Correcting The Guardian

Yet another piece of disinformation by The Guardian in an article titled “Ali Shah’s Last Stand”. No, it’s not a history piece on Fath-ali Shah Qajar; The Guardian is referring to Mullah Ali Khamenei:

“Ali Shah is the disrespectful nickname Iranians have in recent years bestowed on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme religious leader of the Islamic republic. It captures what they see as the monarchial aspirations and the clear limitations of the man who took over the function of "guiding" the republic from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini 18 years ago and who now, after an election that has put his man in as president, controls all the major institutions of the Iranian state.”

Interesting that while the author deems it necessary to distinguish the Islamist Republic’s “right-wingers” from its “liberals”, he does not even hint that the “Iranians” he refers to in such sweeping manner could be the anti-monarchists (i.e. republicans). Any Iranian with access to the Internet can tell Mr. Woollacott that the Islamic Republican websites Peyknet and Gooya, for instance, to name just two, have used deceitful characterization of this type routinely with the view of warning their disgruntled readers of the Iranian alternative to the Islamic regime they support. Disrespectful nickname? Here readers could ask themselves two questions.

Why would Iranians use the term “Shah” (King) pejoratively? Sure, you might point to 25 years of exposure to Islamist media, psychological brainwashing or “education” under Soroush’s Islamist educational system. Even so, if one wished to speak disrespectfully about a Mullah…

Exactly who does not deem the term “Mullah” enough disrespectful, perhaps not disrespectful at all, so that, in order to be disrespectful, he would use the term Shah? Clearly, those using the term “Shah” as a disrespectful term either do not feel the same about the term “Mullah” or feel that the latter designation is not pejorative enough. Either way, they are against Shah more than they are against the Mullahs.But not to worry. I’m sure that our Islamist-occupied embassy in London will send a letter of protest to The Guardian demanding an apology for yet another defilement of our heritage.

SOS to Iranian Exiles

A week after the storming of its main headquarters in London by MI5 and the Scotland Yard, Anjomene Padeshahi (Assembly of Monarchy) of Iran has yet to make up for the damage and loss to the computer-electronics equipment that made it possible for its leader, Foroud Fouladvand, to communicate with Iranians worldwide with YourTV, the official organ of the Assembly. Apparently, the official British policy is that while freedom for people living under oppression may require foreign invasion now and then, they do not have the right to free themselves. Apparently, the main victims of the terrorist Islamic Republic of anti-Iran are not permitted to wage war on terrorism, and require outside permission. Are you Americans, or you British, who’ve lost your loved ones in Iraq reading this?

Anjomane Padeshahi has sought the aid of a celebrated French attorney, in addition to two British lawyers, to take the government of Toni Blair to court over this bizarre contradiction in British policy, but in the meantime it needs your help.

Do help. You saw with your own eyes how yesterday’s “anti-Islamists”, “human rights activists”, and “freedom lovers” supported and are today mourning the defeat of Mullah Rafsanjani. You saw with your own eyes how the “liberal” western press put the number of voters at 28 million, when every report, every picture and every phone call you received from our homeland bespoke of massive boycotts. You’ve seen with your own eyes the level of egotism, charlatanism and opportunism of the “opposition” media abroad. What are you waiting for?

To help, you can call:

---Old number DELETED---

In the name of human rights

"In the name of improving human rights, President Jimmy Carter's administration undermined the shah's regime in Iran. As a result, and with the help of the refuge they found in the West, primarily in France, Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters succeeded in gaining control in Tehran. The rest is history, history that has been going on for more than a quarter of a century, with no change on the horizon."

From:

A barrier to Islamic evil
Haaretz
By Reuven Daniel

Even fewer are voting in round 2

Mr. Souresrafil is covering round 2 of the Islamic Republic of anti-Iran's self-legitimizing presidential elections live, as I write.

Callers from various cities in Iran are reporting that all is quiet; that very few people are going to vote.

More on Hizbollah’s ballots in the US

I can only hope that readers reading commentaries such as this realize that it is the Islamic Republic itself that is denounced by Iranians, not the election show. If the Islamic Republic of the Shiite Taliban is anti-Iranian and without any legitimacy, the disqualification of this or that candidate is immaterial.

[Islamic Republic's] sham election -- on U.S. soil

Washington Times (Op-Ed)
June 23, 2005



In recent days, President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and numerous members of Congress have denounced as invalid Iran's presidential election, in particular the fact that Tehran arbitrarily disqualified more than 1,000 of the 1,014 candidates who attempted to run. Unfortunately, thus far, Congress and the administration seem unaware of the fact that the regime has conducted the election in the United States, possibly in violation of U.S. law.

