First of all, you just posted this a couple of days ago; what's the point of opening another thread to repost something which nobody paid attention to when you posted it the first time?
Second, did Reza Pahlavi also send a message about historical significance of 16 Azar or he's just jumping on the green train without educating all of us with his great insights on history of 16 Azar.
Or you for that matter, when you post Payam-e Hezb-e Mashrooteh about 16 Azar, why don't you discuss why we remember 16 Azar? Just to say that the meaning of 16 Azar has changed is hypocritical. If you want to use history, you have to at least have the fairness to acknowledge it in full.
Second, did Reza Pahlavi also send a message about historical significance of 16 Azar or he's just jumping on the green train without educating all of us with his great insights on history of 16 Azar.
Or you for that matter, when you post Payam-e Hezb-e Mashrooteh about 16 Azar, why don't you discuss why we remember 16 Azar? Just to say that the meaning of 16 Azar has changed is hypocritical. If you want to use history, you have to at least have the fairness to acknowledge it in full.
Ba dorood:
Thank you for letting me know.
I am not sure what is going on as I do search to see if a message has been arleady posted or not when I try to post something like this.
I am afraid, the search does not seem to show everything or I am doing something wrong!!
Sorry for re-posting it.
HIM Reza Pahlavi has supported every movement against Islamic Rip-off so 16 Aazar is included.
Jumping on Green Train?!!! What a joke?!!!
Watch for Islamic Rip-off's so-called reformists who are trying to use this BAND WAGON!!!
BTW, it is not nymber of replies that you should assess a post but number of peopel who have read it.
Thank you for letting me know.
I am not sure what is going on as I do search to see if a message has been arleady posted or not when I try to post something like this.
I am afraid, the search does not seem to show everything or I am doing something wrong!!
Sorry for re-posting it.
HIM Reza Pahlavi has supported every movement against Islamic Rip-off so 16 Aazar is included.
Jumping on Green Train?!!! What a joke?!!!
Watch for Islamic Rip-off's so-called reformists who are trying to use this BAND WAGON!!!
BTW, it is not nymber of replies that you should assess a post but number of peopel who have read it.
Again, you conveniently ignore whatever point you don't like. My point is that why doesn't your Shahzadeh issue a message about 16 Azar? Is that because it was about killing students by his dad's forces? Those students' fault was to oppose a coup that went against democratic will of the public, exactly the same thing that our students are guilty of today. You can't use the occasion to blame the cruelty of the situation in 2009 while totally ignoring the main occasion.
I agree that we should not divert our attention to things that happened in the past in light of everything that is happening now. But honesty is a necessity as we go forward on this path. It is dishonest for Reza Pahlavi (or likes of you) to go back in history about things like Azerbaijan's liberation and stay silent about 16 Azar's history, while he's encouraging people to use the occasion against IRI!! He can't have it both ways.
I would have had no problem, absolutely no problem, with RP, had he come out forcefully and offered an unbiased view of the past history. I would have accepted him as a potential leader for this country if he was fair and intelligent in his assessments. That would have required him to acknowledge that his dad was a dictator, that he was responsible for many wrongdoings, that IRI is in large a backlash of mistakes that his dad made. If he had the courage to face the reality, I would have been fine with him and I may even have considered him a leader for future of Iran. In fact, he had this huge opportunity to come clean with the people and face realities in full honesty. He has never done that and as such he failed his test of history the same way his dad did. Instead, he's being selective again but issuing statements about history of Azerbaijan liberation but nothing on 16 Azar history!
I agree that we should not divert our attention to things that happened in the past in light of everything that is happening now. But honesty is a necessity as we go forward on this path. It is dishonest for Reza Pahlavi (or likes of you) to go back in history about things like Azerbaijan's liberation and stay silent about 16 Azar's history, while he's encouraging people to use the occasion against IRI!! He can't have it both ways.
