Fighting Words

Yeah, but asI said all you have to do is

either click on 'my account' at the upper left hand corner of the home page while you're logged in, or on your name next to your avatar. That will take you to your account with the tracking section. Most people who use the site regularly check the tracking (or those e-mails, which I don't get either) a lot. I stay logged in too. Another thing, there is always the More Recent Comments section.

All these features make the site very streamlined. You just keep going clickety click while you're using it and that's how you keep up on all the discussions, old and new. So it isn't really a question of keeping it in mind, it's jjust something that becomes automatic.

believe it or not

no!  never used it/  The thing is that I rarely go to "my account" section because I remain logged on in my laptop.  But I'll keep it in mind.   

Okay, but do you know that there's a track button

in your account (when you log in or if you click on your name next to your avatar), and if you click on the track button there is a list of every thread you've ever posted on, and when a new post comes on any of them that thread goes to the top of the list?

Rosie

I never hit the track button because the email is connected to my handheld and I don't want to be bothered with email notifications on my cell (especially when I'm in meetings) every time someone leaves a comment. I'm already addicted to this site and do not need more distractions while I'm at work.

OI, don't you check your tracking or get the e-mails

notifying you when there's a new post on a thread you posted on?

Wait, don't tell me. You don't use the same e-mail account as when you registered and you rarely check the old one so you didn't know about the e-mail notifications, and you didn't notice there was a tracking under your account where anytime there's a new post on a thread you posted on, the thread goes to the top of the list.

wow, I didn't know that this blog had come back to life

after about a month long hiatus.  When i last saw it, it had 27 comments.  The other thirty two were apparently added about a month later.  Sorry I missed the discussion.  

MM,

Care to explain why? Whats wrong with my reasons?

No Fear - wrong on all 3 accounts

just simply wrong:

wrong on (s)election criteria

wrong on VF's authority

wong on the meaning of democracy

With your tunnel-vision, no amount of arguments will cut it.  Sorry.

Fooladi jaan

I hear you loud and clear. I'm not really trying to "debate" the West-residing IRI Cyber Groupies, but rather to point out their lying to other readers (though, most Iranians already realize that they are pathological liars). Dialogue and debate with Islamo-Nazis would be similar to dialogue and debate with German Nazis, i.e. pointless. 

MM,

 You said:

"* Out of 476 candidates for the Iranian presidency, only 4 were pre-selected by a non-elected body to participate in the (s)elections. "

Yes, i know. But i am trying to build my case based on numbers here which is the most important characteristic of a democracy. By that i mean, Ahmadinejad won 25 million votes. It was less than what Khatami won before, but it was still the majority of eligible iranian voters this time around. Mousavi won 14 million which was a very strong opposition.

Do you mean , you wish to have more groups involved to represent a small number of iranians living abroad? or have a MKO candidate? As i said, with more than 40 millions register voters in the last election, it tells me that the major players in Irans political future is fully represented in the elections, currently. You have to admit, its hard to beat this arguement.

"Even with a (s)elected president at hand, there is a higher authority by the name of velayate faghih that can veto anything in all three branches of the government.  So, what is the point of selecting a president anyways? "

True. But what do you want to do about it (Read my " Az Koja Maloom" blog which i am trying to collect debates on VF).  Khamenie is no where close to how khomeini was when it came to government interferences. I don't think Ahmadinejad has a problem with the supreme leader as long as khamenie doesn't step over his rights and responsibilities as defined in our constitution. Our president has rights and responsibilities defined in our constitution too and must fully exercise those rights. On a personal note, i believe Khamenie is the " religious " leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 I would ask you to inquire from you father on the meaning of democracy, but I am confident that he is in your mold.  The apple does not fall far from the tree.

The only tree that i belong to is the Iran tree and don't you ever dare to doubt that. We are all Iranians. We might differ in our ideologies and approaches, but we all want the best for our motherland.

In regards to the meaning of democracy, i have a very simple definition which defines it as simply the " Majority rules ". If you have a better or different definition, lets hear it.

PS: Did someone call me a psycho path? Can you hear the lambs screaming?

Irani, Irani , sorry for intrusion, but may I ask:

Why do you waste your time and energy debating with someone with a fake user ID, "decorated" with the picture of AN, a mentally disturbed psycho path?

I just returned from Iran after spoending under a week there (I wish I could stay more, but need to get back to work, as nobody pays me to spend time on IC as their propagandist!). Tallking to people back home, everybody wants us to publicize their plight under the criminal regime of khalifeh khamenei. the depth and volume of opposition was indeed astonishing.