The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since the 1979 hostage crisis. As a result, Iranian officials cannot travel more than 25 miles from Washington (where Iran has an interests section in the Pakistani Embassy) or 12 miles from New York (where Iran's U.N. delegation is based). On the other hand, Iranian law requires that voting be overseen by election officials representing the government -- people who would appear to have no lawful right to be present at any of the polling places that were held last week in mosques, hotels and other buildings across the United States. Last week, the Iranian government did not publicize the location of the polling places until right before the voting began in order to lessen the likelihood of protests by Iranian dissidents. That appears to be the case with tomorrow's presidential runoff.

But the dissidents have their own informal intelligence networks that gather information about where the voting will take place, a fact that displeases the regime and its supporters. On Friday, a clash occurred at one of the polling places, located at the Commerce Hotel in Los Angeles, between security guards working for the Iranian government and anti-regime activists. Aryo Pirouznia, coordinator for the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, tells us he was attacked, sprayed with pepper gas and sent to the hospital by the guards. In Tucson, Ariz., freelance journalist Robert Mayer visited a site at a local school for the visually impaired, where voting officials prepared to count the ballots, phone the results in to Tehran and mail the votes to the Pakistani Embassy in Washington. Mr. Mayer interviewed the poll monitor, a visiting scholar at the University of Arizona, who treated him to a bizarre lecture explaining how Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are CIA agents. In Houston, Will Franklin, who blogs on the site WILLisms, posted photos showing how he was nearly arrested by the Houston Police Department when he attempted to write a story and take pictures of the polling place.

If the voting is being run by Iranian government agents, it may be unlawful. Federal authorities would do well to take action to prevent a repetition tomorrow.

What “high turnout” it must have been!

The committee in charge of the Islamic Republic’s presidential election has announced that all those born on or prior to June 24 1990 (i.e. all 15 year olds) will be permitted to vote in the second round, emphasizing, “even if they did not participate in last week’s elections.”


Amir Taheri writes,

"Even if we accept the official and unverifiable results, the percentage of the electorate that took part this time is the lowest of all the nine presidential elections held in the Islamic Republic since its creation in 1979."

Internet Filtering in Iran in 2004-2005

This report, released by OpenNet Initiative, “documents the degree and extent to which the Iranian government controls the information environment in which its citizens live, including websites, blogs, email, and online discussion forums.”

"Investigating Tucson's Iran Polling Station"

Excellent piece by Publius Pundit on the Islamic Republic of anti-Iran's polling station in Tucson.

Akbar the Pragmatic!

Read Roya Hakakian hail the emergence of a new “pragmatic” era, now following Mullah Khatami’s “reform era”, signaled by last week’s “historic presidential election” held by the Islamic Republic of anti-Iran.

Much overcome by the references to Rafsanjani as “pragmatic”---references made “from Cambridge to Tehran”, or wherever such non-intellectual references to him as a simple Mafioso are carefully avoided---, a quality “for which no Iranian politician has ever been hailed in the past”---the leading figures of Iranian politics before 1979 having all been from Tanzania---, Hakakian writes,

“The use of that word was a change in rhetoric that signals a shift in the Iranian attitude toward the political process. It offers evidence of an Iran that is growing less idealistic and more realistic, one that is struggling to shed the fundamentalism of the last quarter-century and readying for the establishment of a new political order.

That Rafsanjani has been called ‘the can-do candidate’ and ‘Mr. Fixit,’ instead of a ‘visionary’ or a ‘power,’ is a radical departure for a country where the primary mode of expression for most of its history has been the romanticized, ambiguous language of poetry. And this embrace of a more practical prose speaks volumes about the national mood.”

Hakakian’s vague generalizations, like “the Iranian attitude” or “the national mood,” are not only misleading, but also insults to the victims of the republic. “Embrace of a more practical prose!” Those who differentiate between the Shiite Taliban and the people of Iran, who know that Iranians have had no say in the political process of their country, also know that the shift in attitude attributed here to “Iranians” actually concerns a shift in attitude of a cornered regime forced to make that shift. Does Hakakian actually believe that we had to wait 26 years for a signal, in the form of a word characterizing Rafsanjani no less, to realize that Iranians do not accept the Islamic political order? Do 26 years of repression signify that a regime is popular or that it is generally accepted? As to Rafsanjani, I can assure Miss Hakakian that long before Elaine Sciolino and Co. called him a “pragmatist” he was called lots of other names. Did not “Rasman-Jani” (a play on his name meaning certified insane) or “Akbar Kooseh“ (Akbar the Shark) too signify a change in the national mood or attitude?