I would have had no problem, absolutely no problem, with RP, had he come out forcefully and offered an unbiased view of the past history. I would have accepted him as a potential leader for this country if he was fair and intelligent in his assessments. That would have required him to acknowledge that his dad was a dictator, that he was responsible for many wrongdoings, that IRI is in large a backlash of mistakes that his dad made. If he had the courage to face the reality, I would have been fine with him and I may even have considered him a leader for future of Iran. In fact, he had this huge opportunity to come clean with the people and face realities in full honesty. He has never done that and as such he failed his test of history the same way his dad did. Instead, he's being selective again but issuing statements about history of Azerbaijan liberation but nothing on 16 Azar history!
Ba dorood:
I can only speak for myself, right? So I have posted threads and replied to the student day (16 Azar) issue here at ISP.
Once again, I personally condemn the act that took place on 16 azar 1332 when students were excited by elements of Tudeh Party (which most my family if not all were low to high rank members of) to protest the arrival of Nixon then VP of USA thus a few, 3 to be exact, of our brightest were killed.
The issue of 28 Amordaad had left a bitter taste in Tudeh Party's members and leaders so they worked their way into getting students go on protest.
Again, it does not justify any of killings that took place as HIM Reza Pahlavi has time to time addressed mistakes of his father's administration.
Please note:
If you wish to point out HIM Shanshah Aryamehr's mistakes and use it against HIM Reza Pahlavi then please apply in kind about the progress and prosperity that Late Shah brought to Iranians where assembly line worker of IRAN-NACIONAAL can take vacation in London!!!
Opportunities were available to Iranians where AABDAAR-BAASHI at foreign ministry can have his son get the highest education possible to become MODIR KOL at the same ministry!!!
I can name individuals from the both above examples if you care to know.
P.S.
Did I address ALL your points or did I "ignore" any?
I can only speak for myself, right? So I have posted threads and replied to the student day (16 Azar) issue here at ISP.
Once again, I personally condemn the act that took place on 16 azar 1332 when students were excited by elements of Tudeh Party (which most my family if not all were low to high rank members of) to protest the arrival of Nixon then VP of USA thus a few, 3 to be exact, of our brightest were killed.
The issue of 28 Amordaad had left a bitter taste in Tudeh Party's members and leaders so they worked their way into getting students go on protest.
Again, it does not justify any of killings that took place as HIM Reza Pahlavi has time to time addressed mistakes of his father's administration.
Please note:
If you wish to point out HIM Shanshah Aryamehr's mistakes and use it against HIM Reza Pahlavi then please apply in kind about the progress and prosperity that Late Shah brought to Iranians where assembly line worker of IRAN-NACIONAAL can take vacation in London!!!
Opportunities were available to Iranians where AABDAAR-BAASHI at foreign ministry can have his son get the highest education possible to become MODIR KOL at the same ministry!!!
I can name individuals from the both above examples if you care to know.
P.S.
Did I address ALL your points or did I "ignore" any?
When Reza Pahlavi made a statement about Green and showed his support, Some here called him oppurtunitist. Now, the same group critisize him for not making a comment about 16 Azar 
I guess there is no wining with some. Green is in its infant stages and we already have people who take ownership of it and hence, feel that they have the right to include and exclude certain people from the movement.
What happened to unity and why isn't we reserve all the forgiveness for those Haft Tir be dast, Gardan Koloft Akhoonds
I guess there is no wining with some. Green is in its infant stages and we already have people who take ownership of it and hence, feel that they have the right to include and exclude certain people from the movement.
What happened to unity and why isn't we reserve all the forgiveness for those Haft Tir be dast, Gardan Koloft Akhoonds
Hezbeh toodeh?! That would be troublesome!!
I have no feeling towards Reza Pahlavi one way or another as long as he is just an individual and a normal citizen. But if he or others to him as HIM (that reads funny!), then he becomes a symbol of something else. And he himself apparently agrees with being that symbol because he hasn't spoken against that. If he is the symbol of Pahlavi Monarchy then I will regard him as such.
I have no feeling towards Reza Pahlavi one way or another as long as he is just an individual and a normal citizen. But if he or others to him as HIM (that reads funny!), then he becomes a symbol of something else. And he himself apparently agrees with being that symbol because he hasn't spoken against that. If he is the symbol of Pahlavi Monarchy then I will regard him as such.