Our duty should be to let the whole world know what is being done to our country man and woman in the name of religion.

As for the "user ID's" supporting the islamic regime, sooner or later they will watch on TV, from their hiding holes in the west,  the paymasters paying for their crimes against Iran and it's people, dangling from the end of  ropes in front of  the embassy of syria.

Maziar jaan

I think there was a problem with my computer, and that's why my comment was posted 3 times. But to your point, you are absolutely correct. There is something "por roo" (and a little funny too, if you think about it) about an IRI Groupie to lives in the West but to defend an anti-Western regime that murders and rapes Iranians. But, my main point is to challenge the lies of IRI Groupies. Liars should be challenged, and have their lies exposed. That's all. "Rooz khosh".

OOH my..

Irani jan you got so angry at him(it) that you hit the send button 3 times..........

All said was the bitter truth about the current situation in Iran and mal-treatment of our fellow Iranians..

But these BACHE MULLAHS are poor roo and will never give in;

as we say in Iran : khonet ra vassey in O.B ha kassif nakon.

DOWN WITH IRR & ITS SUPPORTERS.              Maziar

No Fear: Quit lying, you lying liar

Ahmadinejad has a bit more than 25 million supporters in Iran including me.

Even if we accept that 25 million voted for Ahmadinejad to be "president" of the Rapist Regime in Iran's sham "election", you tell one big whopper of a lie: YOU ARE NOT IN IRAN, YOU LYING LIAR. Iranian.com is blocked in Iran by the Rapist Regime. You are living in the West while defending an anti-Western, murdering, raping, and thieving regime. Your IRI Cyber Groupie kind lives like a cancerous tumor in free Western societies. 

It has a very strong case to make about the legitimacy of a system. 

A dictatorship which kills its own citizens by the tens of thousands (mostly for non-violent offenses) and which rapes teenage girls with official sanction is legitimate? Iranian people have no rights. Is that legitimate? Is there anything more pathological than the mind of a West-residing Islamist? 

No Fear: Quit lying, you lying liar

Ahmadinejad has a bit more than 25 million supporters in Iran including me.

Even if we accept that 25 million voted for Ahmadinejad to be "president" of the Rapist Regime in Iran's sham "election", you tell one big whopper of a lie: YOU ARE NOT IN IRAN, YOU LYING LIAR. Iranian.com is blocked in Iran by the Rapist Regime. You are living in the West while defending an anti-Western, murdering, raping, and thieving regime. Your IRI Cyber Groupie kind lives like a cancerous tumor in free Western societies. 

It has a very strong case to make about the legitimacy of a system. 

A dictatorship which kills its own citizens by the tens of thousands (mostly for non-violent offenses) and which rapes teenage girls with official sanction is legitimate? Iranian people have no rights. Is that legitimate? Is there anything more pathological than the mind of a West-residing Islamist? 

No Fear: Quit lying, you lying liar

Ahmadinejad has a bit more than 25 million supporters in Iran including me.

Even if we accept that 25 million voted for Ahmadinejad to be "president" of the Rapist Regime in Iran's sham "election", you tell one big whopper of a lie: YOU ARE NOT IN IRAN, YOU LYING LIAR. Iranian.com is blocked in Iran by the Rapist Regime. You are living in the West while defending an anti-Western, murdering, raping, and thieving regime. Your IRI Cyber Groupie kind lives like a cancerous tumor in free Western societies. 

It has a very strong case to make about the legitimacy of a system. 

A dictatorship which kills its own citizens by the tens of thousands (mostly for non-violent offenses) and which rapes teenage girls with official sanction is legitimate? Iranian people have no rights. Is that legitimate? Is there anything more pathological than the mind of a West-residing Islamist? 

Elections or Selections

Elections or Selections?

* Out of 476 candidates for the Iranian presidency, only 4 were pre-selected by a non-elected body to participate in the (s)elections.

* Even with pre-screening of the candidates, the so called elections were fraudulent and the religious elite did not trust their own 4 selections to compete.  The least these Mullahs could do was wait 2-4 days before making their announcement instead of making it SO obvious that hardly any ballots were hand-counted in 2 hours.

* Even with a (s)elected president at hand, there is a higher authority by the name of velayate faghih that can veto anything in all three branches of the government.  So, what is the point of selecting a president anyways?

* I would ask you to inquire from you father on the meaning of democracy, but I am confident that he is in your mold.  The apple does not fall far from the tree.

MM,

A " selection " that everybody participated in ( In numbers atleast, not different school of thoughts ).