There is a point to her intellectualized nonsense. She concludes:

“…The embrace of a word and a concept as unfeeling as "pragmatism" seems like an aberration. But it's an aberration I'm willing to accept if it will lead to a new political order in Iran.”

Needless to say, she does not provide further details on the coming “new political order.”

URGENT

Urgent message from Anjomane Padeshahi regarding the arrest of Ostad Foroud Fouladvand:

Please Fax or E-mail it to your local news media

Incidentally, I’ve seen on one website Ostad Fouladvand referred to as a “broadcaster”! He is the leader of Anjomane Padeshahi. “YourTV” is a political organ of the Anjoman.

The arrest of Ostad Fouladvand

The arrest of Forud Fouladvand

Here's a BBC report, with some footage of the arrests.

Iranians arrested in dawn raids by anti-terror police

Times Online
BY Michael Evans and Joanna Bale
June 18, 2005

FOUR Iranians suspected of plotting terrorist attacks in Iran from addresses in North London were arrested by armed police yesterday.

The four men, aged 31, 37, 58 and 63, had been under surveillance by MI5 officers for many months. The decision to arrest them — on the day that Iran went to the polls to elect a president — was taken because of fears that they were in possession of firearms.

There was no evidence that they had engaged in terrorist activities affecting the United Kingdom and it was not clear what the potential targets were in Iran.

The men were seized in Barnet and Finchley by officers from Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch, supported by armed police, under section 41 of the Terrorism Act. Last night they were being questioned at the high-security Paddington Green police station.

The elections yesterday were expected to bring in a moderate president who would be more conciliatory towards the West — anathema to the country’s Islamic fundamentalists.

Two of the suspects were arrested in a car in Barnet’s high street. The road was closed off while police checked the car. No firearms were found in it.

Searches continued at three addresses in North London. One was a council flat on a large 1960s estate in Barnet.

Kerry Germishuzen, who lives opposite, described the dawn raid. She said: “I was woken up at 3.30am by this almighty noise. It sounded like a riot was taking place. I belted out of bed onto my balcony and saw around 20 armed men dressed in black with helmets and balaclavas on. They were trying to smash down the front door of the flat with a battering ram but it took several minutes. They were shouting at the occupants to stay away from the door.”

An ambulance came and some people arrived in white overalls whom she took to be forensic officers. “Eventually, a man in his 50s was led out in handcuffs and put into the ambulance, accompanied by police and forensics officers.”

Ms Germishuzen, a 42-year-old housewife, said: “I had never seen this man before but neighbours had reported strange goings-on in the flat to the police, with lots of male visitors being frisked before they were allowed in.”

Another neighbour, who gave his name as Jamie, added: “They had only been there a few months and were very security-conscious with lots of security lights outside and even boarded-up windows. There was a man in a wheelchair and a woman and a child, but lots of other men coming and going all the time.

“My Mum had an argument with one man over a bump to her car when it was left parked outside the flat. The man told her that she should not cross him. He was very hostile.”

Another witness to the raids at a separate block of flats in Barnet said that police had gathered under railway arches near by before rushing forward to make the arrests.

Chandni Patel, 17, who lives on the ground floor of the targeted block of flats, said the family involved in the arrests had lived there for about two years.

...........................

Meanwhile on NITV, a panel of two clowns in LA are congratulating themselves on a job well done and expressing their surprise as to why their "dear friend", the political prostitute Masoud Behnoud, voted!

Hizbollah's Ballots Abroad

Aryo Pirouznia, far right, and Firouzeh Ghaffarpour, middle, both with the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, (SMCCDI) scream against a fellow unidentified Iranian-American citizen, left, after he voted in the Islamic Republican presidential election Friday, June 17, 2005, in the Los Angeles suburb of Commerce. Los Angeles was one of 36 U.S. cities where voting booths were set up for people born in Iran or born to Iranian parents. Protesters urged Iranians to boycott the voting. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)



Demonstrators protesting against the Islamic Republic's presidential elections are held back from the Islamist occupied Iranian embassy by police in Stockholm on Friday June 17 2005.(AP Photo/Mark Earthy, Pressens Bild)

Ostad Fouladvand Arrested by Brits

Dear Compatriots,

Forud Fouladvand, leader of Anjomane Padeshahi, was arrested Thursday evening, early morning Friday in Britain, by Scotland Yard and charged with acts of “terrorism”. The arrest occurred as Anjomane Padeshahi was about to begin its coverage of the election-show by the Islamic Republic.

Anjomane Padeshahi is now broadcasting from California with Pari Saffari and Mr. [removed]. The Internet broadcast has been shut off since the arrest.

Meanwhile, please read the following article from the "British Ahwazi Friendship Society", a group of Arab terrorists financed by Britain:

Iran Bombings

For the New Yorkers

One time Friday Prayers leader of New York, yes New York, the Shiite Hojat al-Islam Morteza Agha Tehrani, was apparently in Ahvaz encouraging people to vote! I wonder if he is a US resident, even citizen.

Before and After

It is so sad that thanks to 26 years of propaganda against our Monarchy, by the Islamic Republic and its allies and sponsors abroad, there are people who actually believe that things were not “much different” before the anti-Iranian revolution. And anti-Iranian is exactly what it was.

Before and after the 1979 Reaction

Is "Global Exchange" behind Penn’s trip to Iran?

Find out in this excellent article by Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi (daughter of Iranian dissident Siamak Pourzand) and Elio Bonazzi. Excerpt from the article:

“It remains to be seen what Penn will make of the election, but left-wing radical groups like A.N.SW.E.R. and Global Exchange already have their story: they hope to legitimize the elections in Iran as popular and fair, and to condemn the support for the anti-regime movement given by President Bush and his administration as yet another imperial attempt to expand American influence at the expense of an elected government.”

Needless to say, I do not share Mrs. Zand-Bonazzi’s opinion of Akbar Ganji.

Soroush: Vote for Mullah Karrubi!

In this interview with Rooz, an “opposition” website in Canada created recently by Haj-Agha Hossein Derakhshan, the reformist Islamist “intellectual” Abdolkarim Soroush relates his support for Ayatollah Karrubi as Iran’s new president of the republic.

In an article published by the Boston Globe last year, Soroush, the former head of Khomeini’s HCCR, was described as “the democrat” trying to “reconcile religious duties and human rights,” with the additional assurance that “although he once worked for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's revolutionary government, he now advances a powerful argument for democracy and human rights!”

Soroush and his ilk are quite discredited within the Iranian community already, but I hope non-Iranians can learn a lesson or two here on the veracity and credibility of some of the Iran-related articles they read.

Some pictures

Here, you see, you are to forget that Mossadegh was an Iranian and a Monarchist and consequently, if alive, would have put Moin and the rest of the Hizbullahi trash before the firing squad.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/e1384/18716052/

Moin with Akbar Ganji, “opposition” figure. Just be sure never to ask, “opposition to what?”

http://www.flickr.com/photos/e1384/16817819/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/e1384/16868431/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/e1384/16817816/

A professional photographer may guess that this picture was taken with the camera placed on a tripod, but an Iranian knows for certain that it could not have been taken otherwise.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/e1384/18716051/

The Holocaust Fantasy

Came across this article in ISNA. Below is a quick translation. Nothing new, of course, and readers recall that Sahar TV was banned in France back in February for broadcasting anti-Jewish propaganda. Anyway, if the Financial Times can make the claim that the Islamic Revolution has empowered Iranian women, and if the San Francisco Chronicle allows its staff to rewrite Iranian history (in an article supposedly concerned with an “art” exhibition), what else is one to expect from the media of the Shiite Taliban?

Barzideh’s “The Holocaust Fantasy” in Sahar TV
Made for TV film to be dubbed from Arabic into Persian

Iranian Students News Agency
June 13, 2005

“The Holocaust Fantasy”, a made for TV film directed by Abdolhassan Barzideh, is ready to be broadcasted by Sahar TV Network.

In an interview with ISNA, the producer, Sa’id Sa’di, said that the film deals with the innocence of the people of Palestine and the falsehood of the claim by Jews about the burning of their own kind by the Nazis.

According to Sa’di, the film took two months to make and three months were spent in post-production.

The film was made by the recommendation of the overseas service of State Radio/TV, and all the actors are Lebanese. It therefore had to be dubbed from Arabic into Persian.

According to Barzideh the film is a police story, concerned with the Zionists’ claim about the burning of people during the Hitler era; claims which, as evidence shows, experts have discarded. But Jews use this claim to oppress others.

Sunday Bombings in Iran

11 a.m. (Tehran time) Four bombs target government buildings in Ahvaz.
7:15 p.m. A bomb is safely diffused in the Khaniabad area of Tehran.
8:20 p.m. A small bomb concealed in a trash container explodes in Tehran, near “Imam Hussein” square. 2 persons killed.
11 p.m. A hand made bomb explodes in the vicinity of Tehran’s Vahidiyeh Avenue, near a mosque (No injuries or fatalities)

A connection is yet to be established, but it was also reported that a fire started in the basement of a software/computer center in Vali-Asr Avenue, set off by what appears to have been, according to a security official, a remote control device. (No injuries or fatalities)

According to Anjoman, these bombings may have been the work of the Islamic Republic itself, to create an atmosphere of fear preparatory to a declaration of martial law, in order to allow the regime to postpone the election show, which despite all the hard work by “Iranian” bloggers (lol), does not look promising.

Ayatullah Penn @ Friday Prayers!

Sean Penn at Friday Prayers in Tehran!

One thing you can't accuse the Islamic Republic of is having a bad information warfare department. There are two reasons the Islamist Republic is pulling this stunt:

Reviled by the Iranian people and knowing perfectly well that the overwhelming majority will not participate in elections always meant to legitimize the regime, with a bit of help from abroad (a help which has always been there, incidentally) it wants others to believe that elections in Iran are conducted as elections are conducted anywhere.

But why Sean Penn? Penn’s presence in Iran is very likely to fire up memories of pre-invasion Iraq, and as such it can be used by the Islamic Republic as a very subtle piece of propaganda implying US intentions in Iran.

Denigration of History And the Mocking of the National Flag

I translated this article two years ago, and every time I read it I too become choked with tears. It was written by the great Iranian scholar Shojaedin Shafa during the St. Petersburg Jubilee in May 2003, which celebrated the city’s founding by Peter the Great. It was published in Asre Emrooz.



By Prof. Shojaedin Shafa

Among this week’s exciting international events, the celebrations in the Russian republic marking the 300th anniversary of the founding of St. Petersburg hold a special place. Forty heads of states, hundreds of renowned political and cultural figures from around the world, and countless reporters and journalists from the international press have come here for the ceremony. Although the event is very interesting in itself, it is of particular interest to me as an Iranian. As I see it, the hundreds of thousands who shall come to the city for the celebration in the future will have the opportunity during their stay to visit the world’s most beautiful museum, and to be dazzled by its treasures of pre and post Islamic Iranian art, the most extensive and the most illustrious of its kind. I’ve visited this city in the past (when it was called Leningrad), spending hours upon hours looking at the most extensive display of Sassanian ceramics or the world’s largest display of Persian handicrafts, succeeding, however, to see only but a fraction of the assortment. Perhaps the reader is herself aware of the museum’s possession of the one of a kind 2500-year-old Persian rug, the oldest rug in the world.

However, it is not the collection of Persian art in the Hermitage or St. Petersburg libraries’ huge holdings of Persian manuscripts that have inspired me to write today. I’m impelled to write by the recollection, brought forth by the present ceremonies, of an important and notable event in our own nation’s contemporary history; recollections which, although very bitter for our generation, can in retrospect bear a constructive message for Iran’s future generations.

Thirty years ago, our own nation witnessed a celebration of similar international dimensions, hosting even more heads of states, cultural and political figures, and representatives of the world press to honor an occasion designated as the 2500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire by King Cyrus the Great. Just as the founding of a large city by Peter the Great is being celebrated today, that day the founding of a vast Empire by King Cyrus the Great was honored and celebrated. However, with the important difference that if king Peter was a reformer, he was at the same time so selfish and brutal as to send thousands, including his own son, to their death, whereas Cyrus the Great, a reformist Monarch, was also so enlightened and compassionate as to found his nation’s throne, that of the world’s oldest Monarchy, upon the world’s first ever declaration of the freedoms of thought and religion. In the Torah, Cyrus is referred to as a messenger from God and the liberator of the oppressed. And Hegel, founder of the philosophy of history, considers his reign as marking the commencement of the historical period in the true sense.

This fact is reflected in all other aspects of the comparison as well. If according to the contemptuous and raging words of George Ball (an American statesman during the Persian Centennial) the host of honors Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was nothing but a low-born Cossack who hosted the ceremony in order to convey himself as a descendant of Cyrus, then by the same calculation the host of honors in St. Petersburg today is an ex-Soviet KGB agent in need of conveying himself as a follower of the Romanoffs. Needless to say, American statesmen are making no such declarations today. If according to some, Iran’s economy at that time was in such dire states that it did not allow for such commemoration, the same can be said of the Russian economy today, for the present Russian annual income is hardly any higher than the annual income in Iran thirty years ago. However, American “experts” feel no need for such a warning today. If there was talk of human rights violations in Iran at that time, today we can also find much commentary on “Chechnya” in the international press, yet not a single commentary by human rights defenders in protest against celebrating the founding of St. Petersburg. Quite the contrary: In Russia or outside Russia, no newspaper, no radio station, no television channel, no human rights organization, no economist and no intellectual can be found who is raising his or her voice in protest.

