Fascists Everywhere On Iranian.com!


Rosie T.
by Rosie T.

(This is not my "goodbye" blog.)


It's happening again. Same ol same ol'.  Bloodbath on a politcal thread. This one it's Amirnasiri's recent blog directed to NIAC (sorry can't past link).  It is about military intervention in Iran.  Naturally it would be unreasoable tto expect that the two sides, especially the more extreme ones, would love each other, let alone like each other, but I wonder why they can't at least hate each other with a little class.

So the first step should be to scrutinize semantics to see if at least some common language and parameters for productive civil discourse can be arrived at. And that started to happen yactually. It happened around the word "Fascist". But just as we were making progress about what that word actually meant and how it applies to the IRI and I asked a bunch of questions everyone dropped the ball.

So while they were yelling at each other, this is what I figured out:

The "right" believes the left are Fascists because the IRI is a Fascist regime and they support it by not coming out enough about the human rights violations and not advocating intervention. So they support a Fascist regime so they are Fascists.

The "left" believes the "right" are Fascists because they want to bomb so their agenda must be a Fascist power play, Most of them don't seem to believe the IRI has a lot of Fascistic elemetns or at least they don't want to discuss it much. So the "right" is Fascist because they want to topple this regime militarily,

So if no one will discuss what Fascism actually means and what the IRI is in relation to it, , I guess I must be wrong for pursuing this issue and they must both be right and they are all Fascists. Even though they have completely different political ideologies and stratagems.

And the only one who's not a Fascist is me.

Because I'm wishy washy. 



Recently by Rosie T.CommentsDate
guess who
Aug 19, 2008
what is the color of love
Aug 17, 2008
Our Generation (for nazy kaviani)
Aug 15, 2008
more from Rosie T.

Kashani, you still don't get it

by Q on

I will explain one last time. Your explantion is not logical, but emotional, as you yourself have admitted, based on "IRI has ruined my country."

The discussion on fascism and who embodies it is getting lost in your anti-Regime uber alles rhetoric, either out of ignorance or malicious pro-war stance, just like I described. 

I have explained and debated, shown evidence and argued specific numbers and data with you, only for you to come back full circle and just repeat your own unfounded and biased assumptions. This time is no different.

The only point to be made is on performative fascism. I do now, and have always, credited people like yourself who choose to believe that changing the regime in Iran is the supreme priority of everyone in the Universe. I think it's rediculous and don't follow this myself, but I do accept that that as a valid belief. In other words, if you think regime change is the issue, fine, go ahead and say whatever you want against it and spend all your time on this, as you obviously do.

I, however, have a different priority set. In my opinion, immediate war by the United States is the most devestating possiblity for Iranians of all beliefs. Religious, IRI supporter, Monarchist, anti regime, everyone. I have proven this with every scientific and objective measure that I can. I don't say I support the regime, but overthrowing it is not my priority. It is your priority, I understand and do not have a problem with it.

Here's the fascist part: You do not accept that I can have a different priority set than you. I am willing to say, your activity is legitimate, but you are not willing to accept my activity as legitimate or give me any credit for it. For you, someone can not be simply against war, they must be against the regime. Is this not fundemantalism?

I accept your world view and encourage you to pursue it, but you do not extend the same courtesy to me. I have never attacked you for simply being anti regime. But I have suffered many attacks by people who speculate that I am supporting IRI based on the fact that I have anti-war rhetoric.

This is as clear as I can make it. And I'm also absolutely sure you will not get it since your brain is just hard-wired a certain way and can't be helped.

The stuff about my "bad language in Farsi" is all bullshit. I have several times responded to curse words in Farsi and the ones I use are never the worst kind which is sexual, about people's family and race. Mine are almost always about intelligence and stubbornnes. That's exactly the cowards who made the accusations couldn't put a link to all these many instances of my supposedly using these words. It would show that it was a response to often worst insults in Farsi.

It's a dog and pony show for Rosie because they know she doesn't understand Farsi. Another shamelss fascist tactic.


Disappointment?! In an individual.....others

by Dreamweaver (not verified) on

Never place too much faith in one individual

We all have a right to be who we are and are meant to be. However, no one has a right to hurt another.

We must learn to co-exist, if there is to be peace among us.

