Tasliat to Iranians

reza+

Ball Boy
Feb 19, 2004
354
0
#21
1 question i have ... can someone with mossaeq's characteristics keep iran a united country today ... i guess the broader question is can iran, as a united country, exist with a "democratic" government? i mean the moment anyone gives a little degree of political freedom to the country, they (various ethnic groups) want to go their own way
 
May 21, 2003
19,847
146
Not The Eshaalic Goozpublic !
#22
Keyvan jan,

Can you give an example of Mosaddegh's religious tendencies w/r/t his politics? or Amirkabir and Mashrooteh leaders? I can't think of any example where Mosaddegh's politics was affected by religious tendency, if he had any.
Biggest mistake he made, any sort of affiliation with the british agent Kashani.

going forward from 30 Tir, there was some elements leaning to the left and some leaning towards the clergy. But at that stage the Iranian intellectual, students and also a lot of skilled workers were hungry for new ideas in the democratic atmosphere Mossadegh had created;

instead of creating a nationalist cultural revolution he started to flirt a little with the left and a little with the akhounds trying to keep a lid of things.

Big mistake, because these were, are and always will be the two groups in Iran that can never be trusted. One had Great Britain as their daddy and the other Moscow.

Concerning the constitutional revolution, after the execution of SCUM NOORI, the mojahedeen should have continued and completely irradicated the clergy, they had guns and they had relative popular support but they stopped in their heels and again (as fit for those days) tried to integrate the clergy in their movement. Again big mistake.

those opportunities in which the nationalist forces are armed and have popular support will not ever again arrive.

About Abu muslem,
he fucked the omavids in the ass and wiped their dirty, filthy barbaric rule from the sacred soil of Iran but at the moment of truth he handed everything back to another SEMITIC SUB HUMAN CLAN, i.e. the Abassids which ended up being multiple times more savage and inhuman that their heyvoon predecessors.

i hope things are clear now.

my friend.
RELIGION NOT WELCOME.

My dream is that as we have moral police and religious police patrolling streets of tehran i would wish a day to see anti religious combat units patrolling the streets of very city, town, village irradicating traitors and deporting them by the thousands to najaf, karbalaa, kufa and other shit holes where these blood suckers came from.
 

JazzedUp

Bench Warmer
Dec 1, 2002
1,688
0
42
London
#23
1 question i have ... can someone with mossaeq's characteristics keep iran a united country today ... i guess the broader question is can iran, as a united country, exist with a "democratic" government? i mean the moment anyone gives a little degree of political freedom to the country, they (various ethnic groups) want to go their own way

I don't agree with you are saying. Time and time again we keep saying all the ethnic minorities want to go their seprate ways. That was the thinking of the world including Saddam (arab countries) and the west Iran will fall apart. It's true that might independebce and recognition but this can be acheived through a federal Iran. Give provinces more power and say in running their province. You also see guys like Rigi will disapear too. It's quite short sighted to think the only way to keep Iran intact is by force. A Federal system works quite nicely in a lot countries and I do believe considering our history I reckon many ethnic minorties will be happy to Iranian as long as they are not cast aside.
 
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
2
#24
Keyvan jan,

It is not really accurate to try to interpret of the events of 50 and 100 years ago based on a post-1979 events. Different times, different priorities.

If you are basically saying that anyone who does not advocate swift eradication of religion from society, must have religious tendencies, then we can stop the debate here and agree to disagree. However, being secular did not necessarily mean being enemy of the religion, at least at that time. Mosaddegh, Amirkabir and others were obviously secular. They did not see religion as a prime threat of their time that must be wiped out immediately, but that does not make them religious or having religious tendencies.

Regarding Musaddegh and Kashani: Musaddegh did not flirt with no one, leftist or religious. He ran his nationalist movement and many with a wide variety of views joined the struggle. Kashani was never a member of national front, but was a political leader with huge support who was also advocating oil nationalization and opposing the British and the royal court. Now do you suggest Musaddegh should have dropped the oil nationalization movement just because Kahsani was saying the same thing? Kashani tilted toward royal court later when there was a fall out between him and Musaddegh, and many believe Musaddegh's approach vis-a-vis Kashani was unnecessary at the time that a greater struggle was going on.

The same with constitutional movement: Both its leaders and its enemies had top clerics among their leadership. It was not a movement with a single leader in charge, so the question of who had the guns is moot. No one really tried to integrate anyone there. In general there was no distinct nationalist or religious groups among them. They all at the time were fighting a Moscow-supported Qajar king. I would highly recommend Ahmad Kasravi's book on constitutional movement in which he clearly shows that the line at the time was drawn between supporters of dictatorships and opponents of it, with no clear religious-secular in between. Not to mention that an anti-religion revolution at the time would have received no popular support.

Regarding Abumuslim, it is not clear whether he had any intention of freeing Iran from the Arab empire. He was basically the commander of Abbasid army, and later suppressed many Persian rebellions against Abbasid, including peasant rebellion of Behafarid, a Mazdaist leader in Khorassan.