I have to give you credit that you did address most of my points. However, as honest you were in your reply, and I appreciate that, you sidestepped a couple of points.
1- Of course you can only speak for yourself, but you have no issue passing judgment on others that you don't like (eg "Mullah Fariba Khatami") so you might as well talk about what you think about RP's actions. Don't you think that if RP finds enough historical significance in 21 Azar, he should have also issued a history message about 16 Azar that is of more relevance today. Again, I am not asking you to speak for RP, but am asking you to be open to criticize RP as much as you criticize others.
2- I'm glad that you condemn the acts that took place in 1332. But you do it again in a biased way.
a) you speak of 28 mordad as if it was not a mistake in the path this country has taken,
b) you imply that students were fooled by Toodeh Party. Do you realize how similar this position is to the one IRI takes today student discontent? It is disrespectful to Iranian students to simply disregard their bravery, then or now, as being pawns in another party's chess game.
3- I never blamed RP for what his father has done. How could I, he wasn't even born in 1332. But if he accepts to be called the king or the prince and if he owes his political relevance to Pahlavi dynasty, then he also bears responsibility for what his father did. If he officially abdicates any claim to the thrown, then he won't have any responsibility but so long as he lets others call him prince or king of that dynasty, he is also responsible for mistakes done under the Shah.
BTW,
4- Could you please show me where RP has accepted that his father was a dictator upfront?
1- Of course you can only speak for yourself, but you have no issue passing judgment on others that you don't like (eg "Mullah Fariba Khatami") so you might as well talk about what you think about RP's actions. Don't you think that if RP finds enough historical significance in 21 Azar, he should have also issued a history message about 16 Azar that is of more relevance today. Again, I am not asking you to speak for RP, but am asking you to be open to criticize RP as much as you criticize others.
2- I'm glad that you condemn the acts that took place in 1332. But you do it again in a biased way.
a) you speak of 28 mordad as if it was not a mistake in the path this country has taken,
b) you imply that students were fooled by Toodeh Party. Do you realize how similar this position is to the one IRI takes today student discontent? It is disrespectful to Iranian students to simply disregard their bravery, then or now, as being pawns in another party's chess game.
3- I never blamed RP for what his father has done. How could I, he wasn't even born in 1332. But if he accepts to be called the king or the prince and if he owes his political relevance to Pahlavi dynasty, then he also bears responsibility for what his father did. If he officially abdicates any claim to the thrown, then he won't have any responsibility but so long as he lets others call him prince or king of that dynasty, he is also responsible for mistakes done under the Shah.
BTW,
4- Could you please show me where RP has accepted that his father was a dictator upfront?
When Reza Pahlavi made a statement about Green and showed his support, Some here called him oppurtunitist. Now, the same group critisize him for not making a comment about 16 Azar
I guess there is no wining with some. Green is in its infant stages and we already have people who take ownership of it and hence, feel that they have the right to include and exclude certain people from the movement.
What happened to unity and why isn't we reserve all the forgiveness for those Haft Tir be dast, Gardan Koloft Akhoonds
I guess there is no wining with some. Green is in its infant stages and we already have people who take ownership of it and hence, feel that they have the right to include and exclude certain people from the movement.
What happened to unity and why isn't we reserve all the forgiveness for those Haft Tir be dast, Gardan Koloft Akhoonds
If you can't see the hipocrisy in issuing a statement about the history of 21 Azar and ignoring the history of 16 Azar, then you're just biased and I can't argue with you.
Obviously, everyone is trying to take credit or ownership of the movement at this stage. What matters is that people should keep their ownership. What matters is that if someone wants to be part of the movement, let alone lead it, he or she should align herself with people, not the other way around. If someone becomes truly aligned with what people want, then taking ownership is a moot point. Hijacking a movement is when someone who IS NOT ALIGNED with the movement wants to take leadership of it. Right now any objective observer would say that reformists are more aligned with people than RP and monarchists are, so if there is risk of hijacking and taking undue ownership of the movement it comes from those groups like monarchists and MKO and ..., not from reformists.