Winds of Change.....Scorpions


Keep fighting among yourselves but the world will continue to change all around you for the better or worse.

Farhad Kashani

Rosie T, most of these guys

by Farhad Kashani on

Rosie T, most of these guys don't even belive in "debates" and "free exchange of ideas". Have you ever read the language they use? They are trying to intimidate the Iranian people just like their beloved model, the regime in Tehran, is doing, by being bulligerint and loud. To most of them, democratic principals are "Imperialist tools to opress other people".

Lets discuss these issues me and you.  




I know Q by his words,

by magma (not verified) on

I know Q by his words, especially his writings in the very beginning of the Iranian.com's new format; Maybe he has mellowed out a bit lately but I will never trust his kind; he uses deragatory Persian words that are so disturbing and indicate to me a certain kind of upbrining.

At any rate, I'm glad that you're staying and hope you're able to rehabilitate Q.

BTW, this is the best blog you've written so far and you're on to something and hope you can spell it for those who still don't get it by elaborating on what our community needs...I wish we could clone you...

I hope to see and read you soon. Be well.

Rosie T.


by Rosie T. on

I have said everything I have to say about q below. I have nothing else to say. If you have a question about him ask him yourself directly. He can answer you or not. that is his prerogative. But don't address me any more about him unless you are trying to engage in a three-way dialog between you and the two of us.

I have nothing moreto say to anyone about q except to q.



Rosie T.

I know qumars

by Rosie T. on

as the only person on this forum who had the depth of understanding and faith in my credibility to realize that when I wrote a blog explaining that I was leaving because of a painful personal situation related to close friends of mine who are on the website, that I meant it and if I said it was for good it meant for good. I know him to be the only person who actually bothered to write a blog asking me to stay and challenging the community to take up the issue AS A COMMUNITY ISSUE, and having the patience to discuss it with me long hours by e-mail offsite. I know qumars as the only "proud Iranian male" who dared to say publicly that the website NEEDS me. (you'd be surprised at others who said it privately) I know q as the ony reason I am here today.

I also know q as someone who posts newsfeeds about IRI human rights violations which everyone conveniently forgets when they accuse him of being a mullah or some such ridiculous thing. I know q as the person below who defined totalitariansim as a blind allegiance to war and himself as an avowed pacifist . Maybe you don't agree with his definition, fish, fine, but look what you're doing. HE JUST GAVE YOU A DEFINITION OF TOTALITARIANISM according to which HE IS NOT and now you are saying he is, without defining what that means to you or acknowledging that you contradict his definiton completely!!! WHat kind of debating is that? So who is this q you are asking how I know? Him or you??????


Believe me people with a totalitarian mindset are not asking or helping me to stay on this site.
They don't need me here.Or particularly want me either.

How do you know q?







Rosie: How do you know Q?

by magma (not verified) on

Rosie: How do you know Q? How do you know who he really is???

I don't wish Q or people with his mindset anywhere near power in the future Iran. He is the embodiment of everything totalitarian.

Rosie T.

Farhad, !Q

by Rosie T. on

Q, will you answer Farhad? I have no idea whether you've had discussons five hundred times before because I was away for a while (for the same reasons I need to take another break btw). But this is the first time I'VE had the opportunity to see a dialog between you so I'd like to see you address his points if it is possible.

He says he's antiwar so he CAN'T qualify as a complete totalitarian (your defintion of Fascism Q I would say is a definition of totalitariansm in general of which Fascism is a subset and you yourself state this at the end of your post). He is trying to get logically to the crux of the differences between us. and I agree with him about many of the DIFFERENCES--whether there is a compromise possible is antoher story-- and Fascists don't do this, not so carefully. And he isn't stupid enough to think you are going to run back to Qom on a Lear jet paid for by Khameniei and don your turban as soon as your insidious work on this forum is done. Like so many idiots here.

There are many points I could debate of Farhad's but I won't have access to free Internet probably til Monday so I can't. They are far too complex. All I will say is that there ARE fundamental, VERY basic differences between the two sides and even just to scrutinize them is a big step. Why?

BECAUSE I BELIEVE PEACE STARTS RIGHT HERE BE#TWEEN INDIVIDUALS. On these threads. Myabe you CAN'T find common ground ideologicaolly or strategically. That's not even the most important thing IMHO. The important thing is HAVING the peaceful dialog. THAT IS PEACE.

