Hossein Derakhshan

[arpad]

They say that Hossein Derakhshan - a famous Persian blogger is arrested in Tehran.

I am not at all happy about it. But honestly - it is not my fight. Cause I slowly become convinced that after a young Iranian liberal grow up - they began to despise Israel same as their conservative opponents.

Yes, at first they try to build some bridges and understanding. Then they realize - they preach an impossible development. Then they become tired of bias of the West toward Iran. And then they decide that they should be together with their own people - and the tale is over.

And guess what - Iranian dreams of greatness can differ in size and shape but none of them includes free Israel.

Eventually they will. But until then we should not delude ourselves with idea that Iranian opposition and Iranian democracy change anything to us.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You know what's sad about this?

Persia is where the notion of religious tolerance started, back in the days of the Achaemenid Empire. And yet today, Iran is maneuvering to die in an atomic war so as to trigger Divine Intervention by getting a sufficient number of Iranians "martyred."

Persia was great, once. Will she ever shake off the poison that Arabia injected into her?

[madali.livejournal.com]

As a crazy Iranian, I disagree with the above. This part "Iran is maneuvering to die in an atomic war so as to trigger Divine Intervention by getting a sufficient number of Iranians "martyred."" is complete western propaganda. Iranians don't want to start an atom war, they don't think an atom war will bring Mehdi, they don't wish to die, and they don't wish to get Iranians killed.

Iran is not King Of Tolerance, but they are not that bad! They still have the highest number of Jews in the middle east aside from Israel. They have MP seats reserved for one Jew, one Christian, and one Zoroastrian. Even if they are a religious country, they are still leaps ahead of their neighbors. Its a new political system, and it is still evolving

[madali.livejournal.com]

And the worst poison was the British one in our country.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Really? What terrible thing did the British do in Iran?

[madali.livejournal.com]

Um, where do I start? Used Iran's resources to fuel their war machine by force? helped overthrow the monarchy twice? Should I go on?

It's almost like asking what the British ever did to India.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Used Iran's resources to fuel their war machine by force?

You do know that, without Britain taking that oil, Iran would almost certainly have fallen under Nazi German control? I suspect, from the history of German practices elsewhere, that the Third Reich would have been far nastier to the Iranians than the British ever were.

[madali.livejournal.com]

Oh thank god then for the decades of oppression

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Iran has been more oppressed under the Islamic Republic than she ever was under the Shah.

All the Shah's Men

[gdy.livejournal.com]

http://gdy.livejournal.com/92721.html

Re: All the Shah's Men

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

From GDY's post:

When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to nationalize Iran's oil assets, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum ...

The term for this is "stealing."

Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy.

Oh, poor Iranians. Not being allowed to get away with stealing. How mean of those British!

The US concerned about Mossadegh now seeking help from local superpower, the Soviet Union, regarding the case against Great Britain agreed in restoring the pro-western Shah to power.

Are you taking it as somehow proven that the Soviets wouldn't have taken over Iran if we hadn't done this?

Too bad America fell asleep at the switch under Carter and let the Shah fall.

Re: All the Shah's Men

[gdy.livejournal.com]

The term for this is "stealing."
And the next sentence was -
The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government.

Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy.
This means GB started an agression.

Are you taking it as somehow proven that the Soviets wouldn't have taken over Iran if we hadn't done this?
Yeah, smells like the Bush doctrine ;-)

Re: All the Shah's Men

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The term for this is "stealing."

And the next sentence was -
The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government.

The British were, back then, naive enough to believe in the fairness of international courts. The decision of the court doesn't change the reality of the Iranian government's theft.

Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy.

This means GB started an agression.

No, Iran committed the first act of war by seizing British property.

Are you taking it as somehow proven that the Soviets wouldn't have taken over Iran if we hadn't done this?

Yeah, smells like the Bush doctrine ;-)

???