Ahmadinejad has a bit more than 25 million supporters in Iran including me. We currently represent the majority which elected the president of Iran. The entire population of the Iranian diasporans abroad should be less than 10 million ( I figure ). Even if the majority of Iranians abroad be able to vote as a bloc in an ideal election, we would have still won.

I wish everybody could participate in a free election, but for now, i can live with an election which still brings everybody in Iran out to vote. It has a very strong case to make about the legitimacy of a system.

 We represent the best chance to break some taboos in Iran and to bring justice ( Or expose ) corrupt elements of IR version 1.0. Quick fix solutions are the wrong solutions. Haven't you learnt from your father?

ur definition of democracy is wrong & AN won selection

.

Rosie, Comrad, MM, Benross,

Rosie,

I will participate in a debate about Ahmadinejad , if you wish to moderate or participate in it. It might be easier to invite those who are reform minded to participate . To discuss the best solutions for gradual changes and the ideal candidates which can make it happen.

Benross,

I wish you didn't leave the debate. You might be surprise how much we have in common. While you come across as an idealist, i try to be more pragmatic. I don't really have a huge problem with what you are saying. Our differences are minimal and we might differ on how to reach your idealistic goals.

Comrad,

You call the relationship with democracy and culture an oxymoron. I don't think so. For example, Europe is moving to ban certain religious freedoms ( Islamic practices ) in its countries to protect its cultural background. If you sincerely defend freedom of expression as a foundation to a democratic country, you should not subject your citizens to religious bans and limitations. Obviously, its an oxymoron, but it is done to protect its culture from a foreign concept. I can accept this as protective measures and will argue that the same concept should be applied to Iran.

MM,

Democracy is about the acceptance of the rule of majority. Last time i checked, Ahmadinejad won the election without the green leaders providing tangible proofs that there were election frauds. When Khatami won the election, i didn't go in the streets to protest it and burn vehicles. Khatami won with 70 percent of the votes and i accepted it.

Those who were in power prior to Ahmadinejad, want to cling to it by discrediting Ahmadinejad the same way they did it to Bani Sadr. Its the same approach and it is wrong. You have to wait until Ahmadinejad's term is over. There is NO ifs and buts.

Interesting

Interesting that some folks are talking about the existing democracy in Iran, but they are totally silent when any opposition to the ruling class is dealt with beating, torture and murder. 

nepotism, corruption and murder run deep in the divine cesspool.

Since when is a comrade for democracy?

Democracy, in my opinion, is inherently intertwined with modernity. And it's global application is relatively new, and modern indeed. Using democracy in order to hang onto the cultural past is an oxymoron. I believe.

I hope you have a good weekend. Despite our profound political differences, I enjoy your writings.

All, Ben, No Fear

As I've been following I kept thinking what Khaleh articulated in what was then the last post on the thread:

the proof why iri can not be reformed

by khaleh mosheh on Sat Jun 19, 2010 01:46 PM PDT

is the blatant cheating in the last years election and the religo-military coup. If the system was refomable it would have submitted to itself to reform secondary to accepting the true result of the election then. There is no indication that the ruling elite of the iri are in any way prepared to give an inch even in relatively insignificant issues such as women's clothing.

My point is not whether or not I agree, but that discussion of this between 'camps', pretty hopeless to reach common ground on before the elections, since then, although at times interesting, now seems pointless, despite efforts such as Abarmard's:

Forget the events after the election for a moment and think how easily people after Khatami were able to display their dissatisfaction with many policies. The policy continued up until the recent election. The system had started to feel secure enough to allow these displays because they were not based on revolutionaries and systematic changes, but gradual and within the system reforms. They don't feel threaten if they trust that people support the system but not some policies. This is reformable and this is a fact.

No, Abarmard, of one thing you can be sure. They will never forget.

What is far more interesting to me from my perch and also far more productive are efforts by both 'camps' to strategize internally. Especially more productive than some non-Reformists 'kvetching' and/or predicting doomsday scenarios.  

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

Well, that's how I see things from my perch,  But what sctually prompted me to post here was this part of a post from Ben to me from the Mousavi cartoon thread yesterday:

It was a bogus election like

by benross on Fri Jun 18, 2010 04:14 PM PDT


It was a bogus election like all bogus elections of IRI. People tried to milk it. It didn't budge....The guy who broke IRI taboos, was not Moosavi to begin with. It was Ahmadinejad. It didn't go as planed, nevertheless we are now here..

The part about Ahmadinejad is what No Fear's been saying since he came here, and I would like to hear more about it. So I'm wondering if No Fear and Ben would be willing to discuss this, along with others who agree or disagree. I read (or tried to read) No Fear's blog months ago "I Voted For Ahmadinejad. Ask Me Anything', but it was too chaotic and got too hostile (on the part of non-Reformists, mostly) for me to really follow.