I also want to say that in the course of the last couple of days Farhad a couple of people from "our side" so-called have come forth and expressed: Mehdi Palang. wants really productive dialogs with people of completely opposing views, Alborzi says compassion is key. Now Abarmard wasn't around but he is ALWAYS conciliatory, he ALWAYS says I'll concede this if you concede that but the problem is he has very foew "takers". .

Now the reason I've decided to send my reply to Q privately is because it contains several case studies of people who are either active on this forum or are well-known in the Iranian community and I know personally. However I will address one thing very specifically here: Q, I am NOT happy with Amir's failure to answer my simple questions. If he won't do it, that is indicative of a totalitarian mindset. But I'll wait and see what he does. Maybe he is what you say, maybe he isn't. I have to admit the fist logo looks pretty bad. But the fact is I DON'T KNOW him, I have never engaged in discussion with him before and I ALWAYS give it a shot. I want to know what KIND of strike he advocates. A surgical strike on nuclear targets is DIFFERENT from carpet bombing of major cities.  It is. But here's the real point you're missing, Q, the major point about me:

If the only thing that happened between Amir and me is that Amir will stop calling people cockroaches or anything sounding like that ON THIS FORUM ((I don't care if he does it with his friends), even if ONLY because he knows if he does I will pester him ceaselessly in public..if that is the only thing I accomplished--to elimate that word from the discourse here where it cvotaminates the entire website...

Q, that's enough for me. And all the time and energy I put into the whole thing was well worth it. Not wasted at all.  See?.

Q, I'll send you that long e-mail probqably Monday.



Farhad Kashani

Q, you are showing

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, you are showing incredible inability to understand the point, again. Nothing like you guys’ argument and logic damages the democratic movement of the Iranian people.


The ones who claim that disapproving of the IRI and holding the IRI responsible for any war inflicted on Iran, is an invitation for other countries to wage war on Iran, are either misguided or are engaging in character assassination.


The difference between us and your side is fundamental, and that illustrates in the belief that you guys, deep inside, and even vocally sometimes, do not believe IRI is responsible for the animosity between U.S and Iran, and we believe it is. From that starting point, is where both of our arguments go different directions. We are saying that it is the IRI who is responsible for a war if one were to start between the U.S and Iran, because of IRIs actions the last 30 years and the fact that warmongering is an essential part of regime’s survival technique. There is huge difference between opposing a country’s politics, or the country itself, and starting a clash of civilization between Iran (or Islam) and the West, like Khomeini did, by not only rejecting any values that he considered “Western” such as human rights, but attacking them on a global scale by launching “Export of revolutionary ideas.i.e, Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism”. As result, and considering that the regime has destroyed our country in every aspect you can imagine, we believe that the illegal, illegitimate and fascist regime of the IRI should not remain in power. How realistic is that goal and whether we can achieve it, and what Iranians, including me, have done towards achieving that goal is irrelevant, whats important is we are setting that goal as the ultimate goal, and we are raising our expectations as we should. We believe that preventing a war between U.S and Iran is not done by blindly bashing the U.S; rather, the efforts should be overwhelmingly focused on the removal of the regime, with simultaneous efforts here to educate U.S politicians and public opinion about the truth nature of the IRI, to prove war is not necessary.


Now, just as we see the efforts on part of the International community in Zimbabwe, N Korea, Myanmar, Serbia, Sudan, and elsewhere, to promote human rights and at least a change of “attitude” in those regimes, the same should be applied to Iran, x 100, because the regime poses the greatest threat to world peace and its leaders have done much more crimes than lets say what Myanmar has done. That doesn’t mean Iran should be bombed. It means there should be a collective, focused and precise effort, which does not include a war, to bring the regime to its knees. That effort should be led by us Iranians, and we do accept any help from anyone who sees the IRI as a common enemy and is not expecting any giving up of sovereignty in return.

Rosie T.

That is beside the point, Fish,

by Rosie T. on

because the term anti-Colonialst, or shall we say anti-Imperialist, has a specific meaning these days which is the West is the colonizer. Beyond that I won't go until you explain whether you really consider yourself an anti-Colonialist and if so how, or if the name you cchose is facetious.