No, it does not work in my case. As you see, I am supporting green and the likes of Mussavi and Khatami. I do not forget their past and their direct involvment in many events of revolution. I do not close my eyes on the past of monsters such as Hashemi or the Haftir Kesh Akhond , Ghaafari.
However, I support them because we have the same goal now but I realize that there are also differences between what they belive and what they do.
But that is not what you are doing. You want to exclude him because for something his Dad did and not even what he did !! I hope you can see the difference.
I never had problem with Reformist Camp. They are a big part of this movement. I have problem when people want to paint a perfect picture of this camp and try to show them as a frontiers in democracy and ... All I have been saying is that lets have a fair picture in mind so we do not get dissapointed like we did 30 years ago.
You just proved my point. Although the movement is in its infant stages, there are people like you who are afaird of some other group Hijacking the movement !!!
This movement does not even have a clear leadership, be it reformist or ... It belongs to Iranian people. It belongs to all of them with different opinions and political preferences.
You think majority are followers of reformists and Oldman might think they are followers of Mashroteh or X might think they want MKO and .... You may say they are saying Ya Hossein Mir Hooesin, but Mr.X comes and says, they are saying, Jomhori Irani which is clearly not something that " Reformists are after ". Then Mr.Y comes and says: They are using Reformist to get to what they want and .... this disscution can go on for ever. I say why have this disscution now ?? Why not have political aliance to get ride of the big enemy first?
No one can say they are right or wrong till we can have a fair election that every voice is heard on it.
By talking about Hijacking and ... you are only creating division. By saying things like " MK or Morachist want o Hijack" , you are saying , that, hey, you guys step to side, this movement does not belong to you.
Or at best, you are telling them , come and help us but at the end, we will put you to the side like we did 30 years ago !!
In the other hand, I am saying, lets be united. If you are forgiving the old IR officials, then why not forgive RP for what his father has done ?
Why not a clean start for everyone ? Why not be united now and hope that democracy will prevail in our country and people can choose the system and the people they want ?? Why make all these assumption on who is aligned and who is not ??
However, I support them because we have the same goal now but I realize that there are also differences between what they belive and what they do.
But that is not what you are doing. You want to exclude him because for something his Dad did and not even what he did !! I hope you can see the difference.
I never had problem with Reformist Camp. They are a big part of this movement. I have problem when people want to paint a perfect picture of this camp and try to show them as a frontiers in democracy and ... All I have been saying is that lets have a fair picture in mind so we do not get dissapointed like we did 30 years ago.
You just proved my point. Although the movement is in its infant stages, there are people like you who are afaird of some other group Hijacking the movement !!!
This movement does not even have a clear leadership, be it reformist or ... It belongs to Iranian people. It belongs to all of them with different opinions and political preferences.
You think majority are followers of reformists and Oldman might think they are followers of Mashroteh or X might think they want MKO and .... You may say they are saying Ya Hossein Mir Hooesin, but Mr.X comes and says, they are saying, Jomhori Irani which is clearly not something that " Reformists are after ". Then Mr.Y comes and says: They are using Reformist to get to what they want and .... this disscution can go on for ever. I say why have this disscution now ?? Why not have political aliance to get ride of the big enemy first?
No one can say they are right or wrong till we can have a fair election that every voice is heard on it.
By talking about Hijacking and ... you are only creating division. By saying things like " MK or Morachist want o Hijack" , you are saying , that, hey, you guys step to side, this movement does not belong to you.
Or at best, you are telling them , come and help us but at the end, we will put you to the side like we did 30 years ago !!
In the other hand, I am saying, lets be united. If you are forgiving the old IR officials, then why not forgive RP for what his father has done ?
Why not a clean start for everyone ? Why not be united now and hope that democracy will prevail in our country and people can choose the system and the people they want ?? Why make all these assumption on who is aligned and who is not ??
Khodam jan,
The reason I am in favor of Reza Pahlavi is not because his father was Shah. I carefully listened to his voice in the past few years. His thoughts are very close to what I think (good or bad).