The subject is off topic here, so if Ben and No Fear are willing I think it would be better if I set up a separate blog for whenever you prefer.

Thanks.

ps. Oh, I see Ben left. Perhaps he will return. :oP

Comrade,

"...a Muslim bird never flies. (s)he is so content with the confinement of the cage. "

If that is what the majority of our people decide to be, then so be it. This is democracy. No one said its perfect. We have to learn to respect the rule , will and demands of the majority. If you feel you are in the minority, so be it.  Support those who share similar ideas with you. Work within the current laws. Get your man in the parliament or office, change the laws as a result.  Be proactive.

That's why...

"Leave it to people to decide what is best for them based on their cultural boundaries."

...a Muslim bird never flies. (s)he is so content with the confinement of the cage.

Benross,

This whole debate started when a poster stated that FREEDOMS are necessary before we can exercize our Democratic rights.

I argued that through " domocracy" and " public opinions " we define where our freedoms start and ends based on our historical and cultural background.

You came in and argued that the freedoms derive from modernity and we must introduce ideas in the society before we see where the norm would be. I questioned that form of freedom, again pointing to our cultural backgrounds and i believe my arguement was solid when i said we should look at this norm in our past.

I have no fear when you state that we can use our freedom of expression to regulate freedom of expression. Contradictions don't really scare me off, its something for you to deal with.

You could solve this complex issue by allowing people to set these laws and limits ( as i said before ) without giving the absolute freedom beforehand. Let people decide what is accepted and what is not. Freedom is not Gods laws and its not a constant value as you claim it to be. Its rather a relative value that would change by time and places. Leave it to people to decide what is best for them based on their cultural boundries.

last comment

You start mumbling dear. But I recognize that it's your genuine preoccupation.

I don't understand your fascination with naked women with regards to human rights (actually I do!) but in many countries in the West, it is illegal for women -or for men for that matter, albeit with a paternalistic interpretation- to be naked in public as 'improper conduct'. These laws were produced in a civil society, using their FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION to regulate their interaction. It didn't stop women to protest these laws, USING THEIR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, and occasionally change the law. You can use your freedom of expression to regulate women dressing in public. Others will use their freedom of expression too. What is your fear No Fear, if you know you are right and if you know what the society will choose?

The fundamental difference of a modern society is that the norm of a society is freely established by each and every FREE individual, not by understanding of single person, on behalf of others. 

Islamist wisdom...

To findout what the norm is in a society, you don't provide an imported idea , and by implementing it in a society, finding out what the norm would be later on. You just need to look in our past to see what the norm is.

In Iran's recent past, it was not the "norm" to mandate "hejab"; it was not the "norm" to stone adulterers to death; it was not the "norm" to rape teenage girls in jail prior to killing them, since a virgin would go to "heaven", etc. The IRI doesn't flog women 80 times for walking down the street" naked"; it flogs them if they would dare to remove their headscarf! You have to love how an IRI Groupie settles down in the West and then defends the IRI's state-imposed and state-sacntioned murder and mayhem by referring to the "religious" nature of "society", etc, etc. Somehow, Iranian "society" didn't implement these practices until after the Disaster of 1979. It is a valuable education for all to see precisely how the mind of a West-residing IRI Groupie works.

Benross,

If i were an idealist, then i wouldn't have a problem with a single word you are saying. But there are fatal flaws in your arguement.

you say:

"How do you know women walking around without pants will not be the norm in free Iran unless you provide the total freedom for all citizens"

To findout what the norm is in a society, you don't provide an imported idea , and by implementing it in a society, finding out what the norm would be later on. You just need to look in our past to see what the norm is.

However, i do agree with you that we should define our freedoms with what is the norm in our society.

But what i am mostly curious to hear from you is based on what standards and laws are you willing to define our personalized freedom? Is it going to be the universal declaration of human rights? if it is, how this article below can address the religious nature of our society?

Obviously, a woman who strips herself naked in the middle of the street, can not be considered freedom of expression. But why do i say that? Is it because i am a backward islamist or because of cultural considerations ?  Do you see why each nation has to define their own set of rights and freedoms?

the proof why iri can not be reformed

is the blatant cheating in the last years election and the religo-military coup. If the system was refomable it would have submitted to itself to reform secondary to accepting the true result of the election then. There is no indication that the ruling elite of the iri are in any way prepared to give an inch even in relatively insignificant issues such as women's clothing.