Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Just in case people forgot who they are dealing with

Below are more great comments/statements (self serving truths and facts) from the anti Iranian pro IRI propagandist, Fake LA resident, Fake reformist who goes by the fake name of Qumars Bolurchian a.k.a "Q"

1) “So we have to admit, there is such a thing as a continuom...... The system as it is designed currently can deliver much better democracy. For example: if the Guardian Council starts vetting candidates less and less. The Supreme Leader could show less and less initiative. The foreign policy council could be dominated more and more by the popularly elected President (That's Ahmadinejad by the way). The system can move very far toward perfect democracy. “

2) "The fact that there is strict eligability requirement is not a reason to call it undemocratic."

3) "Even though I agree the candidate vetting process in Iran is unusually subject to abuse, it is only a few degrees different than other democracies. And in any case continued participation of people in the system also legitimizes it. That's just a fact of life we may not like but it won't go away.
That's just a fact of life we may not like but it won't go away."

4) "I believe the revolution gave us "Esteghlal"."

5) "Since when is having a democracy dependnet on Parties? The US constituion doesn't have any provision for political parties. The definition of what is a "party" is extremely vague anyway. What we have in Iran now could be considered parties"

6) "In Iran, the role of Supreme Leader is closest to a "chief justice" since he has no proper legislative functions."

7) "A referendum is not a bad idea, if the people of Iran want it. A majority would have to demand it. But personally I think if even 30% of Iranians go on record supporting such a referendum it would happen and I would support it."

8) IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING POINT:

"The point is that the IRI and its supporters will not allow such refrundum to take place since they know its results."

THE PERSON WRITES:
"I'm not sure if that's true, but where is the proof that such a referendum is demanded? When a large majority of Iranians come out year after year to vote inside the system, and support its positions (like Nuclear Power, anti-Iran terrorism, etc) in international polls, why should they think that anybody other than Monarchists and the MEK are calling for this referendum?"

9) IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:
"The majority of Iranians want the same things than any other normal human being would want: freedom, progress, prosperity, peace, security, happiness and so on."

PERSON WRITES
"no doubt. But IRI claims to provide these and a lot of people believe them. Contrary to popular belief in California, all those people ren't and really couldn't be on the "IRI payroll". You must face the fact that not everyone interprets these values the same way as you do or you understand them.

In fact since 65%+ of the Iranians routinely participate in elections, we can conclude that they have decided the system is reformable and good enough. They have decided they don't want the kind of chaos that comes with a revolution, especially since there are many foreign wolves waiting to attack. I know you don't accept this, but that's why you are not in charge."

10) "As far as IRI has imposed its ideological supremacy, I fail to understand how a government can do that based on a national constitution that was voted for by 90%+ of Iranians"

11) "IRI has neither occupied ("hegemony" by the definition that is relevant here)nor "forced an ideology through government"

12) "If Iranians want to put their lives on the line, they can remove the government right now"

13) The Iranian Revolution is more successful than the French revolution

Bavafa jan, Yes, turnout is considered a great indicator

for support in a system, provided the numbers are accurate.

VPK

I believe in Iran, I always have.

Thus, I agree that Iran should take care of the region. It can do so better than anybody else. But Iran, NOT the IRI.

Having said that. Btwn "taking care of the region", bringing them under the Iranian sfere of influence, and trying to change borders is a big difference. That's my point.

Leaving Iran to Iranians. ;o)

Q - Yawn all you like!

Learn from your betters: The late H L A  Hart, renowned Jurisprudence theorists and liberal scholar (with political point of views close to you) believed that the laws of the Third Reich - event those which were clearly immoral were legal. His American contemprary Lon Fuller said German Nazi Law was illegal not because the Nazis were not elected legitmately and not becase they did not have popular supprot but because the laws were immoral and procedurally flawed. Instead of ''yawning' maybe you should have paid closer attention to your professors in your worthless Media Studies and Political Science degree course. 

The Islamic Republic laws, as according to Naturalists theorists are both immoral and prodecurally flawed. I never denied that the Islamic Republic had initial legimacy but its behaviour both domestically with its outrageous human rights record and widespread corruption has stripped it off all right to rule.  