Beside this, did your father do anything that you didn't like and you wanted to critisize him? Maybe yes. But did you do it in public? probably not.
To me it doesn't sound logical that he makes a statement against his father and then this makes you be one of his advocators.
Also, the enemies of Iran are the enemies of Reza Pahlavi too but many people don't see or sense that.
- MIHANDUST
The reason I am in favor of Reza Pahlavi is not because his father was Shah. I carefully listened to his voice in the past few years. His thoughts are very close to what I think (good or bad).
Beside this, did your father do anything that you didn't like and you wanted to critisize him? Maybe yes. But did you do it in public? probably not.
To me it doesn't sound logical that he makes a statement against his father and then this makes you be one of his advocators.
Also, the enemies of Iran are the enemies of Reza Pahlavi too but many people don't see or sense that.
- MIHANDUST
In fairness though, Reza pahlavi was not a "follower" of the Shah, rather only his son, something that he had no control over as a child. Although I do not believe he should accept being addressed as His Imperial Majesty, since it would imply active imperial status which he does not have. Not to sound critical to anyone, but the challenge of Iranians has usually been to make gods out of their leaders, be it Shah or mullahs. The problem is in the culture of glorification, not so much the individuals. I have heard Reza Pahlavi a few times and sure he sounds reasonable and patriotic, but I agree that he has not been tested yet. While I would entertain the possibility of a constitutional monarchy for a future free Iran if it be the will of the majority, I'm not sure Reza Pahlavi would be the one, or even if he wants to be.
Sorry Shahin jan, but you appear biased on this. And further, you're putting a spin on what I say. Let's get to your points:
1-
Fair enough, so you're supporting reformists (which your posts don't really indicate) but you think we all have to keep our eyes open because these guys may not be honest about their true intentions or at some point their ideas and ours may diverge even if our directions are aligned right now. Is that a fair statement about what you mean?
If that is fair, I am asking for the exact same thing. We should always evaluate whose path is aligned with what we think is best for Iran. We should also be aware of people who are dishonest in what they say. That is why I am questioning RP's decision to issue a statement about 21 Azar but ignore 16 Azar. Don't you honestly see any hypocrisy in that?
In the honesty test, reformists like Khatami score way better than RP in my book. At least Kahatmi has been always clear and forward about what he wants. He wants to save the basis of IRI but make it more democratic. RP on the other hand issues all these lectures about cruelty of dictatorship in Iran without acknowledging that he is where he is because of another dictatorship. I am just saying that we have to skeptical of politicians. If due deligience is what you recommend, how come you don't apply it to RP in this case?
2-
Where in my original post (to which you responded, accusing me that I want to exclude RP from the movement) did I say that I want to exclude him? Where did I say that I want to exclude him for what his dad did? Please let me know.
3-
Again, please show where I said those things?
What I said was that when someone is aligned with people, then taking ownership (which you brought up) is a moot point. It becomes a problem when someone who is not aligned with people takes ownership which becomes hijacking. I never said that "MKO or Monarchists want to hijack the movement" as you write. I said if we are talking about taking the ownership and hijacking, there is higher risk from MKO or Monarchists than reformists because they are less aligned with people. And again, this was in response to the point about "taking ownership" which YOU (and not me) brought up. So if you think discussing the risk of hijacking or taking ownership works against unity and inclusiveness that you so strongly foster, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up.
4-
That is a fair point and any analysis one offers is subjective. I think elections in the past are indication that people have taken kindly to the idea of reform and political evolution. Again, if I single out MKO and Monarchists that is because they never have warmed to the idea of reform. Even to date, while supporting the movement that starts from an act of reform (voting in elections that they asked people to boycott), they are against reform. I am pretty confident that majority of people in Iran do not want IRI, and again my reading is that reform is an accepted concept within people. You can argue that my reading is wrong though.
5-
Well, I'm all for that. From our past discussions I thought you had a problem with a clean start for EVERYONE including those who were involved in IRI. I have absolutely no problem with giving a voice to everyone. But that doesn't mean I should not point to hypocrisy when I see it. By the same token, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't remind us about the past of reformists (which you frequently do).
