Log in

View Full Version : Full Text of President Ahmadinejad’s Remarks at U.N. Conference on Racism



AvanteRedGarde
21st April 2009, 20:04
Full Text of President Ahmadinejad’s Remarks at U.N. Conference on Racism

April 21, 2009
by Jeremy R. Hammond


Ahmadinejad speaks at the U.N. conference on racism (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images)



This is a rush transcript of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks at the United Nations Durban Review Conference on racism in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 20, 2009.



In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful… [Protestors in clown costumes escorted out by security] May he bestow upon his prophets…



Praise be upon Allah, the Almighty, who is just, kind, and compassionate. May he bestow upon his prophets his blessings and his grace from Adam to Noah; Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and His last prophet, Mohammed. Peace be upon them all who are the harbingers of monotheism, fraternity, love … [Applause] … human dignity and justice.



Mr. Chairman. I call upon all distinguished guests to forgive these ignorant people.



In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be upon Allah, the Almighty, who is just, kind, and compassionate, and praise and salutations of the Almighty God to the great prophet. May he bestow upon [us] His blessings, His grace. We thank the Almighty God. Praise be upon him who is just and who is compassionate. And the salutations and regards of Allah to his prophets, from Noah to Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and his last prophet Mohammed. Peace be upon them all who are the harbingers of monotheism, fraternity, love, human dignity, and justice.



Mr. Chairman. Honorable Secretary General of the United Nations. Madam High Commissioner. Ladies and Gentleman. We have gathered here in the follow up to the Durban conference against racism and racial discrimination to work out practical mechanisms for our holy and humanitarian campaigns.



Over the last centuries, humanity has gone through tremendous suffering and pain. In the middle ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade, when innocent people in millions were captivated and separated from their families and loved ones, to be taken to Europe and America under worse conditions; the dark period that also experienced occupations, lootings, and massacres of innocent people.



Many years passed by before nations rose up and fought for their liberty and freedom, and they paid a high price. They lost millions of lives to expel the occupiers and proclaim their independence. However, it did not take long that the coercive powers imposed two wars in Europe which also plagued a part of Asia and Africa. Those horrific wars claimed about 100 million lives and left behind massive devastation. Had lessons been learned from the occupations, horrors, and crimes of those wars, there would have been a ray of hope for the future. The victorious powers called themselves the conquerors of the world while ignoring or downtreading the rights of other nations by the imposition of oppressive laws and international arrangements.



Ladies and gentlemen, let us take a look at the U.N. Security Council, which is one of the legacies of World War II and World War I. What was the logic behind their granting themselves the veto rights? How can such a logic comply with humanitarian or spiritual values? Could it be in conformity with the recognized principles of justice, equality before law, love, and human dignity? [Applause] Or rather, with discrimination, injustice, violation of human rights, or humiliation of the majority of nations and countries?



That Council is the highest decision-making world body for safeguarding the international peace and security. How can we expect the realization of justice and peace when discrimination is legalized and the origin of law is dominated by coercion and force rather than by justice and the right?

Coercion and arrogance is the origin of oppression and wars. Although today many proponents of racism condemn racial discrimination in their words and in their slogans, a number of powerful countries have been authorized to decide for other nations based on their own interests and at their own discretions. And they can easily ridicule and violate all laws and humanitarian values, as they have done so.



Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings. And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine… [Delegates walk out in protest. Applause] And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe… Okay, please. Thank you. And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive, racist regime in Palestine. [Applause]



The Security Council helped stabilize this occupation regime and supported it in the past 60 years, giving them a free hand to continue their crimes. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defend those racist perpetrators of genocide whilst the awakened conscience and free minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and bombardments of civilians in Gaza. They have always been supportive or silent against their crimes. And before that, they have always been silent with regard to their crimes.



Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, what are the root causes of U.S. attacks against Iraq or invasion of Afghanistan? [Shouts from audience] What are the root causes of U.S. attacks against Iraq invasion of Afghanistan? Was the motive behind the invasion of Iraq anything other than the arrogance of the then U.S. administration and the mounting pressures on the part of the owner of wealth and power to expand their sphere of influence, seeking the interests of giant arms manufacturing companies, affecting a noble culture with thousands of years of historical background, eliminating potential and practical traits of Muslim countries against the useful Zionist regime, or to control and plunder energy resources of the Iraqi people? Why, indeed almost a million people were killed and injured and a few more millions were displaced and became homeless. Why, indeed the Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. And why was hundreds of billions of dollars imposed on the American people and its allies as a result of these military actions? Wasn’t the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then U.S. administration in complicity with the arms manufacturing companies and the owner of the wealth?



The invasion of Afghanistan; restore peace, security, and economic well being in this country. The United States and its allies not only have failed to contain [?] in Afghanistan, but also the illicit cultivation of narcotics multiplied in the course of their presence. The basic question is: What was the responsibility of the job of the then U.S. administration and its allies? Did it represent the world? Have they been mandated by them? Have they been authorized on behalf of the people of the world to interfere in all parts of the globe? And of course mostly in our region aren’t these measures a clear example of egocentrism, racism, discrimination, or infringement upon the dignity and independence of nations?



Ladies and gentlemen, who are responsible for the current global economic crisis? Where did the crisis start from? From Africa? From Asia? Or was it first from the United States, then spreading to Europe and to their allies?



For a long time they imposed inequitable economic regulations. By their political power on the international economy they imposed a financial and a monetary system without a proper international oversight mechanism on nations and governments that played no role in the repressive trends or policies. They have not even allowed their people to oversee of monitor their financial policies. They introduce all laws and regulations in defiance to all moral values only to protect the interests of the owners of wealth and power. They further presented a definition of market economy and competition that denied many of the economic opportunities that could be available to other countries of the world. They even transferred their problems to others whilst the wave of crisis lashed back, plaguing their economies with thousands of billions of dollars in budget deficits. And today, they are injecting hundreds of billions of cash from the pockets of their own people into the failing banks companies and financial institutions making the situation more and more complicated for the economy and their people. They are simply thinking about maintaining power and wealth. They couldn’t care any less about the people of the world and even about their own people.



Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, racism is rooted in the lack of knowledge concerning the truth of human existence as the selected creature of God. It is also the product of his deviation from the true path of human life and the obligations of mankind in the world of creation. Failing to consciously worship God, not being able to think about the philosophy of life or the path to perfection that are the main ingredients of divine and humanitarian values, have restricted the horizon of human outlook, making transient and limited interests a yardstick for his actions.



That is why the cells of the Devil’s power took shape and expanded its realm of power by depriving others from enjoying equitable and just opportunities to development. The result has been the making of an unbridled racism that is posing the most serious threat against the international peace and has hindered the way for building peaceful coexistence in the entire world. Undoubtedly, racism is the symbol of ignorance which has deep roots in history. And it is indeed a sign of frustration in the development of human society. It is therefore crucially important to trace the manifestations of racism in situations or in societies where ignorance or lack of knowledge prevails in the societies. This increasing general awareness and understanding towards the philosophy of human existence is the principle struggle against such manifestations; which is the key to understanding the truth that humankind centers on the creation of the universe, and the key to a return to the spiritual and moral values, and finally the inclination to worship God the Almighty. The international community must initiate collective moves to raise awareness in the afflicted societies where the ignorance of racism still prevails so as to bring to a halt the spread of these malicious manifestations.



Dear friends, today the human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity in the beginning of the third millennium. The world Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuse religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces.



However, it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world. They mobilize all their resources, including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime, and maliciously endeavor to diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime. This is not simply a question of ignorance, and one cannot conquer this ugly phenomenon through cultural campaigns. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their supporters of political and international means and respect of the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism [applause] and to move towards reforming … [applause] … the current international mechanisms.



There is no doubt that you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference. Unfortunately, there has been literature and statements in support of Zionism and their crimes, and it is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles. It should be recognized that boycotting such a session as an outstanding international capacity is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism.



In defending human rights it is primarily important to defend the rights of all nations to participate equally in all important international decision making processes without the influence of certain world powers. And secondly it is necessary to restructure the existing international organizations and their respective arrangements. Therefore this conference is a testing ground and the world public opinion today and tomorrow will judge our decisions and our actions [applause].



Mr. President. Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen. The world is going through fundamental changes, radical fundamental changes. Power relations have become so weak and fragile. The sounds of cracks in the pillars of world oppression can now be heard. Major political and economic structures are at the brink of collapse. Political and security crises are on the rise. The worsening crises in the world economy for which there can be seen no bright prospect, amply demonstrate the rising tide of far reaching global changes. I have repeatedly emphasized the need the change the wrong direction in which the world has been managed today. And I have also warned of the dire consequences of any delay in this crucial responsibility. Now, in this [?] and valuable event, I would like to announce here to all leaders thinkers, and to all nations of the world present in this meeting and those who have a hunger for peace and economic well being, that the management, the inequitable and unjust management of the world, is now at the end of the road. This deadlock was inevitable since the logic of this imposed management was oppressive.



The logic of collective management of world affairs is based on noble aspirations which centers on human beings and the supremacy of the Almighty God. Therefore it defies any policy or plan which goes against the interest of nations. Victory of the right over the wrong and establishment of a just world system have been promised by the Almighty God and his messengers and it has been a shared goal of all human beings from different societies and generations in the course of history. Realization of such a future depends upon the knowledge of the creation and the belief in the hearts of all the faithful [applause]. The making of a global society is in fact the accomplishment of a noble held in the establishment of a common global system that will be run with the participation of all nations of the world in all major and basic decision making processes and the definite route to this sublime goal. Scientific and technical capacities as well as communication technologies have created a common and wider spread understanding of the world society and has provided the necessary ground for a common system.



Now it is incumbent upon all intellectuals, thinkers, and policy makers in the world to carry out their historical responsibility with firm belief to this definite route, I also want to lay emphasis on the fact that the western liberalism and capitalism, like communism, has reached to its end since it has failed to perceive the truth of the world and human[kind] as it is. It has imposed its own goals and directions on human beings with no regard for human and divine values, justice, freedom, love, or brotherhood; has based the living on the intensive competition securing individual and collective material interests.



Now we must learn from the past by initiating collective efforts by dealing with present challenges, and in this connection and in closing my remarks I wish to draw your kind attention to two important points. One: It is absolutely impossible to improve the existing situation in the world.



However, it must be noted that it could only be achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of existing capacities and resources in the world. My participation in this conference is because of my conviction of these important issues, as well as to our common responsibility to defending the rights of nations vis-a-vis the sinister phenomenon of racism, and being with you, the thinkers of the world. [Applause]



Two: Mindful of the inefficacy of the current international political, economic, and security systems on the world scene, it is necessary to focus on the divine and humanitarian values and by referring to the true definition of human beings, and based upon justice and respect for the rights of all people in all parts of the world, and by acknowledging the past wrongdoings in the past dominant management of the world undertake collective measures to reform the existing structures. In this respect, it is crucially important to reform the structure of the Security Council, including the elimination of the discriminatory veto right … [applause] … and change the current world and financial monetary systems. It is evident that lack of understanding on the urgency for change is equivalent to the much heavier costs of delay.



Dear friends, be aware that to move in the direction of justice and human dignity is like the national rapid flow in the current of a river. Let us not forget the essence of love and affection, the promised bright future of human beings is a great asset that will serve our purpose in keeping us together to build a new world and to make the world a better place full of love, fraternity and blessings; a world devoid of poverty and hatred, [inaudible] the increasing blessings of God Almighty and the righteous management of the perfect human being. Let us all join hands in amity in playing our share in the fulfillment such a decent new world.

I thank you Mr. President, Secretary General, and all distinguished participants for having the patience to listen to me. Thank you very much.

Patchd
21st April 2009, 20:08
So he didn't mention the Holocaust at all? Just curious as a lot is being said about the situation and not everything is coherent.

AvanteRedGarde
21st April 2009, 20:12
Not he mentioned the holocaust. It was right at the moment that the imperialist delegates walked out:



Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings. And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine… [Delegates walk out in protest. Applause] And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe… Okay, please. Thank you. And in fact in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive, racist regime in Palestine.