Let us not forget that the denigration of the ceremony honoring Cyrus the Great and the Persian Empire was instigated by a number of Iranian groups themselves, acting in opposition to the reigning monarch at the time. But this unique occasion did not involve the Shah only. It involved the history of Iran. It involved the culture and civilization of Iran. It involved our national honor and prestige. It involved an old Nation that after 1400 years of defeat, occupation, mass slaughter, annexation and decline, once again rose---at a time when the majority of the people around the world knew very little of Her---to show the world Her historic identity and individuality. She demanded Her designated and rightful place among the greater family of Civilization, a place rightfully reserved in the Third Millennium for what Hegel called “the first nation that made history”; a place for a nation civilized and full of life, not a third world country with no honor and prestige.

Choked with tears and with a heavy heart I write: The celebration of 2500 years of a history and culture which from the beginning formed one of the pillars of civilization---bearing in mind Her role and responsibilities in the history of culture and civilization---was the most unique and home-born of its kind in the entire 20th century.

The denigration of such a dignified and prestigious ceremony by pointing fingers at this or that person in the most miserly and ignoble manner (for some negligible abuse in connection with the service provided for the guests or the purchase of tents for Persepolis) was like punishing an entire population for this or that man’s petty crime, particularly as the alleged abuse would be incomparable either with the wheeling and dealing (on the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars) behind the American Bicentennial celebrations (1976), or the multi-billion dollar grand larceny perpetuated by the Mafia of a republic which today celebrates the 300th anniversary of the founding of its former capital.

What I can conclude from these facts and pass on to the next generation of Iranians is this: Every flaw and imperfection in our country during the celebration honoring Cyrus and the founding of His Monarchy also exists in a country where the founding of St. Petersburg is being celebrated today, but even the most radical and extreme opponents of the Russian leader, whether inside or outside Russia, fully comprehend that where the history and prestige of Russia and her people are concerned, there is no place for the display of personal vendettas, because to denigrate a nation’s history, identity and culture is to thoughtlessly slander and mock her flag. That if this truth of history is snubbed, the result would be the coming to power of such entities as the Islamic Republic, whose head of radio and television networks---precisely the very instruments that should assert Cyrus’ national prestige---can make the claim, in a “very scientific speech”, that Iran before Islam had no history and no civilization, and that all she possesses today she owes to a culture and civilization delivered to her through Islam courtesy of sword-wielding Arab bandits.

Qom Bombings

The BBC Persian Service, considered the official voice of the Islamo-gangster Republic abroad, is corroborating the story on the bombings ("explosions") in Qom, but there is no mention of regime opponents.

News from the “holy” city of Qom

Supporters of Anjomane Padeshahi (Kingdom Assembly) in Iran reported about 15 minutes ago that they’ve detonated four powerful sound bombs near Qom's Feyziyeh Seminary.

The "victory" of the 1979 revolution?

Have you seen the leading article in Shaheen Fatemi’s “Iran Va Jahan”? This time it’s a “manifesto” by the newly created organization modestly calling itself “Jonbeshe Democracy-Khahiye Melat-e Iran” (Democracy-seeking Movement of the People of Iran!). It begins with: ”After the victory of the 1979 revolution…”

After reading the “manifesto” you may also want to visit the “Democracy-seeking Movement of the People of Iran’s” website, and take a look at their links to various political parties and radio/TV stations.

Antiwar.com's comments about "Iran Liberty Walk"

Blogging...Antiwar.com style!

Here’s a short piece I wrote about this ultra conservative website some time ago:

Iran in “Antiwar.com”

What exactly is meant by being “anti-war”, or “pro-peace” for that matter, I confess I don’t know. I do know however that the majority of readers visiting Anti-war.com do so to read “alternative” viewpoints on the war against terrorism. This “progressive” site is linked to by the overwhelming majority of other “Leftist” websites and is quite popular among “peace activists”. Readers, particularly the more vulnerable younger readers, visit the site believing they’ll find writers genuinely concerned with the peace and welfare of people around the world. Yet, this anticipation is a good illustration of being blinded by one’s own senses for, obviously, calling an article or a writer humanistic or progressive requires a better reason than the title of the website where they can be found. Calling a writer progressive requires that one first read his or her works!

Iranians visiting websites such as Counterpunch, Antiwar and Znet can grasp that the same “Left” that endlessly vilified the government of Iran in the 1970’s---paving the way, by way of shaping public opinion, for powers that be to set in motion, and subsequently justify, the Islamic-communist revolution of 1979---continues to be either signally passive towards the genocidal crimes of the Islamic Republic against the people of Iran, or provides analyses or submits proposals that accommodate the interests of that barbaric regime. These Iranians are not puzzled for instance as to why, during the bloody 2003 student uprising, a “progressive” organ called Counterpunch would publish an article called “Keep Your Hands Off the Islamic Republic, Please!” by a Kam Zarrabi*. These Iranians are not puzzled as to why the Leftist Tompaine.com (“The best progressive insight and action…all day”) would ridicule President Bush’s proposal for regime change in Iran only to speak approvingly of the Council on Foreign Relations and Zbigniew Brzenski’s call for appeasement.

In a previous post I wrote about Stephen Kerr’s defense of the genocidal anti-Iranian Islamic Republic in Znet. Today we’ll focus on Roger Howard of Antiwar.com.

In an article titled “Dealing With Iran’s Nuclear Challenge” (June 22, 2004) he recommends a number of steps to “enhance nuclear cooperation” on the part of the Islamic Republic. Considering the likelihood of the Islamic Republic being reported to the UN Security Council in the coming months, he argues that as there is neither sufficient evidence to incriminate the Iranian Taliban in building atomic bombs, nor likely that economic sanctions would be imposed, the threat of such sanctions might instead be more effective if it stands “alongside some other measures.” What are these measures or steps that Howard recommends?

He writes,

“A clear American acknowledgement that Tehran has legitimate security interests of its own would, for example, help the mullahs put aside their nuclear ambitions, even if it is an exaggeration to say that Iran wants a nuclear weapon just to deter any future aggressor: considerations of national prestige, for example, also come into play.”

Iran certainly does have legitimate security interests. These interests, however, should not be confused with the interests of the barbaric Islamist regime that has been ruling Iran since the overthrow of the Iranian government. Substituting “the Islamic Republic” with “Tehran” will not do, Mr. Howard. The interests of turbaned clerics stoning Iranians to death, and their lackeys such as Ayatullah Ebadi who sing their praises in Oslo, Paris, and Toronto, Howard should not feign ignorance, differ from the interests of their victims, who are the people of Iran. If the Islamic Republic has one “legitimate” security interest that desperately needs acknowledgment from the United States is that it be allowed to remain in power. It wants a clear American acknowledgement that leaders such as President George W. Bush discard the idea of regime change. Also, if Howard believes that the Iranian Taliban is the least concerned with Iran’s national prestige, then he knows next to nothing about Iran and Iranians. Iranian national prestige, Mr. Howard, will only be restored when this barbaric, bloodthirsty, and anti-Iranian regime is overthrown.

Howard continues that Washington could make just such an acknowledgement by withdrawing or scaling down some of its military presence in the region, and answering the Islamic Republic’s accusations of influencing IAEA, the latter for the benefit of those proclaiming that the IAEA is either under US pressure or a tool in the hands of Great Satan. “A fitting American response,” he writes, “would not only quiet demands for UN sanctions but also avoid any unnecessary criticism of [the Islamic Republic] that fosters the impression of implacable U.S. hostility.” He writes, “American administrators in Iraq could, for example, drop their frequent accusations about Iranian ‘interference,’ none of which has been backed with evidence and most of which are at odds with the views of their British counterparts…” What Howard, in effect, is proposing I’ll leave to the judgment of the reader herself. I will only point out that the article ends with the following observation:

“Economic leverage on Iran may perhaps be enough to meet the nuclear challenge. But looking at the bigger picture will much improve its chances.”

The last measure recommended by Roger Howard in the “progressive” Anti-war.com website, in my opinion, is the most eye opening of all. To further avoid any “unnecessary criticism” of [the Islamic Republic] that fosters the impression of hostility, Roger Howard concludes by recommending:

“The U.S. and the European powers will also need to tone down their rhetoric about human rights inside Iran.”

A real internationalist! A believer in the universality of human rights! Incidentally, readers may want to search the archives of these “progressive” websites for articles still vilifying the Shah and the "horrendous" government which these Islamists and their "leftist" allies overthrew.

Pointing out that EU's policy of "critical dialogue"--- which he claims has made Europe's diplomatic/economic talks since 1995 dependent on discussion of human rights---has achieved nothing, he infers that outsiders are powerless to influence the Islamic Republic’s domestic policies. Mr. Howard fails to point out that despite (or because of) their lip service for human rights since 1995, continued violations of human rights did not prevent the European states from dealing with, and profiting from the Islamic Republic. In short, critical dialogue achieved nothing because it was a farce: Europe's diplomatic and economic intercourse was dependent on discussion of human rights on paper only.

He writes,

“The legal ban in December 2002 upon the barbaric custom of stoning some criminals to death is trumpeted by diplomats as a triumph of the EU's approach, but it is misleading since the practice was virtually dead in any case.”

Taking the Shiite Taliban at its official word, Howard, like other supporters of the Islamic Republic, does not provide evidence that the practice was “virtually” (surly a most abominable use of this adverb) dead in any case. Had he written with less haste, had he consulted with the regime’s opponents, or had he consulted the Islamic Republic’s own newspapers**, he would have realized that stonings have naturally continued since December 2002. Furthermore, that the Islamic Republic can carry out such acts in secret is not even considered.

He concludes:

“Any such focus on Iran's dire human rights record instead fosters Iran's paranoia and allows Western criticism of the matters that we can influence – such as the nuclear issue – to be portrayed as ‘a calculated conspiracy’ against the Islamic Republic instead of legitimate concern for our own national interest.”

A conclusion also reached by the peace activist Zbigniew Brzezinski, most Democrats and other peace loving folks in the Council on Foreign Relations. An “alternative” view indeed!


* http://www.counterpunch.org/zarrabi06282003.html
** Quds newspaper. November 11, 2003: Report on the sentencing to death by stoning of four men. In fact, in November 2003 the Islamist "judiciary" initiated an amendment to existing laws, detailing how to carry out stoning and crucifixion!

Happy June 3rd!

Wishing the children of Cyrus and Reza Shah the Great, from Mazandaran to Khuzestan, from Baluchestan to Azarbaijan , a happy June 3rd on this, the sixteenth anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini’s passage into the depths of Hell.

Execution

Footage of two August 2004 executions carried out by the Islamic Republic in the city of Khoramabad. The footage was smuggled out by the National Council of Resistance.

Warning: Very graphic--Death by Hanging.

Muslims first, Iranians second!

Well, given the war against our national identity (to the point where we’ve even been categorized into various ethnic groupings), our designation as “Moslems” instead of “Iranians” should hardly come as a surprise.

“First Muslim women conquer Mount Everest”

Bloggers of Iran!

“Bloggers of Iran”. That’s the title of a short piece about Iranian bloggers and the Islamic Republic’s upcoming presidential election show, published two days ago by The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel in that journal’s “Editor’s Cut” Blog. Reading it the Iranian reader wonders, as he does reading countless other articles in the “liberal” press, whether by assuming ignorance on the part of the author once more, as it has been his habit for 26 years, he is being overly dismissive, too generous or is simply deceiving himself.

Simply put, Heuvel’s article is a reinforcement of an idea which one of the Islamic Republic’s main Internet savvy mouthpieces abroad has been working full time to spread: Calling Hossein Derakhshan who has been comfortably living in Toronto for some years “one of Iran’s leading bloggers”, Heuvel agrees that the coming elections will be “one of the most open and transparent elections Iran has ever seen.” Other open and transparent elections under the anti-Iranian Islamo-gangster regime aside, the point is that it is under the Islamic Republic that such elections will be held. Not a word about how elections were conducted prior to the coming of the Islamists, and very much in keeping with the principle that readers should not question the legitimacy of the Islamist regime in the first place.

“The Internet is playing a major role,” writes Heuvel, adding, “This is the first time, for example, that most of the major candidates have their own websites.” No doubt the Internet is playing a major role, but why credit blogs, and by implication people, such as the Hizbollahi Mustafa Moin and Mullah Mohammad Abtahi with “opening up Iranian society and culture”? If Heuvel realizes that the Islamic regime does censor and imprison some journalists, is it difficult to realize why it doesn’t censor or imprison others? Now, Heuvel provides a list of ten blogs “that offer an unprecedented window on Iran's political culture, while helping to open up and make that society more accountable.” Haj Agha Hossein Derakhshan’s Hoder.com, of course, tops the list. Hossein’s view on how blogs are opening up Iranian society? They have enabled candidates committed to the preservation of the Islamic Republic to reach out to a wider audience! Other blogs in Heuvel’s list are of the same type, supportive of this or that candidate. Moin, who is a candidate, is also included in the list. How blogs written in Persian made it to Heuvel’s top ten list is not difficult imagine, considering the purpose of her article, but even a quick perusal of each can be instructive.