1-
Fair enough, so you're supporting reformists (which your posts don't really indicate) but you think we all have to keep our eyes open because these guys may not be honest about their true intentions or at some point their ideas and ours may diverge even if our directions are aligned right now. Is that a fair statement about what you mean?
If that is fair, I am asking for the exact same thing. We should always evaluate whose path is aligned with what we think is best for Iran. We should also be aware of people who are dishonest in what they say. That is why I am questioning RP's decision to issue a statement about 21 Azar but ignore 16 Azar. Don't you honestly see any hypocrisy in that?
In the honesty test, reformists like Khatami score way better than RP in my book. At least Kahatmi has been always clear and forward about what he wants. He wants to save the basis of IRI but make it more democratic. RP on the other hand issues all these lectures about cruelty of dictatorship in Iran without acknowledging that he is where he is because of another dictatorship. I am just saying that we have to skeptical of politicians. If due deligience is what you recommend, how come you don't apply it to RP in this case?
2-
Where in my original post (to which you responded, accusing me that I want to exclude RP from the movement) did I say that I want to exclude him? Where did I say that I want to exclude him for what his dad did? Please let me know.
3-
Again, please show where I said those things?
What I said was that when someone is aligned with people, then taking ownership (which you brought up) is a moot point. It becomes a problem when someone who is not aligned with people takes ownership which becomes hijacking. I never said that "MKO or Monarchists want to hijack the movement" as you write. I said if we are talking about taking the ownership and hijacking, there is higher risk from MKO or Monarchists than reformists because they are less aligned with people. And again, this was in response to the point about "taking ownership" which YOU (and not me) brought up. So if you think discussing the risk of hijacking or taking ownership works against unity and inclusiveness that you so strongly foster, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up.
4-
That is a fair point and any analysis one offers is subjective. I think elections in the past are indication that people have taken kindly to the idea of reform and political evolution. Again, if I single out MKO and Monarchists that is because they never have warmed to the idea of reform. Even to date, while supporting the movement that starts from an act of reform (voting in elections that they asked people to boycott), they are against reform. I am pretty confident that majority of people in Iran do not want IRI, and again my reading is that reform is an accepted concept within people. You can argue that my reading is wrong though.
5-
Well, I'm all for that. From our past discussions I thought you had a problem with a clean start for EVERYONE including those who were involved in IRI. I have absolutely no problem with giving a voice to everyone. But that doesn't mean I should not point to hypocrisy when I see it. By the same token, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't remind us about the past of reformists (which you frequently do).
Mihandust jan,
Why not? There is a difference between me and my father and RP and his father. This is a statement he can make about what he envisions for future of Iran. If that requires him to criticize his father, what better stance to take to show that you put your country above dynasty.
That said I have no issue dissociating RP from everything his father did. That would be very easy to do, but he needs to do it himself first (along the same lines that you mention in your other post). If he becomes a political activist with no ties to monarchy I will listen to him and may even support him. But he doesn't. If he has any relevance, that's because he is a Pahlavi. If that is why he is sticking to, then he will also be responsible for the bad things that come with it. Even if he calls himself the Shah of Iran but clearly distances himself from the past dictatorship I could live with that (I won't vote for him, but that would be at least honest).
Why not? There is a difference between me and my father and RP and his father. This is a statement he can make about what he envisions for future of Iran. If that requires him to criticize his father, what better stance to take to show that you put your country above dynasty.
That said I have no issue dissociating RP from everything his father did. That would be very easy to do, but he needs to do it himself first (along the same lines that you mention in your other post). If he becomes a political activist with no ties to monarchy I will listen to him and may even support him. But he doesn't. If he has any relevance, that's because he is a Pahlavi. If that is why he is sticking to, then he will also be responsible for the bad things that come with it. Even if he calls himself the Shah of Iran but clearly distances himself from the past dictatorship I could live with that (I won't vote for him, but that would be at least honest).
Yes, that is fair.
I really do not see any hypocrisy on this.
I think he has been very clear on what he wants for Iran. It is just some people do not want to hear it.