Patchd
21st April 2009, 20:16
I'm confused sorry, did he or did he not mention it? It seems like he didn't do so, but I'm wondering if the three dots "..." mean anything, perhaps a line was left out because in another thread someone mentioned that he did mention the holocaust.

AvanteRedGarde
21st April 2009, 20:20
I think this was because he was interrupted by the walk out and applause (which i took to be in support of the speech). He was simply continuing where he left off.

The "dire consequences of the racism of Europe" is an allusion to the Holocaust.

Uppercut
21st April 2009, 20:33
Ahmadenijad, although a hardline muslim, makes a lot of good points. The U.S. and Europe are responsible for the economic downturn, as well as giving islamic land to a bunch of zionist war criminals.

AvanteRedGarde
21st April 2009, 20:40
Honestly, I just skimmed it and haven't read it very thoroughly. My biggest critique was the religious claptrap. But Ahadinejad doesn't claim to be a communist so i can hardly hold it against him.

What I find really disheartening is when so-called leftists attack Ahmadinejad for speaking up the masses of the middle east, whom are oppressed by imperialism, corrupt comprador regimes and constant threats and continued occupation from America's Zionist pitbull. For what I've read thus far, he should be applauded by leftists for speaking out against imperialism (while of course remaining critical and offering our own alternative).

black magick hustla
21st April 2009, 20:44
Who gives a shit about what the head of a state that has habitually murdered kurds says about racism. To hell with the islamic state and their murderous mullahs and the leftists who support them.

black magick hustla
21st April 2009, 20:47
What I find really disheartening is when so-called leftists attack Ahmadinejad for speaking up the masses of the middle east, whom are oppressed by imperialism, corrupt comprador regimes and constant threats and continued occupation from America's Zionist pitbull. For what I've read thus far, he should be applauded by leftists for speaking out against imperialism (while of course remaining critical and offering our own alternative).

This is garbage and an insult to all the communists that have been put up against the wall by the clerical vermin.

Patchd
21st April 2009, 20:47
I don't think he should be applauded by the left simply for speaking out against Western Imperialism, he has ulterior motives for doing so, not because he wants to see an egalitarian society in his region, but because he wants Iran become the hegemonic state in the region, in addition, his "anti-Imperialism" helps to foster Nationalism and anti-Americanism within Iran, something which actually strengthens his regime as it limits support for workers', feminist, and secular movements in Iran.

Let's be realistic, Ahmadinejad would love to be able to sit in the White House.

la lucha sigue
21st April 2009, 20:55
For what I've read thus far, he should be applauded by leftists for speaking out against imperialism (while of course remaining critical and offering our own alternative).

he should certainly be applauded for his anti-imperialist stance, but we need to remind him of more than our alternative. the posts above give examples of what he needs reminded of.

black magick hustla
21st April 2009, 20:56
he should certainly be applauded for his anti-imperialist stance, but we need to remind him of more than our alternative. the posts above give examples of what he needs reminded of.

National capitalists cannot be anti-imperialist. They are completely integrated to the world economy. Just see what happened to Africa after the series of anti-colonial struggles. Nobody should applaud that motherfucker for anything except maybe if he ever hangs from a tree.

AvanteRedGarde
21st April 2009, 21:04
... he has ulterior motives for doing so, not because he wants to see an egalitarian society in his region, but because he wants Iran become the hegemonic state in the region, in addition, his "anti-Imperialism" helps to foster Nationalism and anti-Americanism within Iran, something which actually strengthens his regime as it limits support for workers', feminist, and secular movements in Iran.

Let's be realistic, Ahmadinejad would love to be able to sit in the White House.

Even so, Iranian imperialism is an allegory, not a functional description that corresponds with that of the modern capitalist-imperialist system. Insofar as Ahadinejad wants to be the next Bush or Obama of the Middle East and to the exclusion of U.S. imperialism, let him strike blows again the main enemy- U.S. imperialism. Splits between the ruling classes are usually a good thing strategically for the oppressed, if they can seize the initiative for themselves.

AvanteRedGarde
21st April 2009, 21:06
National capitalists cannot be anti-imperialist. They are completely integrated to the world economy. Just see what happened to Africa after the series of anti-colonial struggles.

All the more reason to point out and elevate the necessity of a revolutionary anti-imperialist alternative.

punisa
21st April 2009, 21:07
Thanks for the transcript.
As much as I don't agree with the guy, let me also point out how various media reports obstructed what he said:
On Croatian television, on central News they stated that he denied holocaust as it has never existed.
Now, I know he did say something along those lines back in 2005, right?
But clearly he did not say it now. First I watched English translation on youtube and afterwards on our tv news.
They kept saying that people walked out because he said "holocaust did not exist", just goes to show how media manipulated stuff.

Patchd
21st April 2009, 21:10
Even so, Iranian imperialism is an allegory, not a functional description that corresponds with that of the modern capitalist-imperialist system. Insofar as Ahadinejad wants to be the next Bush or Obama of the Middle East and to the exclusion of U.S. imperialism, let him strike blows again the main enemy- U.S. imperialism. Splits between the ruling classes are usually a good thing strategically for the oppressed, if they can seize the initiative for themselves.

Definitely, he can do so if he wishes, however at the same time we should also denounce him for his treatment of Iranian women, LGBTQ people, workers and certain ethnic minorities as well as atheists and polytheists. To stay silent on the matter does nothing but insult those persecuted and oppressed under his regime.

At the same time, like you said, we must express the view that Imperialism is the main enemy, and that Imperialism is inherently tied into Capitalism. We're not trying to lie, or keep anything from the working class, the bourgeoisie can do what the hell they like with each other, but we must remind ourselves that we do not have just one enemy (US Imperialism), but we have many, that being world Capitalism, wherever it manifests and however it manifests.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
21st April 2009, 21:19
I really hope they throw his ass out in the upcoming elections.

Anyway, it was Ahmadinejad so it doesn't really matter what he actually said. The media here will just bring up whatever they want to try and paint him as Adolf Lite.

PeaderO'Donnell
21st April 2009, 22:48
Definitely, he can do so if he wishes, however at the same time we should also denounce him for his treatment of Iranian women, LGBTQ people, workers and certain ethnic minorities as well as atheists and polytheists. To stay silent on the matter does nothing but insult those persecuted and oppressed under his regime.


There are more women in the Iranian parlament than in the American senate. Give and take women are probably better off in Iran than they are in much of the west.

h0m0revolutionary
21st April 2009, 23:18
There are more women in the Iranian parlament than in the American senate. Give and take women are probably better off in Iran than they are in much of the west.

I know i shouldn't, but I am so offended by your bullshit :glare:

Are you seriously suggesting the female represetation in an islamic theorcracy/single party dictatorship state is a sign of progression!?

This is the same theocratic regime that enforces strict dress codes upon women, that covers them up as a symbol that women are markedly different - different and subordinate.

The same barbarous regime that enforces the death penality for homosexuals, subjects lesbians and gay people to lashes, public humiliation, arrest and torture all for the crime of loving someoen of the same sex!

The same regime that enforces Sharia Law that suggests men can have up to four permanent (and as many temporary) wives as they want, while women have no such freedom.

The same regime that in it's Islamic courts views the voice of a female as worth HALF the value as that of men

Women in iran, and this si just off the top of my head!
- Have to have their husbands written permission to travel, and without it are subjected to harasement by the curiously-named 'morality police'
- Cannot be granted custody of children in Iran, as the next to kin is always their father or their fathers male relatives
- Can face the punishment of being stoned to death for adultery

The wider context is that this is a regime that imprisons trade unionists, murders leftists in their millions from Tehran to Kurdistan. A regime that boasts that it's workforce consists overwhelmingly of part-time contracts, meaning minimal worker rights. A regime that brutally oppresses the feminist movement, the workers movement, the natioanl minorities and the secularist movement!

How dare you suggest women have it good under the Theorcratic dictatorship of Ahmadinejad, tell that to the feminists in Iran who are greeted with acid to their faces when they mobilise against the forced imprisonment of their comrades for simply asking for more lentient female dress codes!

Down with dictatorship!
www.hopoi.org

PeaderO'Donnell
21st April 2009, 23:33
Are you seriously suggesting the female represetation in an islamic theorcracy/single party dictatorship state is a sign of progression!?



I never said that I supported the capitalist REPRESENTIONAL DEMOCRACY of Iran.

However what about the way women are encouraged to turn themselves into sexual objects by western capitalist culture? The high rates of death by annorexia among women in the west not to mention the rape statistics (as if the exagerated sexualization of our popular culture didnt encourage such a thing?)?

I am not saying that I support the capitalist REPRESENTIAL DEMOCRACY of Iran.

But glass houses and stones and all that....

h0m0revolutionary
21st April 2009, 23:41
I never said that I supported the capitalist REPRESENTIONAL DEMOCRACY of Iran.

However what about the way women are encouraged to turn themselves into sexual objects by western capitalist culture? The high rates of death by annorexia among women in the west not to mention the rape statistics (as if the exagerated sexualization of our popular culture didnt encourage such a thing?)?

I am not saying that I support the capitalist REPRESENTIAL DEMOCRACY of Iran.

But glass houses and stones and all that....

You didn't say you supported the theocracy, but you apologised for it's barbarity and come out with rubbish like:


Give and take women are probably better off in Iran than they are in much of the west.

Are you honestly saying the sexualisation of women in the West is comparable, or worse than what happens to women in Iran?!

It isn't, i'm not defending female subjugation in the West, but women in the west have it so much better than they do with Iran! The best thing we can do as reovlutionaries is defend the women of Irana aginst the regime that brutalises them, not make groundless assertions that make it appear they live in realtive freedom.

PeaderO'Donnell
21st April 2009, 23:54
Are you honestly saying the sexualisation of women in the West is comparable, or worse than what happens to women in Iran?!


Yes.

Annorexia, rape, pornography, prostitution, abortion...

You have no idea whether I am male or female or whatever...

As much as I am opposed to the system in Iran your liberalism and western chauvanism blinds you to so many realities.

STJ
21st April 2009, 23:58
I could careless what this nut says about anything.

PeaderO'Donnell
22nd April 2009, 00:02
I could careless what this nut says about anything.

From the person you labels the democratically leader of Zimbabwe who is finally due to the public pressure carrying out serious land reform a nutty dictator...And features a photograph of some tragic rock n roll degenerate who represents capitalist nihilism at its worst to represent him...Oooohkay.

h0m0revolutionary
22nd April 2009, 00:02
Annorexia, rape, pornography, prostitution, abortion...

All of which occur in Iran. Except abortion of course, because women are deemed as property!

Not that there's anything wrong with porn anyways, you're just moalistic and apparently stupid. You think the fact that women can have abortions in the West is as bad as the fact women are stoned in Iran for sleeping outside of their marriage?!

Bring back those days here in the West eh?




You have no idea whether I am male or female or whatever...


And nor do i care, you're point is invalid no matter how you define.




As much as I am opposed to the system in Iran your liberalism and western chauvanism blinds you to so many realities.

I have no western chavanism *yawn*.
I'm merely suggesting that in comparison to being stoned for homosexuality, being deemed as male property under the legal framework of an Islamic republic and having no sexual freedom at all. That Women in Iran have it worse than they do in many places in the West.

That's not chauvanaism, that's fact.

PeaderO'Donnell
22nd April 2009, 00:40
having no sexual freedom at all.

The sexual "freedom" of decadent capitalism is one of the worse forms of sexual slavery there has ever been. Its a pity you dont realize that.

Patchd
22nd April 2009, 00:43
The sexual "freedom" of decadent capitalism is one of the worse forms of sexual slavery there has ever been. Its a pity you dont realize that.
No, it's a pity you still think like a fucking Victorian.

Back to the days when women were deemed fragile and needed to be protected from immorality such as, wait for it, sex outside of marriage! Or, abortion! Or, porn!

STJ
22nd April 2009, 00:47
From the person you labels the democratically leader of Zimbabwe who is finally due to the public pressure carrying out serious land reform a nutty dictator...And features a photograph of some tragic rock n roll degenerate who represents capitalist nihilism at its worst to represent him...Oooohkay.

And i give a fuck what you think why? Your a joke.

Revy
22nd April 2009, 02:30
Iran is a theocracy, not just extremely homophobic and sexist but also racist against Arabs, most ironically.

Democracy? Yeah, banning all those parties and censoring all that media must be REALLY democratic. Every single leftist organization, socialist, communist, progressive, is banned. There's only the "Reformists" and "Conservatives". It's a very authoritarian system and we should not be praising it.

PeaderO'Donnell
22nd April 2009, 02:58
No, it's a pity you still think like a fucking Victorian.

Back to the days when women were deemed fragile and needed to be protected from immorality such as, wait for it, sex outside of marriage! Or, abortion! Or, porn!

You show how middle class you are.

The percentage of the female population forced into prostituition in victorian england is truelly frightening. What the industrial revolution and everything that came along with it meant for working class females was nightmarish.

PeaderO'Donnell
22nd April 2009, 02:59
Democracy?

“In Iran, we have a deeply flawed democracy. But it is a democracy. The ruling clerical elite is an entirely parasitical band of illegitimate and unelected theocrats – but they are integral to a political process that has generated a grassroots democracy. That democracy is riddled with flaws and constitutionally compromised by a number of undemocratic institutions definitive to the Islamic Republic; yet neither a king nor a dictator, neither an American emperor nor a Persian monarch, decides Iranians’ fate. People do.”

Hamid Dabashi,Iran: A People Interrupted (New York, The New Press, 2007), pp. 225-6.

black magick hustla
22nd April 2009, 03:15
And this is when people get hooked by the Democratic ideology into supporting a regime that murders habitually working class militants....

Hoxhaist
22nd April 2009, 03:33
Ahmadinejad is an opportunist!!! He denounces the West imperialism and colonialism but at the same time his Islamic chauvinist state would be more than happy to impose its will on the rest of the Middle East and the world. We should not be seduced by his siren song of indignation at Western crimes when if given the opportunity he would not hesitate to repeat them

chebol
22nd April 2009, 04:54
Ahmadinejad is an opportunist!!! He denounces the West imperialism and colonialism but at the same time his Islamic chauvinist state would be more than happy to impose its will on the rest of the Middle East and the world. We should not be seduced by his siren song of indignation at Western crimes when if given the opportunity he would not hesitate to repeat them

All well and good, but how about we remember the context of all of this hullaballoo...

US, Israel, Australia, etc, boycott an international UN forum against racism because it criticised Israel last time and there's a fairly high chance of the same this time (for good reason).
Ahmedinejad makes speech (correctly) accusing Israel of systematic racism, and (correctly) accuses western countries of complicity in this.
Western countries stage (clearly pre-planned) walkout of conference and to cover their rotten tails they accuse Ahmedinejad (and everyone else at the conference, by the way) of antisemitism and holocaust denial because he (they) criticises Israel.

Whatever your opinion is of the violent, theocratic regime of Iran or of Ahmedinejad is not the point. This was an anti-racist conference, which correcly targeted Israel's system of racist, violent and aggressive apartheid, and the west is attacking Ahmedinejad as a means of delegitimising the conference and its anti-racist (and anti-zionist) agenda.

It was not an international conference for the celebration of pure-as-the-driven-snow communist positions, and any one who expected it to be so should go back to primary school, and spend a few years growing up in the real world.

Despite the religious fluff in his speech, and whatever problems we might have with Ahmediinejad, we should look at what happened objectively - that is, the racist Imperialist powers walked out/ boycotted an international anti-racist conference because:
1. it criticised Israel, their bridge-head in the middle east and salve for the vicious antisemitism of 20th century europe, and
2. it was controlled by brown people, who for some reason seem to have this crazy idea that because they make up the majority of the earth's population, and have been oppressed and discriminated against for the past five centuries, they have the right to a democratic say in things, and a right to criticise racism, oppression and apartheid.

Taking anything else from this conference (especially as Ahmedinejad managed not to shove his foot solidly down his throat by denying the holocaust this time) is buying into the western, Imperialist, propaganda designed to derail the main focus of the conference: western-backed racism in Israel and elsewhere (which, I should remind you all, is a necessary function of capitalism, a global system of oppression based.. guess where?).

black magick hustla
22nd April 2009, 05:16
All well and good, but how about we remember the context of all of this hullaballoo...

US, Israel, Australia, etc, boycott an international UN forum against racism because it criticised Israel last time and there's a fairly high chance of the same this time (for good reason).
Ahmedinejad makes speech (correctly) accusing Israel of systematic racism, and (correctly) accuses western countries of complicity in this.
Western countries stage (clearly pre-planned) walkout of conference and to cover their rotten tails they accuse Ahmedinejad (and everyone else at the conference, by the way) of antisemitism and holocaust denial because he (they) criticises Israel.

Whatever your opinion is of the violent, theocratic regime of Iran or of Ahmedinejad is not the point. This was an anti-racist conference, which correcly targeted Israel's system of racist, violent and aggressive apartheid, and the west is attacking Ahmedinejad as a means of delegitimising the conference and its anti-racist (and anti-zionist) agenda.

It was not an international conference for the celebration of pure-as-the-driven-snow communist positions, and any one who expected it to be so should go back to primary school, and spend a few years growing up in the real world.

Despite the religious fluff in his speech, and whatever problems we might have with Ahmediinejad, we should look at what happened objectively - that is, the racist Imperialist powers walked out/ boycotted an international anti-racist conference because:
1. it criticised Israel, their bridge-head in the middle east and salve for the vicious antisemitism of 20th century europe, and
2. it was controlled by brown people, who for some reason seem to have this crazy idea that because they make up the majority of the earth's population, and have been oppressed and discriminated against for the past five centuries, they have the right to a democratic say in things, and a right to criticise racism, oppression and apartheid.

Taking anything else from this conference (especially as Ahmedinejad managed not to shove his foot solidly down his throat by denying the holocaust this time) is buying into the western, Imperialist, propaganda designed to derail the main focus of the conference: western-backed racism in Israel and elsewhere (which, I should remind you all, is a necessary function of capitalism, a global system of oppression based.. guess where?).

There is nothing anti-racist about that conference nor the criminal heads of states that gathered around that. The stupid argument of not taking seriously any of what these murderious shitheads have to say about racism is equal to buying into western propaganda belongs to the old stalinist school of falsification. It is not for some of my comrades who live in the Middle east that have to wrestle all the time with the repressesive apparatus of these states.

redSHARP
22nd April 2009, 05:32
for Model UN i had to represent Iran. Ahmeadinejad's conference on the holocaust to many Iranians was a disgrace to Iran. He is hated by the masses and many youth are looking to keep the mullahs down. Iran is ripe for a revolution by the masses, they just need to realize how much power they really have over the reactionary thugs.


on the holocaust, i found out that Iran has no official policy in dealing with the holocaust. Ahmadinejad's conference was his personal doing (apperently from what i got) and overall the governemnt of Iran does not deny the holocaust, nor do they applaud denial. the conference was a blemish to Iran and most Iranians wish it never happened.

chebol
22nd April 2009, 05:58
Marmot wrote:


There is nothing anti-racist about that conference nor the criminal heads of states that gathered around that. The stupid argument of not taking seriously any of what these murderious shitheads have to say about racism is equal to buying into western propaganda belongs to the old stalinist school of falsification. It is not for some of my comrades who live in the Middle east that have to wrestle all the time with the repressesive apparatus of these states.

You're not the only person with friends living in the middle east and struggling against oppression. Your pseudo-radical phrasemongering, running around accusing people of stalinist falsification and whatever other idiocies leap unthinkingly from your gob, merely shows how utterly useless your perspective on this issue is.

Nothing is possible, or permissible unless the ICC is involved/ in charge? Nothing anti-racist about the conference unless it's a perfectly ICC-imprimatured trademarked communist conference, and until then the third world should fuck off and shut up and not try to expose zionism or racism? (And yes, now would be a good tme to raise, for example, the oppression of minorities within Iran, and it is something we should all be - and osme of us are - struggling against, and yet it would still entirely miss the point).

Seriously, if Ahmedinejad said gravity existed, would you jump out a window, just to prove him wrong?

chebol
22nd April 2009, 06:08
redSHARP wrote:


on the holocaust, i found out that Iran has no official policy in dealing with the holocaust. Ahmadinejad's conference was his personal doing (apperently from what i got) and overall the governemnt of Iran does not deny the holocaust, nor do they applaud denial. the conference was a blemish to Iran and most Iranians wish it never happened

Iran - as far as I know - does not deny the Holocaust, and nor should it. On this point Ahmedinejad is a bloody embarrassment and a liability for every argument against racism, zionism and genocide (as the derailing of this thread shows).

But why was the conference "a blemish to Iran", when Ahmedinejad actually managed to *recognise the existence of the holocaust* (albeit indirectly) and exactly what proof do you have that "most Iranians wish it [the conference] never happened"?

I happen to know one of the organisers of the last conference, and know what was said around Israel, the palestinians and the racist nature of Zionism. The furore around this conference - a furore begun by Israel as a way of undermining the growing international campaign against it's apartheid system - was focussed on the intention of this conference to ratify the decisions of the last one, one of which was to criticise Israel on this basis.

Nothing in Ahmedinejad's speech undermined that. He was - given his predeliction for saying stupid and inflammatory things - on his best behaviour.

Further, while western-basked ulcers like Israel exist, it will remain extraordinarily difficult to effectively criticise (that is, join in other developing countriesin the struggle) Iran for its human rights abuses on the international stage.

You need to recognise that the issue under the microscope is not Iran's abuses, but Israel's, and the little piece of theatre at the conference by western powers was not a criticism of Iran, but a statement of support for Israel.

There is a universe of difference...

black magick hustla
22nd April 2009, 06:36
Marmot wrote:



You're not the only person with friends living in the middle east and struggling against oppression. Your pseudo-radical phrasemongering, running around accusing people of stalinist falsification and whatever other idiocies leap unthinkingly from your gob, merely shows how utterly useless your perspective on this issue is.

*shrugs* you are the one that threw first stupid leftist cliche accusations of western propaganda for putting forward an internationalist position.


Nothing is possible, or permissible unless the ICC is involved/ in charge? Of course, after all we internationalists are a minority within the class. The question here is if there is something *anti-racist* about a conference of heads of capitalist states that have their own little piles of bodies of ethnically cleansed people in their backyard.



Nothing anti-racist about the conference unless it's a perfectly ICC-imprimatured trademarked communist conference, and until then the third world should fuck off and shut up and not try to expose zionism or racism? (And yes, now would be a good tme to raise, for example, the oppression of minorities within Iran, and it is something we should all be - and osme of us are - struggling against, and yet it would still entirely miss the point).Theres a lot of neonazis denouncing and exposing the deplorable happenings in gaza. Doesnt change the fact that they do it because they have political motivations against jews. Heads of capitalist states getting together for their own little realpolitik ambitions is nothing new, and western imperialists walking out of this kind of things is nothing new too. The issue here is why some people support this kind of disgusting realpolitik.

Devrim
22nd April 2009, 07:29
All of which occur in Iran. Except abortion of course, because women are deemed as property!

Abortion is actually pretty common in Iran. It is illegal outside of quite restrictive circumstances, but in reality is quite common.


Annorexia, rape, pornography, prostitution, abortion...

I would imagine that the incidence of anorexia is much lower. Rape and prostitution, of course, exist. I think that pornography is probably clamped down upon quite strictly.

I remember the first time I went to Tehran, back in 1986. I was travelling by bus, and we got stopped by the Pasdar, who proceeded to collect all of the 'pornography'* on the bus, take it off, make a fire and burn it whilst lecturing us in four languages on the evils of pornography.

Devrim

*Actually Turkish women's magazines.

benhur
22nd April 2009, 07:30
There was an article a couple of years ago, where someone was so impressed with the Iran President's speech that they'd called him 'more Catholic than the pope' or something to that effect. It's true that the man is deeply spiritual, and most of his speeches are well balanced and rational.

AvanteRedGarde
22nd April 2009, 10:13
most of his speeches are well balanced and rational.

Compared to most revleft posters yes.

However, since Ahmadenijad doesn't claim to be a communist/anarchist revolutionary, ideologically, we shouldn't hold him to the same standard we do our comrades.

That said, people who attack the Iranian regime and provide U.S. imperialism for leftist justification for bullying and aggression are not my comrades. They're more like 'leftist' shills for imperialism,

Patchd
22nd April 2009, 11:19
You show how middle class you are.

You don't know a fucking thing about me you little ****. Born on a council estate, worked when I was in school, mum's gonna lose the place cos she can't pay the mortgage. Yeh, middle class, now piss off.

Rjevan
22nd April 2009, 11:54
It has nothing to do with his speech because it's from 10th April but still, here's a long Interview with Ahmadinejad (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,618559,00.html) (English) by the German magazine "Der Spiegel", which is also quite interesting.

black magick hustla
22nd April 2009, 17:21
Compared to most revleft posters yes.

However, since Ahmadenijad doesn't claim to be a communist/anarchist revolutionary, ideologically, we shouldn't hold him to the same standard we do our comrades.

That said, people who attack the Iranian regime and provide U.S. imperialism for leftist justification for bullying and aggression are not my comrades. They're more like 'leftist' shills for imperialism,

So we need to be quiet while a bunch of communists get murdered? I am sure that will go well.

AvanteRedGarde
22nd April 2009, 17:29
Only the "communists" who act like CIA spokesmen against the Iranian state.

skki
22nd April 2009, 17:47
Fanatical Muslims have a habit of using leftist rhetoric to gain support in western countries. Remember when Bin Laden came out praising Noam Chomsky?

We share some goals, but for very different reasons. We are opposed to Israel and Zionism because of the oppression of the Palestinians. Ahmadinejad is also opposed to Israel and Zionism. But his opposition stems from his anti-semetic racism, which would lead him to oppose any Jewish state. He just uses the plight of the Palestinians to give his absurd ideology some credibility amongst evolved people.

Please try to remember that this is the man that supervises the execution of gays. In his ideal world, we are all dead.

black magick hustla
22nd April 2009, 18:23
Only the "communists" who act like CIA spokesmen against the Iranian state.

I am sure the working class militant in the 70s which were wiped out by the clerical scum were CIA spokesmen. :rolleyes: You silly maoists.

Devrim
22nd April 2009, 18:25
Fanatical Muslims have a habit of using leftist rhetoric to gain support in western countries.

Leftists also have a habit of attributing leftist rhetoric to them. Like the infamous Evrensel interview, which was publicised by various leftists around the world.

Devim

AvanteRedGarde
22nd April 2009, 18:38
You don't have to be on the payroll to be aiding the imperialists. Revolutions aren't pretty. Plenty of innocent people get killed.

And it's not like the U.S. doesn't have a history of using prop unions in their battle to strengthen its control over the world.

Perhaps had the left been more active in overthrowing the Shah and opposing imperialism, they wouldn't have been put in the position where they were so easily wiped out.

black magick hustla
22nd April 2009, 18:44
You don't have to be on the payroll to be aiding the imperialists. Revolutions aren't pretty. Plenty of innocent people get killed.

And it's not like the U.S. doesn't have a history of using prop unions in their battle to strengthen its control over the world.

Perhaps had the left been more active in overthrowing the Shah and opposing imperialism, they wouldn't have been put in the position where they were so easily wiped out.

Of course revolutions are not pretty. The question arises though if the islamist leadership led a revolution that was in the interest of workers and communists or if it was a bourgeois revolution. Since the times of lenin, we communists had been intransingently opposed to the islamists and their agenda of bringing society back to the stone age. Of course, maoists throw class analysis away all in the name of some really vulgar and simple anti-amiercanism. The issue here is that in the 70s there was a revolutionary upsurge of workers that was crushed by reaction, and that it is so amazing that you can just shrug all of that off all in the name of sum gut anti-ameircan reaction.

Pirate turtle the 11th
22nd April 2009, 19:07
abortion...



Your anti abortion?

AvanteRedGarde
22nd April 2009, 19:10
There are entire pamphlets of quotes by lenin supporting bourgeois democratic revolutions in colonial countries. Though a transfer of power to leftists would have been preferable, the Iranian revolution was still a blow against imperialism, which lenin identifies as capitalism late form.

AvanteRedGarde
22nd April 2009, 19:11
Your anti abortion?

yes, his anti abortion

h0m0revolutionary
22nd April 2009, 19:34
There are entire pamphlets of quotes by lenin supporting bourgeois democratic revolutions in colonial countries. Though a transfer of power to leftists would have been preferable, the Iranian revolution was still a blow against imperialism, which lenin identifies as capitalism late form.

You speak much, but know little..

The Iranian Revolution was infact, a counter-revolution, in 1978 the Iranian Shoras (trade unions of sort), whose members had taken to insurrectionism and armed struggle late, were in a position to hijack the (largely) Islamist movement that was turning against the Pahlavi dynesty.

In the main they were ready to enter into shaky alliances with islamists and some, notably the Tudeh Party took this into complete collaberation with islamists and it was this that secured a Khomeini victory. The left should have succured victory in 1979, but instead leftists like you, believeing cross-class, reactionary islam to be capable of anti-imperialism, blew it!

The Iranian regime is not anti-imperialist, it never has been! The only force in Iran capable of principled and consistant anti-imperialism is the Iranain working class.

Devrim
22nd April 2009, 19:59
The Iranian Revolution was infact, a counter-revolution, in 1978 the Iranian Shoras (trade unions of sort), whose members had taken to insurrectionism and armed struggle late, were in a position to hijack the (largely) Islamist movement that was turning against the Pahlavi dynesty.

Not trade unions of sorts, but workers' councils (the Farsi/Arabic word Shura means council). I don't think the movement was largely Islamicist either.

Devrim

h0m0revolutionary
22nd April 2009, 20:30
Not trade unions of sorts, but workers' councils (the Farsi/Arabic word Shura means council). I don't think the movement was largely Islamicist either.

