Ayatollah Khomeini

[Latin American Socialist]

I admire Khomeini for the Islamic Revolution towards the evil monarchy of Iran, but i just wanted to know ur opinions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Bad. Fuck religion, and especially religious leaders.

[Guest1]

Khomeini latched onto the revolution, he didn't start it. Then he bathed it in blood. From a workers' and youth movement aiming for progressive ideas, he turned it into one of replacing one oppressor by another. Many leftists, particularly Marxists, were murdered during and after his rise.

[FleasTheLemur]

Agreed. A REAL man that can be admired is the guy that they shot to replace Iran with a monarchy. He was even Time's "Man of the Year" and the U$A-holes shot him

[left-nut]

Alot more good than bad (compared to other leaders).

[refuse_resist]

This is from another forum I post on...


The revolution wasn't conducted only by Islamists, leftists were a large part of it and were the main reason intellectuals supported it, Bazargan, the first president represented these leftist elements, and overall, the ideology of the revolution was inspired by Shariati more than anyone, so it was Islamic-Marxist in its conception.

The majority of people gained from the revolution, the shah had to go, there was no question about it. The only ones who lost out during the revolution were the members of the oligarchy and those who were a part of the corrupt system, everyone else benefited....

My own family left Iran because of the shah and the oppression they faced in those days, now we go to Iran every year and my parents are amazed at how its changed for the better.....education, access to healthcare and housing, women make up over half of the university students, more rights for minorities....and for the first time ever Iran isn't anyone's puppet...

[Amusing Scrotum]

I admire Khomeini for the Islamic Revolution towards the evil monarchy of Iran

Even though I'm not a supporter of Monarchys'. At least the Iranian Monarchy upheld some basic human rights. Women were educated and allowed to work, the age of marriage was 18, Atheism and Marxism were being openly discussed, a certain amount of political discussion was allowed etc.
Until Ayatollah Khomeini, a Religious fanatic, had all of these rights taken away. Women now get stoned for adultery, are forced to cover up and the worse thing in my view, is that the age of marriage for girls is now 9. Think about that, 9 year old girls are, for want of a better word, being fucked by grown men.

Latin American Socialist is suggest you have a serious rethink of your views regarding Ayatollah Khomeini and remember in future, the fact theres been a revolution, doesn't always mean that the average Joe is going to be better off.


Khomeini latched onto the revolution, he didn't start it. Then he bathed it in blood. From a workers' and youth movement aiming for progressive ideas, he turned it into one of replacing one oppressor by another. Many leftists, particularly Marxists, were murdered during and after his rise.

Khomeini's group used to bus people in and give them a free lunch. So long as they stood outside the American Embassy and chanted "Death to America".
Also Khomeini's book regarding Islamic Revolution and Islamic State, has been compared, by many intellectuals, to Mein Kampf.
Plus like Che y Marijuana said, he latched onto the revolution, which had been up until that point very progressive. Then after the revolution he set up a huge secret state and had many of the progressives tried in kangaroo courts and executed.

All in all, I think he is as close to a Religous Facist as you're likely to see.

[Led Zeppelin]

The majority of people gained from the revolution, the shah had to go, there was no question about it. The only ones who lost out during the revolution were the members of the oligarchy and those who were a part of the corrupt system, everyone else benefited....

My own family left Iran because of the shah and the oppression they faced in those days, now we go to Iran every year and my parents are amazed at how its changed for the better.....education, access to healthcare and housing, women make up over half of the university students, more rights for minorities....and for the first time ever Iran isn't anyone's puppet...

What a load of crap, jesus.

Khomeini is a piece of shit, only utter morons support him.

[bcbm]

The Shah needed to go, but the Islamic Revolution wasn't the best way for it to happen. I think Iran would've been much better off following a leftist revolutionary route, which was actually quite possible. There were many active leftists in Iran prior to the revolution and even during the revolution.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I think Iran would've been much better off following a leftist revolutionary route


There were many active leftists in Iran prior to the revolution and even during the revolution.