2-
When you say that you have to align with us and bring in the Hijack and ... To me, that is what implied. If it is not want you mean, then my apologizes.
I actually think you brought up the Hijacking. I also don't see how you are making the assumption that people are more aligned with reformist now ( It could be true but it is very debatable as I mentioned in earlier post). Lets look at reform more closely. Reform saw its best years under khatami and after khatami's blunder with the students , then lost almost all its momentum in the last election. This why we saw AN comming from no where and wining that election. People did not vote for reform candidates because they thought reform failed to deliver. Hashemi came as a force to maybe stand infront of hardliners but people still hated him so he failed as well. We saw 4 years of AN as a result till this election. This time , khatami pulls out as a best hope for Reformist. Then we get Mussavi who based on his own account is NOT a reformist and is a OSOL Gara. Many of the heavy weights from reformist Camp did not even like Mussavi and hence gathered around Karubi. And what was people's perception about Karubi ? Everyone wanted him to pull out of race because they did not belive he can deliver. Now, if reform is so popular among our people, then shouldn't Karubi saw a better support ? Then Why people gathered around an " OSOL Gara" candidate ?
Is it that our people are not Osol Gara and Osol Garaye and going back to the fundamental teaching of Imam was so popular among our people? I don't have the answer but one can argue, people wanted a way from the mess of Hardliners. They wanted to follow someone who stands a chance against AN and his mafia and with Karubi's past and all, Mussavi became the next best thing. so I don't think one can just make an assumption that reform is more aligned with our people in Iran now.
Again, all these are very debatable and only a future referendum can answer on what these people are really after.
This again is based on the assumption that you make which I am not sure till we have free refrendum carries any weight.
4-
You emphesize on the word reform and make it sound like this is what people want and hence your conclutions. One can argue that Jomhori Irani, which has been heard from many people is not really a reform that many reformist has in mind. I think time will only tell. Till then, I think everyone is equal in claming that this movement belong to them or ...
that I agree with .
I really do not see any hypocrisy on this.
I think he has been very clear on what he wants for Iran. It is just some people do not want to hear it.
2-
When you say that you have to align with us and bring in the Hijack and ... To me, that is what implied. If it is not want you mean, then my apologizes.
I actually think you brought up the Hijacking. I also don't see how you are making the assumption that people are more aligned with reformist now ( It could be true but it is very debatable as I mentioned in earlier post). Lets look at reform more closely. Reform saw its best years under khatami and after khatami's blunder with the students , then lost almost all its momentum in the last election. This why we saw AN comming from no where and wining that election. People did not vote for reform candidates because they thought reform failed to deliver. Hashemi came as a force to maybe stand infront of hardliners but people still hated him so he failed as well. We saw 4 years of AN as a result till this election. This time , khatami pulls out as a best hope for Reformist. Then we get Mussavi who based on his own account is NOT a reformist and is a OSOL Gara. Many of the heavy weights from reformist Camp did not even like Mussavi and hence gathered around Karubi. And what was people's perception about Karubi ? Everyone wanted him to pull out of race because they did not belive he can deliver. Now, if reform is so popular among our people, then shouldn't Karubi saw a better support ? Then Why people gathered around an " OSOL Gara" candidate ?
Is it that our people are not Osol Gara and Osol Garaye and going back to the fundamental teaching of Imam was so popular among our people? I don't have the answer but one can argue, people wanted a way from the mess of Hardliners. They wanted to follow someone who stands a chance against AN and his mafia and with Karubi's past and all, Mussavi became the next best thing. so I don't think one can just make an assumption that reform is more aligned with our people in Iran now.
Again, all these are very debatable and only a future referendum can answer on what these people are really after.
This again is based on the assumption that you make which I am not sure till we have free refrendum carries any weight.
4-
You emphesize on the word reform and make it sound like this is what people want and hence your conclutions. One can argue that Jomhori Irani, which has been heard from many people is not really a reform that many reformist has in mind. I think time will only tell. Till then, I think everyone is equal in claming that this movement belong to them or ...
that I agree with .
Last edited: