if I sound like a broken record. I assure you that I read your popsts thoroughly and value your opinion. I also read all the links you provide. i am quite aware of your position. I agree with most of your views and support your coalition building. But, please see it from my point of view. i am not and do not ever plan to be a politician. i am only interested in facts, truths and principles. I am a very logical person. I can certainly be convinced with logic and change my mind accordingly. However, when it comes to Bakhtiar's legacy and that of Shariati, I continue to believe otherwise.

I told you so

I stopped reading IC and commenting here a long time ago, due to the atmosphere created by some here. I only occasionally look at this website to see whether there is anything readable. It was then that I ran into MK's blog. I hate to tell you this MK, but I cannot help it: I told you so.

You were the one MK who praised Freddo Corleone. You were the one who even posted a blog "thanking him."

In my view, a principled position would not make us say, "If you do not attack us, we will not attack you," but would say, "I am opposed to Freddo Corleone's [or anybody else's for that matter] insults, baseless accusations, insinuations, innuendoes, lies, exxagerations, and advocacy of war and destruction, all hidden behind a fake name," regardless of who or what is the target.

Freddo Corleone - whom you refer to as smart, which is like putting lipstick on a pig's lips -  does not have any principle and does not believe in anything, but only in advocating war and destruction for Iran and Iranians, and anything that benefits the far right, the racist part in Israel. He is an alert here to carry water for the far right in Israel - just look at him being 24/7 on alert, responding only a few minutes after anything that is posted that is not to his liking and advocacy of hatred, war and destruction - and thinks that if he does not use the word "war" in his "blogs" he is not advocating war, even if he advocates air and naval inspections that according to all the relevant international laws are tantamount to declaring war.

Freddo Corleone uses even great patriots like Nasrin Sotoudeh and Ahmad Zeidabadi, two ardent believers in Dr. Ali Shariati, to pose as a "democrat," while at the same attacks Dr. whose writings he has never ever read, but his atomic-size brain is full of hatred for him. He once wrote a blog, using what Bazargan had said. He is the one who was an ardent supporter of Hosni Mubarak, because he was a stooge of Israel. That is the type of "man" he is. 

Mammad

P.S.1: By calling NIAC an enemy of Iran on par with the VF regime, you MK give too much credit to NIAC, regardless of whether your statement is true or not.

P.S.2: I invite the readers to mark my words: Freddo Corleone will come back with a barrage of the aforementioned accusations; just wait.

P.S.3: I will not come back to this thread to read. If you want to respond to me MK, you know where you can find me.

A matter of Principles

Masoud,

I am very familiar with your analysis of Bakhtiar's government and the possibility of the Shah's return. I would say that it is a very political view of the situation. Meaning, in your analysis you are looking for the most opportune way that in your mind would have given the highest likelihood of what you consider the best outcome at that particular time,  i.e. "No Shah". I look at it from a principle and legacy point of view.

I value Mosaddegh's role in our history only for the principles he represented and his legacy of democracy. He personifies our 150 year struggle for the rule of law. He is not a hero "because he fought the shah', he is a hero because he valued democracy and Independence for our nation.

In parallel, Bakhtiar will be regarded highly for his legacy of Democracy and Secularism. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY REGARDLESS OF WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. It is about principles. He will be remembered for suggesting a protected Shiite enclave in Ghom similar to Vatican. Now, that is a thought 100 years ahead of its time from a visionary. 

Since we are talking about Legacy and principles, NA and Bazargan certainly can be proud of a legacy for developing Islamo-politics in Iran. Please read the following by Dr. Hossein Bagherzadeh:

//www.radiofarda.com/content/f3_nehzatazadi_i...

In response to this comment;

"Dr. Bakhtiar would not eliminate the generals (kill them) because that is not what JM folks do. But also because needed them. Sanjabi and JM would not kill the generals either. Actually, Sanjabi, other JM leaders and Bazargan and some of his NA members were the ONLY individuals who OPPOSED the violation of due process, human rights and the revolutionary courts under Khomeini’s control. "

I guess when you say some of his NA folks and you imply not all , it is because you are excluding this guy:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrK6cfvZ_zA

Masoud,

I would go further and submit to you that NA and particularly Shariati's view were not only not in line with Mosaddegh but actually completely anti-modern, anti-democratic and anti-Mosaddeghi. The best description of the fight for democracy that Mosaddegh represented is presented in these videos by Mahammad Amini:

Part1.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD7SQXOeh1s

Part 2.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfG8lm614_s&feature...