There are goldfish and there are goldfish..

Finally I said that post was UNDER CONSTRUCTION. It was and IS not finsished. I deleted it for the reason stated below. But I'll be happy to answer you if you answer me.



Q is an anti-colonialist?

by Anti-colonialist (not verified) on

Q is an anti-colonialist? Anti-IRI? which pro-Human rights feed?? hahahaha

Q is only anti-colonialist when Islam is not the colonizers...

Rosie T.

Okay, Q,

by Rosie T. on

Q I was in the process of drafting you a long reply here but half of it got lost. Maybe it is for the best because it might be better as a private e-mail. However I won't be able to do it til probably Monday for various reasons. In the meantime I assure you I am FINE:

and could you please if you have time:

1) go to Khar's blog, Am I a Liberal? and check my reply to him for accuracy. If I goofed please clarify.

2) go back to Amir's NIAC blog and answer as best you can my questions about Fascism. I agree with you for various reasons I do not really advocate these dictionary/cook book definitions, but I still would like answers about the specific questions I raise.


Mola Nasredeen

All the facists must repent now!

by Mola Nasredeen on

before reccess start.

Rosie T.


by Rosie T. on

It may indeed be easy for you to point to Fascists, the problem is they don't usually consider themselves Fascists on this forum (or else they wouldn't be here IMHO, they'd devote their time and energies to some wingnut I'net site that considers themselves openly Fascist and pursues their agenda vigorously, or at least would have no interest in dialoguing with people so different from them; so the problem is that when they are called Fascists they go totally deaf. The paradox is that if this word were avoided as name-calling, there might be just enough dialog to convince them to scrutinize whether they do have Fascists elements in their politics, To make this possible it has to be conceded that the scrutiny will be reciprocal (even if you are sure you're not a Fascist).

Many will argue that it's a long shot, my response is that a long shot is better than no shot at all. And to point out that the youth are particularly malleable and the elderly are often malleable too because they are ready to look at their life and evaluate it as they slowly but surely prepare for the biggest tranformation they have ever faced in their lives...

Colonel Hemayat is a good example. Many people considered Colonel Hemayat a Fascist but through patient discussion with him , he agreed to TRY to avoid cursing, and this enabled him to have more productive dialogs with people who were opposed to his ideology. They began to welcome him into the community. He slowly began to concede that perhaps the Shah had tortured at least some people after all (before he TRULY believed the Shah was incapable of this, as incredible as it may seem to yu and me, because he loved the Shah and considered him to be a gentle and compassionate soul).

It is interesting to note that the Colonel was in favor of every possible action against the IRI except for ANY military intervention whatsoever. So a lot of people had a lot of common ground with him, people on opposite ends of the political spectrum. They just refused to see it at first because of a semantic problem--he cursed all the time.

A long shot is better than no shot at all.

I worry about Sarhang Jenab is it??? He is almost 80 and has a very physically strenuus job. I hope that he is okay..



Just follow the nose

by Alborzi (not verified) on

Its easy to point to fascists, its harder to have a compassionate position that does not have any hidden agendas, thats the only way to fly first class.

Rosie T.

Q, I can't do your post justice tonight. I need to read it more

by Rosie T. on

carefully so I will postpone my long good-bye until tomorrow. The funny thing is Jamshid just told me the exact same thing, that I was disappointing him. I don't want to disappoint you. Don't worry. I will get back to you tomorrow. Patience.

Rosie T.

Mehdi P.

by Rosie T. on

I want meaningful discussions too! When we are closer to each other in ideology and/or disposition, sometimes we can dissolve our differences. When we're a little further the process takes longer and we erode them.  When we are VERY far away the best we can expect at the beginning is to chip away one chip at a time.

Regarding the current discussion on military intervention the problem is compounded by the dead seriousness of the issue and the timeline because of the coming elections. So it's a tough one.

Since I need to take a break here unfortunately my suggestion for these chips is semantic.  I think there are three words that need to be avoided:

Fascist which people are using on BOTH sides (until it is defined and its applicatoin to IRI clarified), the "T" word--I know this CHARACTER TYPE Q describes, he has great psychological insight but everyone else knows what he means by now too and it makes people go DEAF when it's used on them, it it were avoided for NOW there might be enough communication at a future date to actually DISCUSS it; ad 3) cockroach or anything like that that Amir used, to tell you the truth this is standard in political discourse, I might say "that scumbag Bush" or "that verminous plague Cheney" among like-minded people, but i wouldn't use it in a forum where it were necessary to open dialogs with people who might sympathize with this administration. It would be lethal for the discourse.

JJ once told me that his greatest hope would be that you would all be able TO SIT DOWN AT A TABLE TOGETHER without killing each other. I was listening to MLK's I Have a Dream speech today and he said the exact same thing about blacks and whites. SIT DOWN TOGETHER AT A TABLE. Now they can do that even in Mississippi. Dreams can come true, so can dinners.

So that would be my suggestion for now: avoid those three terms or anything like them and see what happens next. :o)



Bravo Rosie!

by Khar on

There you go girl, your best writing yet! Don’t worry about being Wishy-Washy, I got news for you we all are; the "Left" the "Right" or the "Middle"! Only blabbering with false set of Balls.




Mola Nasredeen

facist facist on the wall, who is the facistest of them all..

by Mola Nasredeen on

Does anyone has the answer to this?


Rosie, you DO need the time off

by Q on

you are beginning to disappoint me.

You are increasingly committing a classic media fallacy: creating balance where there is none.

If I am stronger than you, come over and punch you in the face and take over your house. You can get up and demand the whole house back. however, some "impartial" observer can come along and say, "why don't you share the house?" You know, "this aggressor has a point" and so does the victim.

You can't manufacture an "appeal to all sides" all the time. Sometimes one side is just wrong. Sometimes that needs to be pointed out and acknowledged. War is one of those occasions, in my opinion.

The discussions on war being wrong is not the same as approval of Iranian regime. People bring up the latter because they don't want to talk about the former. You see evidence of this when someone says "OK, if not war, than what's YOUR solution?" This point of view betrays the following assumptions:

1. Regardless of anyone else's opinion, topic of discussion or any actual circumstances, the "real" problem is always the existence of the Iranian government. Full stop.
2. War is an acceptable solution to this problem.
3. This solution can and should be brought about by external forces dispite the opposition of the people most affected by it.
4. Any other problem is not legitimate. Any other solution is unacceptable unless it really leads to their own apriori-defined solution. They can pretend to "listen" to other solutions but this is just an act.

This is the essence of fascism.

These are two seperate discussions: External war against Iran and the merrits of the Iranian government.

But the pro-War forces have never understood this, or pretend not to. From the beginning they think everything is about regime change, and only regime change. So naturally if not war than what? They assume there must be regime change from outside. The behavior of the Islamic Republic is hardly relevant to this point. It only makes things harder when IRI sounds reasonable and peace-seeking. So they are particularly hostile to any kind of peaceful reconciliation or peaceful transition.

It's that simple. Don't confuse it.

Fascism is evident throughout the pro-war point of view performatively. A fascist system is an authoritarian system, often hostile to rival comprehensive belief systems and philosophies, it does not respect the people on whose behalf it pretends to act. A fascist does not tolerate dissent and wants to brand and drive out other priorities from the discussion. A fascist sees everything as either relevant to his own point of view or worthless. The fascists have decided that anti war activity either helps fulfill their plan of regime change, or else it is not worth pursuing.

You can't "compromise" with these people. They are not willing to acknowledge any other priority exists in the universe.

For example, I have always encouraged people to go fight the regime if that's their heart's desire. But I have never seen any of these fascists on the other side consider just pure antiwar activity for the sake of you know stopping war to be legitimate on its own. Either it conforms to their world view, or even this is unacceptable. That is a totalitarian point of view.


: ) Thanks for being so insistant

by Mehdi-Palang on

You have a good point.  I want to carry on a meaningful discussion about this topic, but the more I discuss this topic with hot-headed "right-wingers" the more I feel sick to my stomach. 

War is disgusting, it has no boundaries, no morals, no semblance of justice, it knows no language other than destruction.  I can't begin to imagine why some people here on this site would want to purposefully bring war upon Iran.  

This is not an adequate excuse for my not discussing this matter with the other side, but at the moment I feel this way.  I promise to write about this soon.  Thanks for prodding me to into speaking about this issue.