BTW. If you accept the IR and accpet tehe legtimacy of the elections why do you still call Mousavi the loser President? Why is he President? He lost according to you. 

Q: Are you suggesting that

Q: Are you suggesting that since 85% of population voted, this means they believe in the system? If true, then do you believe the elections that were held under Saddam or the one that just took place in Egypt is also a good indication of people support for their ruling system?

If you really believe 85% of Iranians still believe in IRI system, then why do you suppose the system is working so hard to shut and destroy the opposition to the VF and IRI as a system.

VPK: Getting back to your blog, No I don't ever think of IRI the same as Iranian people. First, as you mentioned, in absent of a democratic and a free society, a few selected at top can not ever be a true representation of the masses.

This is much evident in the way IRI runs its system which is based on fear mongering, brutal force and lies.

Iranian people on the other hand have been known for their peaceful nature, friendly and hospitalities and belief in decency and humanity. These two are at direct contradiction to each other.

Mehrdad

Yawn...

(Note to editors: this is not a duplicate, I boldfaced an additional term in the last paragraph). 

I repeat what I said, since you seem to have great difficulty following.

1. Nazis never had the support of the German people, so your analogy with IR is invalid.

2. Being a candidate for the German chancelry as a minority party in a coalition is legitimate but does not give Hitler his powers. The illegal Reichstag coup did that. (Now go ahead and say again "it was legitimate" like an ignorant parrot, at least the audience knows.). Therefore your IR analogy is invalid.

3. Your logical flaw is obvious: Mossadegh had the support of the people and the parliament.

The rest of your drivel is just slander and emotional baggage, no doubt because you were spanked so badly on the facts. Looks like you need to hit wikipedia a little harder next time! ;)

Q - The Historian

Am I being taught by some hack in the 'Los Angeles area' who no one has heard of on how  to do my research? Don't give up the day job now, will you! 

What did I say? I said that Hitler's NSDAP received the highest amount of votes both in the 1928 and 1933 popular elections . The fact that the majority of Germans did not vote in the electiosn or there was no single party with a majority win is irrelevant. There was a democratic system in place which was legitimate and supported by the majority of Germans unless you want to dispute that too.

Mousadegh was selected by his peers in the Majlis no mmatter how you try to disuise the fact. The very same Majlis which Left wing losers (you always will be like that guy in your avatar)  called corrupt and servants of the Shah. You cannot have it both ways. 

Your inability to draw logical conslusions when presented with primary sources in history explains why your career as a 'writer in the Los Angeles area' has not flourished. 

VPK, let's seperate facts from BS

I understand why some people love to count at best 35% support as "support of the people", but that is not logical. If you care to show any evidence of the majority of Germans ever approving of Nazis as a democratic choice, be my guest. Otherwise you are putting all of us to sleep, with a well-debunked myth.

Sleepy One

Q: you "yawn" a lot; maybe some sleep is in order.

Nazi most certainly did have the support of the German people. In fact for a long time. IR has not have the support of people at least since the AN mess.

Rea

Regarding the PS thing:. Iran just a few hundred years ago had a much larger size. Inside it people of all ethnic races lived. The reuniting of Iran does not mean the same as Greater Serbia. It does not mean ethnic cleansing of "others". There are Iranians from vast number of ethnic backgrounds. If there is a reunification it would be one that accepts all its people not like the ethnic cleansings we saw in former Yugoslavia.

I would say the problems in Yugoslavia were due to breakup not unity. If anything thinks were peaceful before the breakup. It was the race and ethnic hatred fanned by separatists which fuled it. I advocate the opposite: unity.

Many nations decide to unite or form unions. From loose ones based on removing visa and work restrictions. To move integrated ones like the United States which includes different people. A union of nations allows free movement of work force and good. It allows families to not be separated. It allows strength in negotiations with. Plus resolution of internal disputed without need for war. It is what has kept America strong.

Yawn....

I repeat what I said, since you seem to have great difficulty following.

1. Nazis never had the support of the German people, so your analogy with IR is invalid.

2. Being a candidate for the German chancelry as a minority party in a coalition is legitimate but does not give Hitler his powers. The illegal Reichstag coup did that. (Now go ahead and say again "it was legitimate" like an ignorant parrot, at least the audience knows.). Therefore your IR analogy is invalid.

3. Your logical flaw is obvious: Mossadegh had the support of the people and the parliament.

The rest of your drivel is just slander and emotional baggage, no doubt because you were spanked so badly on the facts. Looks like you need to hit wikipedia a little harder next time! ;)

Q

And where do you draw yousr skewed analysis of history from? Right underneath Chomskey's rear end.

Hitler obtained power perfectly legitimatyely through a legal democratic system accepted by Germans as was his appointment in 1933. In the same year, Hitler won the majority of votes in parliament by virtue of the fact that he had 43 % of the majhority of votes needed even though there was no single party with an outright majority. If you are trying to make a case for proportional representation then that is another matter but this does not de-legitimise his entirely legal appointment by an electoral mandate. 

In the UK, no politcal party won an outright majority of the public votes so are you saying the Con-Dem coalition which was made withotu the consent of the public has no basis for legitimacy? That was a power deal shared between two politcal parties without the further approval of the public, 

It always amuses me that loser Left Wing supporters such as yourself now claim Hitler's election was a fraud and devoid of support in Germany whilst  Mossadq was 'democratically' elected Prime Minister through politicians in  the  Majlis  (79 votes and not popular support - at least Hitler had that!)  process under the Shah's government which you claim was corrupt all along. And when Mossadeq took power the first thing he had in mind was an 'Enabling Act' of hiw own to challenge the power of the Shah and to give himself emergency powers to make any law which was unconstitutional.  And where was the mandate fot this? A rigged plebicit which gave Mossadeq [wait for it..........drum roll.........] 99% of the popular vote in the city of Tehran which was just as corrupt as Hitler's Reichstag fire.

You blend of Marxist Left wing Islamist nonsense can be sumamrised as  follows:  The peple of Iran voted for a referendum 33 years ago giviing consent to the establsihemnt of the Islamic Republic. All murder, torture, rape and inhumane laws are legtimate because it dertives from the central government which the Spiritual Leader heads. The majority of Iranians vote for the officialy selected candidated because they are conent with the regime and want more of the same. 

Sorry VPK,

It is not a democratic government; it is a military dictatorship.

No, in a military dictatorship, sitting military officers have the highest powers (for example appoint themselves president) and disregard the parlimaent, much like Pakistan under Musharraf. You of course are free to tell us why it's "really a military dictatorship", but that's just your opinion. Nobody even in the Zionist press calls it this. It's only conjecture of a biased exile minority because it sounds scary. I guess calling it a 'theocracy' for 30 years didn't do the trick.

Saddam got 99% of votes so did all the Soviet leader! Where they "Iraq" or "Russia".

Nonsense! You're intentinally confusing turnout with candidate. First, 99% is only in tiny turnout elections that were so low they were too embarrassed to report. Yes, I'm sure if you only poll in Westwood, CA, 99% of Iranians want Monarchy!

Second, no International observer has ever doubted the legitimacy of the I.R. referendum or the fact that 85% of the Iranians turned out in 2009.

No! IR only allows those Mollahs approve to even run. All its "elections" are invalid.

Nonsense again. I agree that GC is being abusive, but not the degree that would invalidate all elections. There are crazy official or unofficial rules in many other countries that serve the same function as GC. But even so, that's not what has happened.

First, if this was true, then Mousavi/Khatami and others would not be allowed to run. Second, if people didn't like any of the candidates they wouldn't vote at all. And third, once again, I challenge you to name one person who was "eliminated" but would have won the election against Ahmadinejad! Prove it, if you care to put your money where your mouth is. We've had this discussion before, and now it's clear you intentionally avoid this argument.

Again, you want to make it a black/white braindead issue, you're welcome to your personal opinion.

The referendum was 30 + years ago. Majority Iranian people today were not born then. They did not approve of this.

The declaration of Independece was 230 years ago. The previous Iranian constitution is over 100 years old. The Swiss federal charter is over 700 years old. Are you kidding me with this BS?

The "polls" by American sources are not valid in a military dictatorship.

Unfortunately you are only saying this because they do not reflect your beliefs. It's a knee-jerk reaction completely disregarding the poll methods and reality. The polls had many embarrassing facts about the IRI, like support for the Green movement and saying there was high corruption. Many things for which people have been silenced for in the past. It doesn't make sense for people to be lying just the way it makes your case! Of course there may be a fear factor, and if you're actually interested (Rather than using it as a blanket excuse) it can be quantified and analyzed and a % can be given to it. Tracking analysis can also filter out the biased factor.

The fact is that just like during the Pahlavi Regime, there are many people who are not affraid to speak out and they do , and the poll shows it. If you have other theories, they are worthless unless you can show better data. Picking and choosing selective "street slogans" is about as unscientific as anything I've ever seen, but remarkablely the exile community seems to be fond of this method!

"Everybody is lying" is a convinient and baseless excuse use both by the Pahlavi dictatorship and IR today. It's meaningless as an argument.

Not before there is real Democracy will there be a valid government.

What exactly is "real democracy?" And whatever it is, in your opinion most of the world is not "valid government" ?

From an outsider

Mixed feelings.

Reading IC.com is one thing. Watching different videos coming out of IRI is another thing altogether. Truth must be somewhere in btwn.

As for PS, wow !  Only those who've never lived thru a war, never stepped into a mine field, never seen thousands of refugees, could possiby write such a thing.

And Nazism was German, Fascism was Italian...

So what?

Furthermore, pleasure and pain are by no means mutualy exclusive experiences. He'd testify to that. 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

"85% of the people voted in the Islamic Republic Elections"

True, very true, and so impressive! Given that was the only hope Iranian people had for exerting their will on a regime so blatently solidifying it's position as a fascist dictatorship.

As you disagree with pulling bassiji thugs from every street corner of Iran, how about a referendum on what government people of Iran would like to have? I believe both Mr Karoubi and Mousavi have at least eluded to that, so is our very own comrade here! 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Bottom line, VPK

The poles on popularity of IRI that are sited here are tainted since 55% of the folks who were polled refused to answer and the rest probably did so with a lot of discomfort not knowing who was on the other side asking questions.

The protests against IRI in 2009 elections started as "where is my vote", but ended with "marg bar dictator" and "esteghlaal, aazaadi, jomhoori-e Irani".  A year and a half ago, we were trying to look for alternative names for secularism, but now many in Iran know what secular democracy is.  Those of us who enjoy the freedoms offered in the west should also wish the same for Iranians under IRI.

Bottom line, VPK: If it was not because of the brutal military/police action of IRI on the streets, the dictatorship regime of IRI would not last long, and therefore she is not of the people, by the people.

Responses

said there is a difference between people and governments. No government even a democratic one is the same as its people. Therefore you may be anti-<fill in blank> government without being anti-<fill in same> people.

Now in case of IR:

• It is not a democratic government; it is a military dictatorship.
• Saddam got 99% of votes so did all the Soviet leader! Where they "Iraq" or "Russia". No!
• IR only allows those Mollahs approve to even run. All its "elections" are invalid.
• The referendum was 30 + years ago.  Majority Iranian people today were not born then. They did not approve of this.
• The "polls" by American sources are not valid in a military dictatorship. Who will say "I oppose" the government when it means getting raped.
• Not before there is real Democracy will there be a valid government. When there is it will still not be the same as the people.

The question depends on the circumstances

In the current International order, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is the official internationally recgonized name of the country and it is represented by its current government. The name comes from the constitution which was voted for by the people. It has the same status as when Reza Khan (a pure dictator) change the country's official name to Iran.

The fact that there may be dissident opposition is completely irrelevant. China, Russia, US, UK, Israel, every country has people who are opposed to the government, the system, the current borders, etc. It doesn't matter. They are not the people who vote in the United Nations on behalf of the country. When it comes to international negotiations on behalf of Iranian rights and territory, the current government is the only legitimate representative just like the Shah was during his puppet-regime.

However, if you're talking more abstractly, of course it's a tautology that a "nation" and a "government" are two seperate things. And even the "people" are a third distinct entity. Of course, Iran is not the same as its government, just like every other country.

Roozbeh jan, pay attention

the flawed comparison with Nazi Germany was also the false claim that they were voted for legitimately once before they turned dictators.

However, you are also wrong since majority still believe in the system and 85% of the people voted in the Islamic Republic Elections, be it the conservatives or reformist parties. Post election polls have also confirmed this.

The guy from my Avatar believes in the Islamic Republic.

If the fossilized opposition line has now morphed into "until June 2009, Iranians believed in IR", then you are really grasping for straws aren't you?

IRI is Iranian: Be it a pain, or a pleasure

Whenever the two opposing sides are confident about their respective popularity, a referendum becomes a just call.

Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

"Iranians overwhelmingly voted for the I.R."

That was 31 years ago Q, I am sure you are old enough to remeber that!

The last occasion Iranians had a chance to "vote" under ridiculously restrictive system of Islamist regime, less than two years ago, they voted overwhemingly for a guy you have taken his photo as your avatar. The follow up mass million plus demosntrations, and slogans like "death to dictator" were clear proof that Iranian people in overwheming numbers reject the islamist regime and velayate faghih fascist interpretation of it.  You know better Q that without the ever present armed gangs of islamist "bassij" and sepah on every street corner of Iran, your beloved islamist regime would not last a single day! 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Wrong again Simorgh (of course!)

Yawn....

Simorgh, your cringe-worthy historical anaysis is flawed and serve-serving as usual. It's a typical bunch of nonsense fantasies always pulled out of someone's behind to undermine democracy at convinient times, while advocating for it at other times.

The facts are that the Nazi take over of Germany was illegal. Nazi party never had support of more than 1/3 of the German population in any free election. In their biggest election victory before taking over, they were still a minority party. Hitler was barely able to maneuver to make himself chancellor, but even than he was subordinate to the President. It wasn't until the coup-de-tat of the Reighstag fire that Hitler assumed unconstitutional powers, ditched the President and made Germany a dictatorship.

The analogy to Iran of course is worthless emotional drivel, just as much as your response reply to this will be. Iranians overwhelmingly voted for the I.R. and it has far more genuine support in Iran even now, than Nazis ever did.

VPK

Indeed! You are quite right: after a while trying to argue with Sargord and penetrate his thought process, it feels like a dog chasing after its own tail. His brain is a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

double post

had been removed

More relevant is "What is anti-Iran?"

No, this is my blog and I asked the Q. The point of this blog is "What is the difference of IR and Iran". I wrote the blog and know what the points are. Others are welcome to write their own blogs and whatever they wish.

Therefore

according to SP if go oppose the "government" then you are a traitor.This guy is an American by his own claim. Yet supports the most anti-American governmenti So what does that make him? Maybe anti American.

Sargord

The German National Socialist Party rose to power and gained seats in the reichstag through a legitimate electoral process and he was sworn as Chancellor in 1933. So therefore, any act committed by the German National Socialist Party was law including the nebaling acts and attrocities committed by them. The newsreel footage of the Nuremburg Rallies showed millions of Germans behind Hitleer and the minority of Germans who opposed Hitler were tratiors. Therefore, Hitler was quit entitled to silence and murder his crtics so long as the overwhelming number of Germans embraced him.

Your rationale explains your support of the IR: No matter how many hostages they take, how many Iranians they impriosn, torture and murder, censorship, persecution of ethnic minorites; regardless of whether there is a proper judicial system and proper court proedures it is acceptable to the majority of Iranians. 

VPK, you're in a state of

VPK, you're in a state of denial. There is one country for Iran and that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Multiple polls show that a solid majority of Iranians inside Iran accept and support the Islamic Republic of Iran.

More relevant is "What is anti-Iran?" People that cheerlead for the country of Iran, which is the Islamic Republic of Iran, to fail--they are anti-Iran. So are people that advocate sanctions and war against the country of Iran.  

You people that don't like Iran in its current conception--contrary to the majority of those that live there--you should content yourself with your adopted surroundings and, as far as Iran is concerned, let it be. If you wish to apply a relevant sense of advocacy, vote in the presidential elections.

Otherwise, all you're spouting is hot air; something a lot of you are full of.