Devrim

I knew you'd post regarding that haha. Sorry i should have spent more time clarifying that post. You're very right :blushing:

black magick hustla
22nd April 2009, 23:19
There are entire pamphlets of quotes by lenin supporting bourgeois democratic revolutions in colonial countries. Though a transfer of power to leftists would have been preferable, the Iranian revolution was still a blow against imperialism, which lenin identifies as capitalism late form.


third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.; -Lenin

Hoxhaist
23rd April 2009, 02:28
I'm just saying Ahamdinejad is using his empty rhetoric to distract his people from the internal problems and youth unrest by creating a false dichotomy of either pro-west and anti-regime or pro-regime and anti-capitalist

AvanteRedGarde
23rd April 2009, 03:02
Combatting Pan Islam isn't number one on the list? Could have fooled many the way many self described Leninist carry themselves. What were the first two points Marmot?

Hoxha fan,
Empty rhetoric about fighting imperialism is a whole lot more than we get from 'revolutionaries' around here. Half of them sound like closeted Obama supporters.

Case in point, you have yet to establish, based on anything beside dogmatism, that the "workers vs bosses' line has any more legitimacy that the 'east vs west' one.

Comrade B
23rd April 2009, 03:24
I wish this ass hole didn't share some views with me. I really don't want to be associated with this:
Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings. And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world
The stupid idea that this is a Jewish plot for control or whatever. It isn't about religion, it is about racism.

Hoxhaist
23rd April 2009, 03:30
the east vs. west line is not internationalist. it creates divisions that are harmful to organizing workers across the world. as long as leaders can organize east/west rivalry, there wont be any meaningful international struggle

AvanteRedGarde
23rd April 2009, 04:36
So in other words, because there is an active component of East vs. West struggle, your dogmatic narration of workers vs bosses struggle will never come to fruition.

And BTW, nothing is stopping you from organizing workers where you are at for internationalist support. The exception is if they are reactionary exploiters, then I could see how it might be hard to organize them for internationalist revolution.

Hoxhaist
23rd April 2009, 04:58
So in other words, because there is an active component of East vs. West struggle, your dogmatic narration of workers vs bosses struggle will never come to fruition.

And BTW, nothing is stopping you from organizing workers where you are at for internationalist support. The exception is if they are reactionary exploiters, then I could see how it might be hard to organize them for internationalist revolution.
Organizing workers is what I am actually going to learn about in college. Yeah, the active East/West struggle tugs at the nationalist loyalties of the working class and anyone trying to form something beyond nationalism is disregarded just as Lenin was by the Second International

black magick hustla
23rd April 2009, 05:01
Combatting Pan Islam isn't number one on the list? Could have fooled many the way many self described Leninist carry themselves. What were the first two points Marmot?
.

http://www.marxist.com/lenin-bin-laden-and-swp.htm

{Quote] second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;[/quote]

I disagree with that document. But then again, I do not fancy myself "marxist-leninist-mao tsetsung thought*. Its a shame I know more about what you are supposed to defend though.

black magick hustla
23rd April 2009, 05:02
This is the whole document:

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/DTNCQ20.html

AvanteRedGarde
23rd April 2009, 05:09
What's stopping you from doing it now???

I didn't know they offered degree programs in organizing to overturning capitalism. Sounds more like the labor bureaucrat program.

Black Dagger
23rd April 2009, 05:11
Thread renamed for clarity.

Hoxhaist
23rd April 2009, 05:15
What's stopping you from doing it now???

I didn't know they offered degree programs in organizing to overturning capitalism. Sounds more like the labor bureaucrat program.
I could ask you the same question
Why arent you ripping apart the machinery of oppression???

AvanteRedGarde
23rd April 2009, 05:29
I don't claim that those around me are part of the proletariat. You do. Get outside and start organizing. You'll quickly find that its a waste of time. You wouldn't be the first person, group, trend, etc which dedicated itself to chasing down exploiters, claiming they were exploited.

Come on. Just go outside and start organizing. Report back how successful you are.

Patchd
23rd April 2009, 09:47
I wish this ass hole didn't share some views with me. I really don't want to be associated with this:
The stupid idea that this is a Jewish plot for control or whatever. It isn't about religion, it is about racism.

I think, just for clarification, Ahmadinejad meant Palestine when he said "made another nation homeless", rather than imply (this time) that it was all a Jewish plot. We all know that the holocaust was not the reason why the state of Israel was established.

Glenn Beck
25th April 2009, 16:06
I know i shouldn't, but I am so offended by your bullshit :glare:

Are you seriously suggesting the female represetation in an islamic theorcracy/single party dictatorship state is a sign of progression!?

This is the same theocratic regime that enforces strict dress codes upon women, that covers them up as a symbol that women are markedly different - different and subordinate.

The same barbarous regime that enforces the death penality for homosexuals, subjects lesbians and gay people to lashes, public humiliation, arrest and torture all for the crime of loving someoen of the same sex!

The same regime that enforces Sharia Law that suggests men can have up to four permanent (and as many temporary) wives as they want, while women have no such freedom.

The same regime that in it's Islamic courts views the voice of a female as worth HALF the value as that of men

Women in iran, and this si just off the top of my head!
- Have to have their husbands written permission to travel, and without it are subjected to harasement by the curiously-named 'morality police'
- Cannot be granted custody of children in Iran, as the next to kin is always their father or their fathers male relatives
- Can face the punishment of being stoned to death for adultery

The wider context is that this is a regime that imprisons trade unionists, murders leftists in their millions from Tehran to Kurdistan. A regime that boasts that it's workforce consists overwhelmingly of part-time contracts, meaning minimal worker rights. A regime that brutally oppresses the feminist movement, the workers movement, the natioanl minorities and the secularist movement!

How dare you suggest women have it good under the Theorcratic dictatorship of Ahmadinejad, tell that to the feminists in Iran who are greeted with acid to their faces when they mobilise against the forced imprisonment of their comrades for simply asking for more lentient female dress codes!

Down with dictatorship!
www.hopoi.org (http://www.hopoi.org)

Iran isn't a single-party dictatorship. It's a multi-party dictatorship. Yeah it makes a difference. The former is empirically false and makes you sound like you get your perspective from CNN or Fox. The latter both defuses the counter-argument that Iran is a representative republic just like many western nations (so what, right?) and draws attention to the fact that it's a reactionary bourgeois regime without having to sound like you pitch tent with the liberals thus playing into opportunist arguments.