I guess your reference is to me due to my $130,000 per interview article.
If so :
I have had my stands clear about mujahedeen.To me they are ideological cousins of hated IRI,and they will find no sympathy from me.
Now, having that out of way, offending IRI candidates and guardian paper, enough reasons to lable me?
My frustration with you guys that have raised this alam shange about neocons,MKO,Monarchist is that knowingly or unkowingly you are following the direction of IRI propoganda.
The rescylced story of Guardian about MKO, may or may not be true, and ofcourse if true, is yet another dark chapter for this organization. However, all of the allegations on MKO's conduct have been practiced by IRI magnified by numerous fold for last 20+ years.
Why is it that some are so silent about atrocities commited by the tugs of IRI , for some who cheerlead you in your guardian post crimes of IRi are non issues,but yet a rally by neocons or some headline by non relevant MKO is the major issue?
If you are into detecting odors, smell this.
If so :
I have had my stands clear about mujahedeen.To me they are ideological cousins of hated IRI,and they will find no sympathy from me.
Now, having that out of way, offending IRI candidates and guardian paper, enough reasons to lable me?
My frustration with you guys that have raised this alam shange about neocons,MKO,Monarchist is that knowingly or unkowingly you are following the direction of IRI propoganda.
The rescylced story of Guardian about MKO, may or may not be true, and ofcourse if true, is yet another dark chapter for this organization. However, all of the allegations on MKO's conduct have been practiced by IRI magnified by numerous fold for last 20+ years.
Why is it that some are so silent about atrocities commited by the tugs of IRI , for some who cheerlead you in your guardian post crimes of IRi are non issues,but yet a rally by neocons or some headline by non relevant MKO is the major issue?
If you are into detecting odors, smell this.
I agree their positions are mostly indistinguishable these days, but at least the monarchists have the courage to come out and say openly what they are. You often see them with monarchy avatars, screennames, or sometimes even nazi flags J, etc. In a way they come across as naive and simple minded. But the MKO rats don’t even have the guts to come clean and declare who they are so people would know who they're reading.
another similarity of this school of thaught and IRI brainwashing:
Whoever is against IRI , must be either MKO or Monarchist.
You guys may be sincere in your comments and geniune in your feelings. But take a look around you and find out who is really cheering you on, at least on this board.
This " ham soii" with IRI is only pleasing to clausit and open IRI supporters.
Is now time for Farhad to showup
Whoever is against IRI , must be either MKO or Monarchist.
You guys may be sincere in your comments and geniune in your feelings. But take a look around you and find out who is really cheering you on, at least on this board.
This " ham soii" with IRI is only pleasing to clausit and open IRI supporters.
Is now time for Farhad to showup
Since you are so much in to having the courage and gutts of revealing political identity, lets see if you be kind enough to tell us about your political orientation, and stance about IRI.
Also going back to your first post in this thread, why not having gutts in naming the MKO member that you smelled?
LOOOL Biazar...
honestly...what about naming who is MKO and who not? And on a sidenote...in which way does this make any of you different than monarchists in front of TV calling this and that names, or MKOists tagging this and that hezipezi?
If you wanna be different than those you hate, then at least try to act different too.
and regarding Guardian....Guardian had a couple of days ago a praise article for Rafsanjani and another one for Khalibaf. If you want some decent english newspaper, try the Independent.
honestly...what about naming who is MKO and who not? And on a sidenote...in which way does this make any of you different than monarchists in front of TV calling this and that names, or MKOists tagging this and that hezipezi?
If you wanna be different than those you hate, then at least try to act different too.
and regarding Guardian....Guardian had a couple of days ago a praise article for Rafsanjani and another one for Khalibaf. If you want some decent english newspaper, try the Independent.
I, for one, was not referring to you.
However, I stand by my statement about MKO and Shahollahis.
I also KNOW the Guardian's article's revelations to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You may interpret this statement as you wish.
As you saw fit to declare your position on MKO, I alo declare that I am no fan of IRI as I have many times said in my posts. As a matter of fact, I hope that after we get a responsive government that one of its priorities will be to look into the crimes of IRI; sort of like the Truth Comission in South Africa.
But,
I cannot stand people who cheer foreigners to go on and destroy Iran or any other country for that matter.
I cannot stand people, who in the guise of patriotism, collaborate with a foreign enemy, when they know fully well what that enemy has in mind.
I also think that violence in general is a bad idea for the contry and hope that change takes place in a non-violent manner.
I think the Iranian people are fully capable of finding their own way.
I think sabre rattling by Necons will only strengthen IRI and will eventually lead to a violent event that will hurt all Iranians.
I will not allow my own hatred of IRI and mullahs make me blind to what is best for the country and its people.
Is this clear enough??
However, I stand by my statement about MKO and Shahollahis.
I also KNOW the Guardian's article's revelations to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You may interpret this statement as you wish.
As you saw fit to declare your position on MKO, I alo declare that I am no fan of IRI as I have many times said in my posts. As a matter of fact, I hope that after we get a responsive government that one of its priorities will be to look into the crimes of IRI; sort of like the Truth Comission in South Africa.
But,
I cannot stand people who cheer foreigners to go on and destroy Iran or any other country for that matter.
I cannot stand people, who in the guise of patriotism, collaborate with a foreign enemy, when they know fully well what that enemy has in mind.
I also think that violence in general is a bad idea for the contry and hope that change takes place in a non-violent manner.
I think the Iranian people are fully capable of finding their own way.
I think sabre rattling by Necons will only strengthen IRI and will eventually lead to a violent event that will hurt all Iranians.
I will not allow my own hatred of IRI and mullahs make me blind to what is best for the country and its people.
Is this clear enough??
Old faraz, you have been somewhat clear in your positions in the past,eventhough the onesidedness of your arguments can raise doubts.Agree or disagree I can respect your position.
My comments are directed at spinhead that is claiming MKO posting at ISP, and frankly i think he was insinuating that I amy be a MKO.
I want a clarification from him.
My comments are directed at spinhead that is claiming MKO posting at ISP, and frankly i think he was insinuating that I amy be a MKO.
I want a clarification from him.
I don't agree with your posts regarding the Guardian and its coverage of Iran. I find that coverage more balanced than the sources you prefer.
But let me directly tackle this point you make.
There are times when the "pretext" of a "foreign enemy" is used to silence dissent and to further solidify the power of some groups. There are other times when the power of some of these groups is legitimately enhanced by the fact that such a "foreign enemy" is indeed active and a real threat.
The latter is the situation Iran finds itself right now. Hence, if you are frustrated, it would be better if you focus that anger at the neocons (and those Iranians who are directly and indirectly supporting their agenda) instead of going down a road that ultimately ends where the MKO also ended up.
The first situation (foreign enemy as pretext), on the other hand, was the case after the Iran-Iraq war, and especially during the Clinton years. At that time, America was not full square focused on interefering in Iran to advance its agenda, whatever that agenda might have been. At that time, the "foreign enemy" was mostly a pretext to allow some groups in Iran to keep their power and positions.
There are times when the situation leaves you no choice but to choose. Even if you absolutely don't like either of the choices. To give an example, if tomorrrow Iran is invaded by a foreign enemy, there are several possible reactions. One, to help the foreign enemy because it is fighting your enemy. Second, to do nothing and encourage others to do nothing, which indirectly helps the foreign enemy bring down your enemy. Or to fight alongside the regime to fight the foreign enemy. I have chosen the latter -- and I believe Iran's history stands as clear testimony that those who don't, aren't going to be remembered well.
Otherwise, we haven't had too many "Mother Teresa's" ruling Iran in our history, but I don't think acts of treason are well received by Iranians just because X king had killed a lot of his subjects. And I mean some of these kings killed a lot of people, some making pyramids of human skulls to impress their opponents!
But let me directly tackle this point you make.
There are times when the "pretext" of a "foreign enemy" is used to silence dissent and to further solidify the power of some groups. There are other times when the power of some of these groups is legitimately enhanced by the fact that such a "foreign enemy" is indeed active and a real threat.
The latter is the situation Iran finds itself right now. Hence, if you are frustrated, it would be better if you focus that anger at the neocons (and those Iranians who are directly and indirectly supporting their agenda) instead of going down a road that ultimately ends where the MKO also ended up.
The first situation (foreign enemy as pretext), on the other hand, was the case after the Iran-Iraq war, and especially during the Clinton years. At that time, America was not full square focused on interefering in Iran to advance its agenda, whatever that agenda might have been. At that time, the "foreign enemy" was mostly a pretext to allow some groups in Iran to keep their power and positions.
There are times when the situation leaves you no choice but to choose. Even if you absolutely don't like either of the choices. To give an example, if tomorrrow Iran is invaded by a foreign enemy, there are several possible reactions. One, to help the foreign enemy because it is fighting your enemy. Second, to do nothing and encourage others to do nothing, which indirectly helps the foreign enemy bring down your enemy. Or to fight alongside the regime to fight the foreign enemy. I have chosen the latter -- and I believe Iran's history stands as clear testimony that those who don't, aren't going to be remembered well.
Otherwise, we haven't had too many "Mother Teresa's" ruling Iran in our history, but I don't think acts of treason are well received by Iranians just because X king had killed a lot of his subjects. And I mean some of these kings killed a lot of people, some making pyramids of human skulls to impress their opponents!