They did follow a leftist revolution, its just Ayatollah Khomeini had most of the leftist leaders and revolutionaries imprisoned or killed after the revolution.


What a load of crap, jesus.

Khomeini is a piece of shit, only utter morons support him.

What do you expect from someone who has Stalin as his avatar and a quote from Kim Jong Il as one of his signatures.


more rights for minorities

What about the rights of the minority of 9 year old girls who are now being married off?

[bcbm]

They did follow a leftist revolution, its just Ayatollah Khomeini had most of the leftist leaders and revolutionaries imprisoned or killed after the revolution.

Yeah, I guess I did word that wrong. I meant that it would've been better if it'd continued that way instead of being coopted by Khomeni.

edit: As long as we're talking about Iran, does anyone have information about anarchist activity in Iran during the revolutionary period?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:58 AM
Even though I'm not a supporter of Monarchys'. At least the Iranian Monarchy upheld some basic human rights.
Don't make that mistake, the shah was a brutal dictator too.

[Redmau5]

The very fact that it is an "Islamic Republic" means it's unworthy of support.

No organised religious state deserves support.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Don't make that mistake, the shah was a brutal dictator too.

My point was that the Shah, although a dictator, was not as bad as Ayatollah Khomeini. In a sense the Iranian Revolution instead of being revolutionary, was counter revolutionary. As basic human rights etc. are worse now than they were under the Shah.


No organised religious state deserves support.

Amen Brother. :P

[Latin American Socialist]

women are forced to cover up

Thats BS right there, Khomeini hated Hijabs (scarfs) on women and actually allowed women to not wear them if they chose to. And to all these anti-religion, thinking that Islam supports terrorism, dumbasses I support the Islamic Republic.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What are you talking about?

Who cares what you support?

Communists and anarchists don't lend support to religious leaders, let alone a theocracy!

(ps. that guy in your avatar is an atheist)

[Led Zeppelin]

does anyone have information about anarchist activity in Iran during the revolutionary period?

There was none of any importance, anarchism is not influential in "third world" nations.

[patria grande]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:05 PM


My point was that the Shah, although a dictator, was not as bad as Ayatollah Khomeini. In a sense the Iranian Revolution instead of being revolutionary, was counter revolutionary. As basic human rights etc. are worse now than they were under the Sha.
The truth is the Sha was a brutal fascist dictator like Pinochet, Batista, Trujillo or any other dictator supported by the empire. The SAVAK, Sha´s secret police tortured and disappeared thousands of people. The members of this terrorist secret police were indoctrinated in the School of the Americas, exactly like Chile´s DINA.

I don´t support religious states, but is not fair to say Human Rigts were respected under Sha´s dictatorship.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 14 2005, 06:17 PM

does anyone have information about anarchist activity in Iran during the revolutionary period?

There was none of any importance, anarchism is not influential in "third world" nations.
I think you're sadly mistaken about that. There are plenty of anarchists in the third world. There were a wide variety of leftists in Iran and still are to this day, including anarchists.

[Led Zeppelin]

There were a wide variety of leftists in Iran and still are to this day, including anarchists.

I know there are leftists in Iran, never heard of any anarchist parties there.

[Latin American Socialist]

(ps. that guy in your avatar is an atheist)

I know who the guy in my avatar is, and i know that he is an atheist, i am a socialist muslim and i support the July 26th Movement.

[bcbm]

"The Scream of the People" were an anarchist-communist group in Iran during the revolution and many from the Iraqi anarchist group Sharila crossed into Iran. The general idea of the shoras and komitehs is pretty anarchist. In anycase, there were anarchist groups there.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I know who the guy in my avatar is, and i know that he is an atheist, i am a socialist muslim and i support the July 26th Movement.

They don't support you.

[Latin American Socialist]

They don't support you.

Because i believe in God? Because I support Ayatollah Khomeini? I don't care if they dont support me, But unless you are Che then you really arent sure.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Actually I am sure, because they are communists.

[Monty Cantsin]

The Iranian Islamist were self-described ‘reactionaries’, we shouldn’t support them in anyway. Or any other islamist for that matter.