One must note that the challenge to the role of religion in Iran has only become important in modern times, and only became the most important issue facing the nation since 1979. Blaming leaders of the past who has more important goals to achieve in their own times, is neither fair nor realistic.





Biggest mistake he made, any sort of affiliation with the british agent Kashani.

going forward from 30 Tir, there was some elements leaning to the left and some leaning towards the clergy. But at that stage the Iranian intellectual, students and also a lot of skilled workers were hungry for new ideas in the democratic atmosphere Mossadegh had created;

instead of creating a nationalist cultural revolution he started to flirt a little with the left and a little with the akhounds trying to keep a lid of things.

Big mistake, because these were, are and always will be the two groups in Iran that can never be trusted. One had Great Britain as their daddy and the other Moscow.

Concerning the constitutional revolution, after the execution of SCUM NOORI, the mojahedeen should have continued and completely irradicated the clergy, they had guns and they had relative popular support but they stopped in their heels and again (as fit for those days) tried to integrate the clergy in their movement. Again big mistake.

those opportunities in which the nationalist forces are armed and have popular support will not ever again arrive.

About Abu muslem,
he fucked the omavids in the ass and wiped their dirty, filthy barbaric rule from the sacred soil of Iran but at the moment of truth he handed everything back to another SEMITIC SUB HUMAN CLAN, i.e. the Abassids which ended up being multiple times more savage and inhuman that their heyvoon predecessors.

i hope things are clear now.

my friend.
RELIGION NOT WELCOME.

My dream is that as we have moral police and religious police patrolling streets of tehran i would wish a day to see anti religious combat units patrolling the streets of very city, town, village irradicating traitors and deporting them by the thousands to najaf, karbalaa, kufa and other shit holes where these blood suckers came from.
 
May 21, 2003
19,847
146
Not The Eshaalic Goozpublic !
#25
I am at work so please allow me to segment this to the best of my ability:
Keyvan jan,

It is not really accurate to try to interpret of the events of 50 and 100 years ago based on a post-1979 events. Different times, different priorities.
hmm, Dirooz jaan nationalism (seperated from religion) goes far back to the time of arab invasion. (even prior to that during the seluccids dominance after the fall of Achamenids).

more recently, after WWII nationalist forces began to gain small, however important, momentum in Iranian urban areas, organizations such as SUMKA, Pan Iranian party and we are talking 1940-50s and not post 79.

Now one must look into why this momentum was crushed and by whom?

why, obvious, because dokoon e deen baste mishod, and by whom,

When it comes to the subject of nationalism: all segments of Iranian political life meaning monarchists, akounds, and communists were united to crush nationalism because they knew/know that the rise of nationalism would mean THE INEVITABLE DEMISE OF DOKOON BAAZI, TREASON AND FINANCIAL TERRORISM.

to be continued.
 
May 21, 2003
19,847
146
Not The Eshaalic Goozpublic !
#26
Keyvan jan,


If you are basically saying that anyone who does not advocate swift eradication of religion from society, must have religious tendencies, then we can stop the debate here and agree to disagree. However, being secular did not necessarily mean being enemy of the religion, at least at that time. Mosaddegh, Amirkabir and others were obviously secular. They did not see religion as a prime threat of their time that must be wiped out immediately, but that does not make them religious or having religious tendencies.
within the framework of my thinking there should not be required an act of "irradicating religion by all means";
how so?

Religion does not provide a solution to anyone; may it be a social solution or an economic solution (well excpet for those who utilize it like akhounds and all organizations affiliated with it), by anyone i mean the average joe on the street.

Once people are provided by a national program that begins to tend to their day-to-day needs such as medical, nutrition, safety, education, employment religion would automatically become a reduntant entity in their lives.

so in an ideal environment this should happen naturally and relatively peacefully.
 
May 21, 2003
19,847
146
Not The Eshaalic Goozpublic !
#27
Keyvan jan,

Regarding Musaddegh and Kashani: Musaddegh did not flirt with no one, leftist or religious. He ran his nationalist movement and many with a wide variety of views joined the struggle. Kashani was never a member of national front, but was a political leader with huge support who was also advocating oil nationalization and opposing the British and the royal court. Now do you suggest Musaddegh should have dropped the oil nationalization movement just because Kahsani was saying the same thing? Kashani tilted toward royal court later when there was a fall out between him and Musaddegh, and many believe Musaddegh's approach vis-a-vis Kashani was unnecessary at the time that a greater struggle was going on.
then, IMHO, those many were wrong and the results as precisely as you put it proves this fact.
 
May 21, 2003
19,847
146
Not The Eshaalic Goozpublic !
#28
Keyvan jan,


Regarding Abumuslim, it is not clear whether he had any intention of freeing Iran from the Arab empire. He was basically the commander of Abbasid army, and later suppressed many Persian rebellions against Abbasid, including peasant rebellion of Behafarid, a Mazdaist leader in Khorassan.
you are skipping a step here.

Before him becoming an Abaasid General he destroyed the omavidds and the had the chance to declare Iran an independent muslim/non-muslim lets say for the sake of argument muslim state but he didn't.

the events you are referring to are a consequences of his action.