And here is Shariati's view on the same subject:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-oyTPxaiAY

After watching these videos Masoud, do you blame me for not considering Shariati and his views not in line with Mosaddegh? 

نیروهای جمهوری خواه چپ ?

Who are those powers or groups?

Would you name them please?

Who are in your mind?

سوری

سوری خانوم،

الف. فرد به مصدق اهانت نکرد.  فرد به سنجابی، اعضای جبهه ملی‌، و خود جبهه ملی‌، اهانت کرد.  در بحث سیاسی،  اهانت  "ابله" (دو طبقه یا یک طبقه) فحش رکیک می‌باشد. 

ب. تا وقتی‌ که شخصی‌ یا گروهی حمله به ما نکنه و بیشتره حملات آاش را متوجه دشمنان ما داشته باشه ، ما هم کاری با کارش نداریم.  وقت ما محدود است و استفاده بهینه از وقت و امکانات ما لازم می‌باشد. 

جیم. استراتژی ائتلاف جبهه ملی‌ این است که همه نیروهای مصدقی را دوباره دور هم گرد آوریم.   بعد از این میخواهیم که ائتلاف با نیروهای جمهوری خواه چپ داشته باشیم. 

دال. دانسته یا ندانسته، فرد چوب لایه چرخ کار ما می‌گذاشت، و لازم بود که جوابش    داده بشه.  متأسفانه مدتی‌ است که فرد تبلیغات زیادی  برای سلطنت طلبها میکنه و حملات آاش بر علیه نیروهای دموکرات،  آزادیخواه، و چپ هوادار مصدق پر رنگ تر شده بود.  

در خاتمه اگر کسی‌ مزاحم ما  نباشه،ما هم کاری باهاش نداریم. 

امیدوارم که توضیحات من قانع کننده باشد.  اگر نه‌، به بزرگی‌ خودتون ببخشید.

مسعود

Fred

Fred,

I have ALREADY discussed in GREAT detail my analysis of the role of JM and Sanjabi including the 3 point declaration and Sanjabi’s praise of Khomeini.

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/role-jebhe-melli-during-1977-79-revolution

You are too smart and sophisticated not to know what you are doing. What you have been engaging is disgusting.

As I discussed extensively in my long blog, charlatans use presentism and demagogue the issues of the past using what is known TODAY but not then.

In October 1978, Khomeini had NOT committed the atrocities that he committed after he came to power.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had ALREADY committed crimes against the Iranian people and had PROVEN that he was:

* traitor (went to UK and US officials in 1941-42 and told them to support him to become absolutist king and in exchange he would protect their colonial interests in Iran; collaborated with MI6 and CIA to overthrow Mossadegh);

* had ruled tyrannically and brutalized the Iranian people;

* that very period (June 1977 to late 1978) had BOMBED the homes and offices of Sanjabi, Bazargan, Forouhar, Matin-Daftari; and

* had used others such as Qavam, Gen. Zahedi, when in trouble and got rid of them and RETURNED to ABSOLUTE power as soon as the situation was calmed.

Therefore, no sane person could or should trust the Shah. The Shah was a traitor, brutal savage tyrant, and a charlatan, and had to be gotten rid of if Iran was to have independence, freedom, and democracy.

Khomeini was a question mark. There are good Shia clerics and there are bad Shia clerics, as there are good Christian and Jewish religious leaders and groups as there are bad Christian and Jewish religious leaders and groups.

For example, there are truly decent Shia clerics such as Grand Ayatollah Abolfazl Zanjani (a member of the Central Committee of JM), Ayatollah Teleghani (a former member of JM and then a member of NA), and Grand Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari.

And as we found out Khomeini was a truly evil, fascistic, and genocidal man.

In Christianity there exists decent clerics such as Bishop Desmund Tutu. And there are evil Christian groups such as the KKK.

In Judaism there are decent and progressive rabbis like Tikkun Rabbi Michael Lerner; and there are fascistic genocidal rabbis like Rabbi Meir Kahane of Kach party.

The religious texts of all three religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism contain decent materials and they also contain reactionary and even genocidal materials.

In October 1978, Sanjabi -- like the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people, almost all the other parties, and the U.S. government -- did not know about the fascistic and genocidal nature of Khomeini. In Paris Khomeini was saying all the decent stuff such as human rights, democracy, freedom, no clergy would be president, that he would not take any office. After he came to power then Khomeini showed his true face. And when he did, Sanjabi was among the very first BRAVE, decent Iranians who stood up to Khomeini. In my long blog on the role of JM during the revolution, I have enumerated the many many brave actions of Sanjabi and JM against Khomeini from Feb 1979 onwards.

In October 1978, Sanjabi made mistakes, including making the sycophantic remarks about Khomeini. In my long blog on the role of JM during the revolution, I said that those remarks should be criticized and condemned. ALL political leaders, including the most decent and the best ones, make mistakes. Should one ignore all what FDR did and call him, ablah 2 tabagheh because he ordered the incarceration of Americans of Japanese decent (a crime faaaaaaaaar worse than Sanjabi’s errors of judgment), or ignore all the great work that Washington and Jefferson did and call insult them for owning slaves.

Simpletons do fall for "presentism" (judging the past based on present day knowledge and values). But you are too smart and sophisticated not to know what you are doing. On purpose, you are attempting to engage in nefarious attacks on the main pro-democracy group in Iran and trying to split the supporters of Dr. Bakhtiar from coalition with other pro-democracy forces. You have been attacking the leftists who support Mossadegh. You are attempting to help the monarchists and undermine the pro-democracy coalition.

You have every right to hold any analysis you want (whether you are just one person or you are an agent of Mossad). You have every right to say Sanjabi was wrong. You have every right to present an analysis why my analysis of the situation is wrong and that Sanjabi and the whole world should have been able to predict the future and distrust the actual words of Khomeini in Paris.

But when you use vulgar INSULTS against our top leaders then you have crossed the line of decency. When you engage in persistent attacks on those who support Mossadegh, then we will react and condemn your activities that we consider sinister and nefarious. Using insulting words such as "2 nabsheh" which has a very very negative connotation for INF-JM is INSULTING.

In the past month or two, instead of attacking NIAC you have been attacking various pro-Mossadegh forces. WHY????????????? Until recently you were not using INSULTING words for JM and INF leaders. But you are using vulgar insults for us now. WHY??????????

You attack us, and we will attack you. You attack the vf regime and NIAC, we will happily watch.

Masoud

Dear Masoud, Aynak and Others!

TERRIFFIC REBUTTLE!

As I was reading yours blog and others' comments/responses, I noticed that everyone made sense BUT Fred!

I do not know and really do not care what this professional AGITATOR is about or trying to do, say or who he is paid by and sincerely do not care.

What I do know and I think that most of us agree on, is that M R Pahlavi, the TYRANICAL TRAITOR was kicked out of the country, in a most embarrassing possible way, and did not leave on his OWN free will.   Later on the KING OF KINGS and THE LIGHT of Arians became homeless and marooned and we witnessed that no country would want or let this murderer in, knowing what he had committed; at last and after lengthy negotiations he was DUMPPED at Panama's door steps and at the mercy of “GEN.” Noriega, Ashraf Pahlavi’s drug trafficking colleague.

Noriega was an active member of the American Organized Crime, utilized by the CIA.   He is presently spending his LIFE in prison either in France or the US.

We also know that had it not been for the involvement and direct interference of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger this vicious murderer would have been sent back in handcuffs….Now I do not care what a loony like MOSSAD Fred or the Shahollahis/Hezbollah CULTISTS say or believes in, these are the HISTORICAL facts!

The great souls that Fred in trying to malign WILL survive this IDIOTIC onslaught carried out by the nothing MOSSAD agent.

History is written on and carved on the stone…these CREATURES would NEVER be able to change that!

Have A Great LIFE!

PS: Quite agree with your assessment of Bakhtiar’s wrong timing and his involvement; it could have ultimately resulted in the continuation of the opposition’s massacre DONE by the Shahollahis CULT!  

مشکل "فرد" این است که از قرار معلوم با همه هوش و ذکاوتی که دارد

مشکل شما هم اینست که فکر می‌کنید که فرد، هوش و ذکاوت دارد ! آقا، کجا و
در کدام مقوله فرد، اثری از هوش و ذکاوت او پیدا کردید؟ فرد فقط کارش اینه
که در اخبار روز نگاه میکنه و هر مطلبی رو که خوشش اومد، به صورت مساله
روز در میاره و اینجا می‌نویسه. یه دفعه راجع به گوگوش صحبت میکنه، یه دفعه
از بلاگ قبلی‌ خودش به خودش مرجع میده.......هیچ وقت هم به هیچ دلیل و
منطقی‌ برای اثبات ادعای خودش، احتیاج نداره!

و مشکل منهم با شما
جبهه‌-ملی‌‌ها اینه که تا همین دیروز که فرد هنوز به مصدق اهانت نکرده بود،
همه یک دل‌ و یک صدا داشتین واسه اراجیفش کفّ میزدین! حالا چطور شد یه
دفعه فرد شد دروغ گو و مغلطه گر‌؟

.

Dear Aynak

Dear Aynak,

I fully agree with everything you wrote.

Thanks,

Masoud

Dear Ali

Dear Ali,

My guess is that the Shah’s support between 1965 to 1979 was around 5% to 10% of the population. The only reason he was in power was the utter repression by SAVAK and military. The Shah’s regime was a police-state.

Once the people arouse and the Carter administration was uncomfortable with a massive massacre (of 100,000+ degree), and repression did not work, the Shah went on vacation. But as long as the generals were still there, the Shah and/or the armed forces could make a coup at ANY TIME, get rid of Bakhtiar and assume their total power.

Dr. Bakhtiar would not eliminate the generals (kill them) because that is not what JM folks do. But also because needed them. Sanjabi and JM would not kill the generals either. Actually, Sanjabi, other JM leaders and Bazargan and some of his NA members were the ONLY individuals who OPPOSED the violation of due process, human rights and the revolutionary courts under Khomeini’s control. That is the REASON Sanjabi and JM members in the Provisional Government resigned on April 15, 1979 (about 2 months and 4 days after the victory of the revolution).

Khomeini ordered the executions of at least 500 top officials of the Shah’s regime from generals, SAVAK officials, and political types. Some say it was up to 900 officials. It was that elimination of the TOP eschelon that destroyed the ability of the Shah to return to power.

JM (Sanjabi), NA (Bazragan) and Bakhtiar were decent human beings and were NOT willing to physically eliminate the monarchists.

Khomeini had no reservations doing so. He probably would kill even more if he was not opposed at the time by NA, JM and few others.

The PROBLEM in Iran was that the Shah and the monarchists were (and ARE) a bunch of utterly fascistic absolutist power hungry folks. In actual FACT, the military leaders WANTED to engage in massive slaughter of the people. It was the Americans who were HORRIFIED by the plans to kill soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many people. Also the Americans did not think Khomeini would be the genocidal and extremist person that he was.

JM, the Iranian people, the American government all had WRONG perception of Khomeini. In Paris, Khomeini was criticizing the Shah for human rights violations, for dictatorship, was talking for democracy, for freedom, against the akhunds becoming president, for himself having any government position.

In 1979, the Shah was only 60 years old (the Shah was born in 1919). He was NOT old. His twin sister Ashraf is STILL ALIVE. Reza Pahlavi today is around 52 years old (only 9 years younger than the time his father died). Why Reza Pahlavi at 52 is a young prince but his father at 60 was old and tired? No body knew about his cancer before 1980. Also the exile, lack of good medical care, and defeat and depression, exacerbated the cancer and he died much much sooner that he otherwise might have been.

Did you watch From Tehran to Cairo with Farah Diba?

Farah Diba came across as a person who is narcisstic and psychopathically power hungry. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Farah Diba did not give damn about the national interests of Iran or simply what would be best for the Iranian people. Their prime goal, if not the sole goal, was (and is) to have POWER.

I am a bit younger than Reza Pahlavi. In 1978, I was around 17 to 18 years old. My wish at that time was for all the liberals to work together in one group or a coalition. I was and am extremely secular. So I opposed working with Khomeini. But I also wanted an end to the ruling tyranny. I thought then ans now that what Bakhtiar did was wrong and would not work. That the Shah should have much earlier relinquished power and allow free elections. I strongly condemn the Shah for the disaster. But the only chance to avoid the rise of Khomeini was to have the cabinet formed by JM and try to get support from NA and others. By December 1978-January 1979 when the Shah agreed to this, it might have been too late to save the situation.

By January 1979 to stop Khomeini would have required to kill a lot of his supporters. JM is not the kind of party that would do that. To prevent the Shah and monarchists to return to power would have required to kill several hundred top monarchists, and JM is not that kind of party.

JM could have saved the situation is an atmosphere of calm and gradual change. Had the Shah agreed to leave earlier JM was the kind of party that could have made the transition to democracy possible. The revolutionary process began in June 1977. For around one year and half, the Shah massacred thousands of people. Had the Shah done what Ben Ali or Mubarak did, the JM was strong and able to establish democracy in Iran. But the Shah chose the path of violence (sort of like Bashar al Assad on a smaller scale). EVEN after he was forced to exile, still the Shah never abdicated. Heck, today in 2012, the monarchists STILL want to re-establish the Pahlavi rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In my opinion, the best way (or perhaps the only way) to have democracy in Iran is:

(1) to have a broad based coalition of all the pro-democracy forces;

(2) undermine and weaken the dictatorial forces (e.g., monarchists, fundamentalists, Stalinists); and

(3) undermine and weaken the groups that provide assistance to the dictatorial groups (in my opinion NIAC helps the vf regime and thus is enemy of the pro-democracy groups that want to overthrow the terrorist regime).

I hope this is helpful.

Also I hope you my detailed discussion on this subject here:

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/role-jebhe-melli-during-1977-79-revolution

Best regards,

Masoud

پرسش ساده ای که فرد جواب نمی دهد.

 چون فرد پس از سوال من ۲ پست روزانه خود را ارسال کرد، و در همین نوشته
خود را جویای حقیقت نامید، نمی دانم چرا از پاسخ به پرسش من طفره می رود؟ 
نقش اسراییل در ساختن بند ۲۰۹ و همکاری آن حکومت با دستگاه سرکوب ساواک چه
بوده؟   پس شما فقط دنبال حقیقت مصلحتی هستید.
اما در نقش جبهه ملی  -- معما چو حل گشت آسان شود--
فرد که هر روز بالای  منبر می نشیند  و از "چپول" و "ملی" و "ملی مذهبی" و
"اصلاح طلب" و "توده ای"و "مسلمان" خوش می گوید،   ای بابا - اینگونه که
فرد می گوید، علی (مردخای؟) می ماند و حوضش(رضا پهلوی)؟ مگر اینکه همه
اینها را ایرانی ندانیم و فقط "فرد" را؟ 
چگونه است که  بازرگان را گیج می نامد، همان کسی که در دهه ۴۰ به شاه گفت
به مشروطه بر گرد، و گرنه گروه بعدی دیگر از طریق صلح آمیز با تو مقابله
نخواهند کرد- -که این گونه هم شد--  و بعد ها هم گفت که مهمترین عامل روی
کار آمدن اسلامیون --رستاخیز و شاه بود.
مشکل "فرد"  این است که از قرار معلوم با همه هوش و ذکاوتی که دارد از درک
رابطه  علت و معلول عاجز است.   سحابی را در ۵۷ محکوم می کند، در حالیکه
صحبتی از سحابی ۳۲ که به مصدق می گفت اینها دراولین فرست حکومت ملی را
واژگون خواهند کرد و --درست هم گفت بود-- نمی کند.
حقیقت این است که خروج ۵۷ شاه از ایران و برگشت او  سابقه قبلی داشته،
وسنجابی    که تجربه کودتای  ۳۲ را با چشم خود دیده و پوست خود لمس کرده
بود، چگونه میتوانست  به توبه گرگ اعتماد کند؟  اینکه از دامن گرگ به دامن
دراکولا افتاد در پایین بررسی می کنیم:
++++++++++++++++
جامعه بشری همواره بین ارتکاب خطای --سهوی-- و --عمدی-- تفاوت قائل است. 
در سیستم های قضایی جهان فرق است بین یک نفر که در اشتباه رانندگی موجب مرگ
کسی میشود، و کسی که نقشه می ریزد  و دیگری را به قتل می رساند.   با
اینکه نتیجه یکی است، ولی ما انسان ها --نیت-- را در بررسی عمل انجام شده
بررسی می نماییم.  در مورد رهبران و افراد تاثیر پذیر، این اشتباهات می
تواند اثرات بسیار مخربی داشته باشد.  ولیکن  یک  عامل را باید در نظر
گرفت:   عکس العمل او که مرتکب اشتباه شده به اشتباه خود چه بوده؟
در این مورد، بازرگان -- خود-- پس از گروگان گیری و حرکات مداخله جویانه
خمینی -- از کار خود استفا داد.  سنجابی - از بازرگان فراتر رفت ودر نهایت 
مجبور به فراراز ایران  شد.
در تجارب انقلابات دنیا، اینکه گروهی دور هم جمع می شوند و پس از بیرون
راندن حاکمین خود به لحاظ تفاوت های عمیق دچار مشکل می شوند، مسئله جدیدی
نیست.   انقلاب فرانسه بهترین نمونه آن است.  ولی کیست که انقلاب فرانسه را
علیرقم نابسامانی های آن که سالها به طول کشید تا به مسیر درست بیافتد  از
بن محکوم کند؟  پس چرا "فرد" اینگونه کینه توزانه با افرادی که در انقلاب
-- نه سود شخصی خود را دنبال میکردند و نه هدفی غیر از سعادت ایران داشتند،
وزمانی که کج روی  حاکمین تمامیت خواه را دیدند بلافاصله راه خود را از
آن  جدا کردند- برخورد می کند ؟
اینکه  "فرد" برای مقاصد خود،  اکنون حتی طرفداران  مصدقی  را  به دو
قسمت "خودی" "ناخودی" تقسیم می کند،  شاید در درجه اول بر می گردد به اینکه
برای ایرانیان حق انتخاب  واقعی قائل نیست؟  این روز ها ملاحظه کردن فیلم
از تهران به قاهره خیلی برای من جالب است.  آنگونه که خود فرح اذهان دارد،
شرایط کاملا خارج از کنترل بود، و بختیار هم تنها کسی بود که این شغل را
پذیرفت.   از گفته فرح معلوم است و او تکرار می کند که اگر شاه نباشد،
فرزند او هست و اگر رضا نباشد  دیگر فرزندان و حتی به گونه ای که پیش می
رود می گوید که حتی اگر فرزندان ما هم نباشند دیگر افراد در خانواده هستند
.... پس مشخص است که -- بختیار-- قرار است عامل --موفقتی برای بیرون رفتن
از مخمصه باشد.  همان گونه که قوام یا امینی بودند. .  پس نگرانی ملیون 
بیهوده هم نبوده.    در این میان فقط علم غیب یا علم "فرد" می خواست که
بداند خمینی هرچه از آزادی در فرانسه می گفت دروغ بود، و موج مردمی که از
شاه بی زار بودند را ملیون باید ترک می کردند و به شاهپور بختیار می
پیوستند که
در این میان و ۳۳ سال بعد، خیلی چیزها می توانست --متفاوت-- از آنچه اتفاق
افتاد - می شد.  برای مثال اگر همان اول بجای پس از ۸ سال خمینی مرده
بود؟   اگر گروگان ها گرفته نمی شدند؟ .....

ایران برای همه ایرانیان

دولت ایرانیان - فقط با رای ایرانیان

نه ولایت وقیح نه پادشاه سفیه

RUNG!

Sorry Ali jaan for some reason I want to use RUNG today, remember Hajiagha?!

Anyway, Masoud's blog was too long and I didn't read it all, I thought you had mentioned that in the middle of a revolution Shah was taking a "vacation", but anyway those were my points.

As for 1953 and 1979, well as we say in Farsi if it is havass once is good enough!  Shah was 21 or 23 years old at the time and he was a Swiss educated person.  Seeing what he did that brought on the conditions during which the revolution of 1979, his son whom he "wanted" to be the king was an 18 year old bisavad whose high school diploma was probably handed over to him!  Not sure he even had diploma at the time.

So what should Iranians have thought when his father who SHOULD have done what he is saying his 18 year old son will do, did from 1953 - 1979?  You see the dilema?

The rest of the stuff about Bakhtiar summarizes about somebody being fired and instead he is saying if he is given more power, things will be better!  What part of YOU'RE FIRED did the Shah or Bakhtiar didn't understand?

This whole idea of calling everyone from Shah to his cronies "patriot" is just silly.  You can call anyone, including Hitler, patriot.  I am more comfortable calling Mubarak patriot than the Shah who went on a "vacation" during turmoil, not once mind you but as he had done before!

I've had people in my family pass away and know the feeling of judging one's life and whether it was good or bad for his/her family.  You can't say since he was good for certain people but not good for the rest he was good in general.  If so, the same can be said about Khomeini who has been good for some people but not the rest.

Take an abusive domestic relationship that starts with love and ends up with the husband beating the crap out of his wife, would you equate the initial love with the final abuse?  Should the wife be worried that leaving him may end her up with a more abusive husband? 

Everything is sacred

EA jaan, that may be,but...

1) The statements:

"Now imagine that Dr. Bakhtiar fully succeeded and in a few months calm
were restored. The Shah NEVER abdicated and had only gone on a vacation
and he was in constant contact with his supporters inside Iran. The Shah
would come back."

was not from me. I quoted Masoud. 

Any bone with that, should be picked with Masoud :-)

2) I reported on what I thought Shah's wishes were. He would have liked to see the throne be passed to his son. That's my understanding of the situation at the time. That's not a demand. This was his wish, from what I gather. I could be wrong.

3) The appointment of Bakhtiar, was not about Reza Pahlavi becoming King. It was about resurrecting the principles of "Constitutional Monarchy", as Mossadegh, and Bakhtiar, and the forefathers of the Constitutional Revolution had envisioned: Power redirected back to the Prime Minister, and the King back to his ceremonial duties.

Bakhtiar was arguably given the most power than any other Prime Minister, in the 20th century, with the possible exception of Dr. Mossadegh. The difference was, in 1953, the Shah was young and still had support of different factions of Iranian society, but in 1978, he was gravely ill, old and tired.
In addition, in 1953, the alternative, arguably, was the JM crew.
In 1978, the alternative was Rulollah Khomeini, the author of "Velayateh Fagheeh".

In my humble opinion, 32 years after the disaster hit in Bahman 1957, one fact remains: There was one man, and one chance only, that could have  prevented the theological dictatorship that has destroyed our homeland ever since: Shahpour Bakhtiar.

Yours,

Ali P. 

Ali jaan you are RUNG!

Shah "NEVER" abdicated?  so what?  It's like your boss calls you to his office to fire you and you say I QUIT!  No one asked him to abdicate or not, they just kicked his ass out regardless of what he wanted to say.  He had said all he wanted to say for the past two+ decades!

He "WANTED" his son to run the country?!  Again, you can't demand anything when you're fired!

As far as Bakhtiar he was too little too late.  What was he saying at that juncture, allow "Prince Reza" to be the king and he'll "promise" to be only the Shah and not govern?!

With the "appointment" of Bakhtiar, the revolution had won?!  The "appointment" of Bakhtiar was (in your words) to allow Prince Reza to become king at the age of 18!  These are all just so silly! 

Everything is sacred

Bakhtiar

Dear Masoud:

You say:

"Now imagine that Dr. Bakhtiar fully succeeded and in a few months calm
was restored. The Shah NEVER abdicated and had only gone on a vacation
and he was in constant contact with his supporters inside Iran. The Shah
would come back."

22 Bahman, was not 28 Mordad.

In 1953, the Shah was young. As the Shah of Iran, he was liked by the man on the street. This is was before SAVAK, and before many other atrocities that was committed under his watch. If there was any reason to hate him, it was only known to a few. The communists had their own agenda, as they always used to. Of the ranks of Dr. Mossadegh, Dr. Fatemi was the only one who hated the Shah. Dr. Mossadegh had his own followers, as did the Shah, as did Kashani; and these groups were not mutually exclusive.

By Bahman 1357, it was over. The Shah was gravely sick, and he was tired, and he felt unappreciated. He knew he had lost the support of Iranian people. I think, and you can get this by all accounts, he had no desire, or will, to come back. He did, however, want to see his son take the throne. 

Dr. Bakhtiat let the genie out of the bottle. There was no going back He remedied all the major sources of dissatisfaction. The Revolution, in many senses, had won, with the appointment of Shahpour Bakhtiar.

I wish he had succeeded. We all have seen the result of his defeat, thanks to those who did not come to his help.

You did not wish for his success.

I guess you got your wish.

Yours,

Ali P.

فرد کبیر، من که خیلی شیفته حقیقت جویی شما هستم،

فرمودید: "برای من حقیقت چراغ راه است و نه وابستگی و دلبستگی به باور و علائق شخصی."
دو کلمه برای من بفرمایید، آیا اسراییل در ساختن بند ۲۰۹ اوین شرکت داشته یا خیر؟
باور بفرمایید منظور من هم فقط روشنگری است.   آیا در
تربیت ساواک اسراییل نقشی داشته؟ یا خیر؟  اصولا قدری در مورد ارتباط
ساواک و اسراییل اگر هر گونه شرح و توضیحی دارید ممنون میشوم.

مسعود

مسعود؛

من از دو واژه توصیفی گیج و ابله برای دو شخصیت تاریخی استفاده و دلیل آنرا هم دادم، برای بلاهت هم ویدیو با صدای خود ابله دو طبقه را ضمیمه کردم.

شما که این دو واژه توصیفی را "رکیک"   میدانی لابد مخالف باور من در باره عملکرد گیج الله بازرگان و ابله دوطبقه سنجابی هستی، بسیار خوب، سئوال:

آیا فکر نمیکنی بجای حرفهایی که نه گفتن آنان برازندۀ  شماست و نه  ته آن به جایی میرسد، به رد ادعا و باور من بپردازی؟

برای نمونه آن قولنامه سه ماده ای پاریس که در آن جبهه ملی را خلع ید کرد بکنار، از پاچه خاری از خمینی توسط ابله دوطبقه در ویدیو ضمیمه که دلیل بلاهت آورده شده دفاع کن.

یا از اینکه خود گیج الله گفت "نه یک بار هزار بار...." از کاری که کرده بود و همراهی با وحوش پشیمان بود را رد و از کاری که خود او از انجام  آن پشیمان بود دفاع کن. ویدیو شا پسرش در کالیفرنیا را هم ضمیمه کردم که دار و دسته او که شامل ابراهیم یزدی مصدق دوست هم میشود  تا چه اندازه تحریف تاریخ میکنند.

میدانم نوشته های من عصبانیت کرده، از اینکه عصبانی شدی متاسفم، ولیکن باورم را بیان کرده ام و اگر با استدلال و نه غوغا، باورم را مواجه کنی، اول از تو سپاسگزاری کرده و بعد بدون فوت وقت باورم را تغییر میدهم.

برای من حقیقت چراغ راه است و نه وابستگی و دلبستگی به باور و علائق شخصی.

خیر پیش.

Finally a subject we can completely agree on….

I hardly ever read Fred’s twice a day propaganda but I can only imagine, if not by the title of it.  As you correctly mentioned, Dr. Mossadegh was only a human and as human we all make mistake but Iran has not had any one to match what he accomplished and/or stood for, in all of our life time.

As for Fred’s motive and occupation goes, well I believe  it has been a waste of public money and Israel could be spending it more wisely.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

correcting a typo

The reason that Ms. Mahshid Amirshahi is alive is that Dr. Bakhtiar did not succeed. If Dr. Bakhtiar had succeeded, the result would have been the return of the fascist monarchists to power, and if Ms. Mahshid Amirshahi wrote what she did, she would have been jailed, tortured, raped, and murdered by our monarchists as they did repeatedly to any poor soul who wrote a criticism many times milder than what she wrote against the monarchists.