[Xiao Banfa]

The Iranians give money to the anti US-fascists! Hezbollah style bombs! Why should we decide what form Arab resistance should take towards crusader scum!
Fuck anarchist knit-pickers. Long live Shia anti-imperialist politics!

[Redmau5]

Why should we decide what form Arab resistance should take towards crusader scum!

Because in most cases that Arab resistance is just as reactionary as the "crusader scum".


Fuck anarchist knit-pickers

Fuck you.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 14 2005, 08:56 AM

The majority of people gained from the revolution, the shah had to go, there was no question about it. The only ones who lost out during the revolution were the members of the oligarchy and those who were a part of the corrupt system, everyone else benefited....

My own family left Iran because of the shah and the oppression they faced in those days, now we go to Iran every year and my parents are amazed at how its changed for the better.....education, access to healthcare and housing, women make up over half of the university students, more rights for minorities....and for the first time ever Iran isn't anyone's puppet...

What a load of crap, jesus.

Khomeini is a piece of shit, only utter morons support him.
He didn't say anything about Khomeini. I'm not going to try to read his mind: what's said there is true.

The revolution was a step forward, and a number of the gains he mentions remain today. I could mention others...for example, I'm pretty sure you couldn't do this (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6925/692556.html) let alone this (http://themilitant.com/2003/6739/673954.html) under the shah. Symptomatic of broader political space for working people to discuss and organize...relative to the shah's regime.

IMO that's despite Khomeini, and despite the consolidation of a capitalist regime which rolled back some of the gains workers made in the course of the revolution. IMO it's necessary to distinguish between Khomeini, his political tendency, his regime, on the one hand....and the Iranian Revolution on the other. Just as its necessary to distinguish between the February Revolution and Kerensky. (Without a strong revolutionary party, there was no Iranian October.)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:43 PM

I know who the guy in my avatar is, and i know that he is an atheist, i am a socialist muslim and i support the July 26th Movement.

They don't support you.
What are you hoping to accomplish with this kind of taunting? You sure ain't clarifying anything.

Nor does the Cuban Communist Party share your attitude of writing off all religious believers as participants in revolutionary struggle.

[Guest1]

Severian is right, once again, you are over-estimating the human rights record of the shah.

The revolution, even after being betrayed, was a step forward from the shah.

Even with the oppression of an Islamic state, people are still better off than under that brutal US imposed regime.

[left-nut]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 15 2005, 06:59 AM--> (Severian @ Sep 15 2005, 06:59 AM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 08:43 PM

I know who the guy in my avatar is, and i know that he is an atheist, i am a socialist muslim and i support the July 26th Movement.

They don't support you.
What are you hoping to accomplish with this kind of taunting? You sure ain't clarifying anything.

Nor does the Cuban Communist Party share your attitude of writing off all religious believers as participants in revolutionary struggle. [/b]


Exactly.

[Led Zeppelin]

The revolution, even after being betrayed, was a step forward from the shah.


True, it was a bourgeois democratic revolution.

[bolshevik butcher]

Well i dont like him. As has already been stated, he and his movememnt did not start the revolution. They mearley hijacked it. Some of the leftist movements in iran even supported him becuase he was anti-imperialists.

This seems rather misguided. I dont see whats good about a man who forces religous laws on people. Religous codes are meant to be voluntary codes for rteligous poepel. Not rules that govern a state.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I don´t support religious states, but is not fair to say Human Rigts were respected under Sha´s dictatorship.

I didn't say human rights were respected. I said "As basic human rights etc. are worse now than they were under the Shah."


The Iranians give money to the anti-US fascists! Hezbollah style bombs! Why should we decide what form Arab resistance should take towards crusader scum!
Fuck anarchist knit-pickers. Long live Shia anti-imperialist politics!

The anti-US fascists you seem to adore, are the same anti-US fascists who kill and injure innocent civilians. Now I cannot and will not support the pointless killing of civilians for the purposes of political gain. Don't you realise the killing of innocent civilians is just as terrible whether perpertrated by Impearialist countries like the US, or Islamic Reactionaries like Hezbollah.
To borrow a phrase from Makaveli_05 -
"Because in most cases that Arab resistance is just as reactionary as the "crusader scum".