You didn't answer the question. Since you didn't, I'll take it as meaning that you agree with me (or at least can't counter my point) that there was a good chance that the Soviets would have taken over Iran if we hadn't carried out the Mossadegh coup.

Given the history of Soviet treatment of satellites in OTL, wouldn't a Soviet-controlled Iran have inflicted far more suffering on the Iranian people than did the Shah? This aside, of course, from the obvious strategic loss that such a situation would represent for America and the Free World.

The part about the "Bush Doctrine" I don't even get. Not even as a joke, since the "Bush Doctrine" has absolutely nothing to do with the Cold War.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

What the British did to Iran would have to be pretty bad to compare with what the Arabs did. Persia is pretty much the poster-child for why it's bad for a country to fall to Islam: before Islam, Persia had produced one of the world's great civilizations, empires and cultures. After Islam, Persia was a crippled shadow of her former glory, rejecting her own wondrous past in favor of a poor imitation of Arabia.

[madali.livejournal.com]

That's a misconception. Iran's post-Islamic culture was still an amazing one, producing different forms of art. Also, the decades before the introduction of Islam, Persia was chaotic, and was very weak. So Persia at that instance was not a great Empire.

I'm proud of the Pre-Islamic Persia, but I do not think that Persia fell completely after Islam.

[arpad.livejournal.com]

I don't think it is western propaganda, rather Western far right viewpoint.

But I agree - that's totally wrong.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I don't think it is western propaganda, rather Western far right viewpoint.

Because only the Western far right, so far, has bothered to pay attention to what the Iranian leadership is saying. Most Westerners comfort themselves in the delusion that the ayatollah's can't "really" mean it, just as most Westerners comforted themselves with the delusion that Hitler didn't really mean what he was saying in the 1920's and 1930's.

[madali.livejournal.com]

Hitler comparison? Really? REALLY?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The comparison was actually with the way in which most Westerners have ignored what the Iranian ayatollahs have been saying and the way in which they ignored what Hitler was saying. And why not a "Hitler comparison?" The Iranian regime hates the Jews and loves the Nazis, after all. They recently held a big Holocaust denial conference, if you recall.

[madali.livejournal.com]

The comparison is moronic.

1) No one Iranian is in control of the government, it is not a dictatorship, it is a republic

2) Iranians don't hate Jews, they have a huge number of Jews and have not systematically murdered them

3) Iranians do not love Nazis, and there is no indication that they do

4) The Holocaust conference was held to challenge the western claim of freedom of speech in the face of the Mohammad cartoons, and it was challenged from some clerics within Iran

5) The Nazi political system does not match the Iranian one

6) Iran has not declared war on any country over at least a century (can be more, not sure how far it goes)

7) Iran has never claimed it would directly attack Israel, and before you bring it up, "wiped Israel off the map" is misquoted, misunderstood, and propagandized

8) DO I NEED TO GO ON?!?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You are confusing my opinion of the Iranian political leadership with that of the Iranian people as a whole. Of course the Iranian people don't want to suffer atomic bombardment, and doubtless the majority of them do not believe that such a bombardment would accomplish anything save the deaths of a lot of Iranians. Unfortunately, Iran is under the control of a radical religious minority which appears to believe otherwise.

By 1944 most of the German people probably wanted to surrender, not die in a Wagnerian orgy of destruction. That didn't keep several millions of German civilians from dying under the bombs of the US 8th Air Force, or the bayonets of the brutal Soviet Army. People often suffer horribly for the madness of their leaders -- that's a common theme in history.

[madali.livejournal.com]

Again, your first paragraph is what fuels most wars. Oh, we don't really hate the people, just the mean government who doesn't represent the poor people we want to liberate. The same thing is said by all aggressors.

The truth is that the Iranian revolution was initiated by the people, not by a minority.

The truth is that the Iranian government, while not completely democratic, is much more representative of the people through elections than majority of the countries in the middle east, and I might even say Asia.

The truth is that voting turnout in Iran is above 50%

People think they are defending the rights of Iranians by claiming they have no say in their own matter. As if saying, "Iran's government is bad, but I looove the Iranian people" somehow is in the best interest of the Iranian people. It is not.

The Iranian's are not weak, helpless people incapable of shaping their own futures or path.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Again, your first paragraph is what fuels most wars. Oh, we don't really hate the people, just the mean government who doesn't represent the poor people we want to liberate. The same thing is said by all aggressors.

I wasn't aware that the Allies were the "aggressors" in World War II. Nor is America an "aggressor" against Iran. In fact, the Iranians are committing acts of aggression against America and Iraq, right now, by funding and basing the Mahdi Army.

Why would America, or I, hate the Iranian people? We didn't hate the Russians during the Cold War, nor did we hate the Iraqis during the war against Saddam's regime in 2003-04.

The truth is that the Iranian revolution was initiated by the people, not by a minority.

The Iranian revolution was initiated by the followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, then supported by the majority of the Iranian people, and then totally taken back over by Khomeini and his followers.

People think they are defending the rights of Iranians by claiming they have no say in their own matter. As if saying, "Iran's government is bad, but I looove the Iranian people" somehow is in the best interest of the Iranian people. It is not.

The Iranian's are not weak, helpless people incapable of shaping their own futures or path.

Ok, you've convinced me -- we should hold the Iranian people completely responsible for the aggressions of the Iranian government. You've taken a big load off my mind for when Iran strikes and the Western counterstrike kills hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Thank you! :)

[madali.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware that the Allies were the "aggressors" in World War II. Nor is America an "aggressor" against Iran.

USA has been an aggressor in many, many wars. Did America not initiate an attack on Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or Korea? Or Vietnam? Or Cuba in the Bay of Pigs? Or didn't they attack Kosova? Aren't they attacking Pakistan? Didn't they attack Syria just recently? Haven't they bombed Somalia? Didn't they do something in Nicaragua?

And by "most wars", I didn't mean just america. I meant the idea of helping the people has fueled many wars, whether Americans or other aggressors.

In fact, the Iranians are committing acts of aggression against America and Iraq, right now, by funding and basing the Mahdi Army.


So wait, for America to come all the way to the middle east, attack Iraq, overthrow its government, and station its army and barracks there is NOT an act of aggression? In what world? Did Planet Earth just sign over its rights to America and no one told me?

Why would America, or I, hate the Iranian people? We didn't hate the Russians during the Cold War, nor did we hate the Iraqis during the war against Saddam's regime in 2003-04.

With love like that, who needs hate?

The Iranian revolution was initiated by the followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, then supported by the majority of the Iranian people, and then totally taken back over by Khomeini and his followers.

The Iranian revolution was initiated by the people, who had various political ideologies, and due to political reasons, some ideological, some violent, and so forth, was finally overtaken by the Khomeini camp, but a large part of it was due to the fact that the population of Iran was largely religious people who had been ignored by the Monarchy. The people were more in tune with Khomeini's political approach than the other groups, which were such groups as Intellectuals, Democrats, Communists, and so forth. It was not a victory of a minority.

Ok, you've convinced me -- we should hold the Iranian people completely responsible for the aggressions of the Iranian government. You've taken a big load off my mind for when Iran strikes and the Western counterstrike kills hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Thank you! :)

If you want to attack a country, destroy its infrastructure, kill its people, and destroy their right to self-govern, then yes, I'd rather you have the morale courage to be morally responsible for it, rather then assuming your actions are for the good of the people.

I'd rather someone bomb Iran saying, "fuck Iranians", than someone bomb Iran and say, "We're doing it because we <3 you" *sleeps like a baby at night, assuming they have done good*

Wars done with the assumption that it is for good reasons is morally and ethically more dangerous.

Oh, this is rich...

[gholam.livejournal.com]

Would you mind giving me a history lesson on the subject of who attacked which Korea, when, and where?

[gdy.livejournal.com]

With love like that, who needs hate?
;-)))