Also the comment "Fuck anarchist knit-pickers", is incredibly disrespuctful to all the Anarchists here. I you have a problem with Anarchism as a political theory, in future try to offer more than a four word insult as your argument.

[Led Zeppelin]

It is a fact that women were better off under the Sjah then they are under the current regime.

[patria grande]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:20 AM

I don´t support religious states, but is not fair to say Human Rigts were respected under Sha´s dictatorship.

I didn't say human rights were respected. I said "As basic human rights etc. are worse now than they were under the Shah."




Even though I'm not a supporter of Monarchys'. At least the Iranian Monarchy upheld some basic human rights

The good reputation Sha´s dictatorship had in the West was the product of the huge machinery (politicians, media, WB, IMF...) always used by the empire to support their allies and present them as stable and progressive western style governments.

[BuyOurEverything]

When it comes down to it, who really cares if humans rights were slightly better under the shah or under the ayatollahs, anyone with half a fucking brain can see that they're both brutal corrupt regimes.

LAS: While it is true that Castro doesn't write off everyone with religious beliefs, Che pretty much did. And either way, Castro still doesn't support theocracy, why don't you provide some evidence that Castro supports the Islamic theocrats in Iran?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Again patria grande you did not read and understand the whole of my post.


Even though I'm not a supporter of Monarchys'. At least the Iranian Monarchy upheld some basic human rights

Note the word some. Saying the Shah upheld "some" human rights, does not mean I believe the Shah was a "Progressive". If you go back and read my posts on this issue, you will see that I have little respect for the Shah and even less for Ayatollah Khomeini. Therefore my point was that the Iranian revolutionary was counter revolutionary in its result.

[Severian]

A.S.'s whole post is full of misinformation.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:58 AM
Even though I'm not a supporter of Monarchys'. At least the Iranian Monarchy upheld some basic human rights. Women were educated and allowed to work,
As they are now. This ain't Saudi Arabia we're talking about. Refuse_resist is right that more than half of university students in Iran now are women....and education is much more widely available now as a consequence of the revolution.

Of course the fight against job discrimination, for women's entry into various sectors of the workforce, remains necessary......as in many other countries. Really, the main problems facing the fight for women's rights in Iran are the same as a lot of places.

Another advance for women's rights is the widespread availability of birth control and information about it. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1949068.stm) While here in the U.S. "abstinence only" sex uneducation is on the rise. Note that BBC article also mentions the "soaring literacy rate."

Of course all this is a consequence of the revolution despite the "Islamic" capitalist regime IMO.


Atheism and Marxism were being openly discussed, a certain amount of political discussion was allowed etc.

Doubt it. The SAVAK was extremely repressive. Marxists mostly went into exile.

This would be a better description of the current situation; see the links I gave in my earlier post.


Until Ayatollah Khomeini, a Religious fanatic, had all of these rights taken away.

Of course what disappears in this view, is the revolution in which millions of Iranian workers and peasants participated. Things are presented as if the evil supervillian Khomeini swooped in and overthrew the enlightened shah.


Women now get stoned for adultery, are forced to cover up

The clothing-related issues are IMO secondary in importance....though some Westerners get downright obsessive about them. Probably because it gives us a chance to get all superior on the "Other" - it's one of the aspects of women's oppression that works differently in "the West" than in the Muslim world. As opposed to questions like job discrimination which are fundamentally similar.


and the worse thing in my view, is that the age of marriage for girls is now 9.

Yeah, that's a real question...and there's a fight over it. Which has made some gains (http://www.parstimes.com/women/child_marriage.html):
This month, Iranian authorities approved a law requiring parents to obtain court permission for marriages of girls under the age of 13 and of boys younger than 15. At the same time, children above those ages will be allowed to marry voluntarily.

The new law is only a partial victory because Iran's reformist-dominated parliament originally had sought to extend the protection of the courts to girls under 15 and boys under 18 -- age limits higher than the law approved this month. But that higher age limit, which the parliament approved in August 2000, was challenged by the hard-line-dominated Guardian Council in a dispute that went unresolved for almost two years.

That whole public, open political dispute, involving an elected parliament, is precisely the kind of thing which didn't happen under the shah's autocratic, bloody-handed regime.

Polygamy and other aspects of sharia law are also controversial. It's more possible to organize and fight than under the shah.

Social trends continue to move most Iranian's lives in the opposite direction from reactionary sharia law: the average age of marriage for women has risen from 18.9 years before the revolution to 21 today.source (http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/iran/iran65.html)

To assess the situation in Iran, it's necessary to look not just at laws on paper, but the facts of people's everyday lives.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As much as I like Sevarian, and the fact that the SWP is one of the few remaining groups that recognizes Cuba as socialist, I think the SWP line that he upholds here illustrates their political bankruptcy. This comes from a party that says the U.S. lost the cold war.

You can uphold gains of workers (forged out of their struggles) without upholding the regimes that "granted" them.

Workers struggles lead to the New Deal in U.S., does that mean we should uphold FDR?


While it is true that Castro doesn't write off everyone with religious beliefs, Che pretty much did. And either way, Castro still doesn't support theocracy, why don't you provide some evidence that Castro supports the Islamic theocrats in Iran?

Right, and that was my point. While I feel that the PCC deserves criticism for allowing theists in the party now, I also understand that they can only base their decisions on the will of the Cuban people and material conditions that prevail.

And while Castro & the PCC did show support towards the Iranian revolution early on in -- especially in the Non-Aligned Movement, in it's overthrow of the monarchy, I don't think you can say he upholds the theocracy that exists now. He defends it against imperialism, which we should all do, but he doesn't uphold it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:26 PM
TYou can uphold gains of workers (forged out of their struggles) without upholding the regimes that "granted" them.
Yes, and that's exactly what I've done here. Do you have some remotely principled criticism of what I've actually said?

BuyOurEverything wrote:

While it is true that Castro doesn't write off everyone with religious beliefs, Che pretty much did.

Nope, Che was not such a fool as to put theology over politics.

Have you read his "Message to the Tricontinental"? "Within the frame of this struggle on a continental scale, the battles which are now taking place are only episodes — but they have already furnished their martyrs, who will figure in the history of Our America as having given their necessary quota of blood in this last stage of the fight for the total freedom of man. These names will include Comandante Turcios Lima, Padre Camilo Torres, Comandante Fabricio Ojeda, Comandantes Lobatón and Luis de la Puente Uceda, all outstanding figures in the revolutionary movements of Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru."link (http://www.marxsite.com/guevara.htm)Emphasis added.

Father Camilo Torres was a Catholic priest and a guerilla fighter....if you read Che's Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War, it mentions another Catholic priest, Father Sardinas, who joined the Rebel Army and rose to the rank of commander....do you think every time Che met Sardinas, he said, "Hey, Godsucker! Did you know I'm an atheist?" I'm inclined to think Che had better sense.

Really, this is just as empty as every other attempt to invent some political divide between Fidel and Che.


And either way, Castro still doesn't support theocracy, why don't you provide some evidence that Castro supports the Islamic theocrats in Iran?

Who knows what some people will consider support for the Islamic theocrats?But here's what Castro had to say about the Iranian revolution. (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6521/652103.html)

[Luís Henrique]

At least the Iranian Monarchy upheld some basic human rights. Women were educated and allowed to work, the age of marriage was 18, Atheism and Marxism were being openly discussed, a certain amount of political discussion was allowed etc.

What are your sources for that kind of "information"?

There was brutal persecution against Marxists and other leftists by the Shah's murderous dictatorship. They did not "uphold some basic human rights". Whatever amount of "allowed" political discussion was forcibly won by the opposition, not given by some kind of enlightened depotism.


Until Ayatollah Khomeini, a Religious fanatic, had all of these rights taken away.

That Khomeini was a religious fanatic, sure. That his regime was brutally repressive, sure. That this meant a depart from some sort of semi-democracy or milder dictatorship under the Shah, not at all.


Women now get stoned for adultery, are forced to cover up

Were does this information come from?

Any photograph of Iranian multitudes will show the vast majority of women not to wear veils.


and the worse thing in my view, is that the age of marriage for girls is now 9.

Do you have a cite for that? Is there an online copy of the Iranian Civil Code?


Think about that, 9 year old girls are, for want of a better word, being fucked by grown men.

Good as rhetorical propaganda, not as logical thinking. Marriage is not the same as banging.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Were does this information come from?

Any photograph of Iranian multitudes will show the vast majority of women not to wear veils.

I thought the hijab was still required?

edit: nevermind, I looked it up.

[Led Zeppelin]

How can Communists support a regime that kills Communists? Simple, they are not Communist.

[Amusing Scrotum]

What are your sources for that kind of "information"?

I have a feeling that whatever links I post, you will rubbish them, but I am a glutton for punishment -

The Dismal Reality of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran (http://www.islam.org.au/articles/24/iran.htm), Political Freedom? (http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/221/), More Political Freedom (http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran), Gap widens between Iran's rich and poor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4081302.stm), Left or Liberal ideas allowed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4571495.stm), Womens Rights? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4436445.stm), and, Persecution of Women (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iran-e-azad.org%2Fenglish%2Fwomenpr.html).


That this meant a depart from some sort of semi-democracy or milder dictatorship under the Shah, not at all.

Read the whole of my post. My point was that the Shah was a brutal dictator, and Ayatollah Khomeini is worse. I would rather live under a monarchy than a theocracy. Though admittedly there isn't much difference.


Good as rhetorical propaganda, not as logical thinking. Marriage is not the same as banging

Oh sorry, I should have put they make love then I guess.


Do you have a cite for that? Is there an online copy of the Iranian Civil Code?

Can you rebute it. How am I going to 1. Find the Iranian Civil Code and 2. Understand it.


Were does this information come from?

Any photograph of Iranian multitudes will show the vast majority of women not to wear veils.

It was illeagal to rape and beat women for years. However just because there was a law doesn't mean women were not raped and beaten or that they were not stigmatised when they did come forward.
The morals of a society are not necessarily seen through its laws.

[patria grande]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:08 PM
Again patria grande you did not read and understand the whole of my post.


Even though I'm not a supporter of Monarchys'. At least the Iranian Monarchy upheld some basic human rights

Note the word some. Saying the Shah upheld "some" human rights, does not mean I believe the Shah was a "Progressive". If you go back and read my posts on this issue, you will see that I have little respect for the Shah and even less for Ayatollah Khomeini. Therefore my point was that the Iranian revolutionary was counter revolutionary in its result.
Armchair Socialist, although my first language is not English, believe me, I do understand what I read. You asserted "the Shah upheld "some" human rights".
For me is just unacceptable to even consider that. Why? Because it is to repeat and believe the lies constantly spread by the imperialistic powers in order to disqualify the peoples when they decide to fight for their freedom, self-determination and dignity. The Sha was a brutal criminal who had no respect for Human Rights.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Sha was a brutal criminal who had no respect for Human Rights.

How is that different from the Ayatollah?


Yes, and that's exactly what I've done here. Do you have some remotely principled criticism of what I've actually said?

Read what I said: "You can uphold gains of workers (forged out of their struggles) without upholding the regimes that "granted" them."

Communists uphold the gains made during the revolution but actively oppose the theocracy now in place. I don't see you (or the SWP) doing that.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Armchair Socialist, although my first language is not English, believe me, I do understand what I read. You asserted "the Shah upheld "some" human rights".
For me is just unacceptable to even consider that. Why? Because it is to repeat and believe the lies constantly spread by the imperialistic powers in order to disqualify the peoples when they decide to fight for their freedom, self-determination and dignity. The Sha was a brutal criminal who had no respect for Human Rights.

I get your point and I agree fully that the Shah was a terrible dictator. My point though, was that Ayatollah Khomeini is worse.
Its like saying for instance Bush is better than Hitler, marginal I know. You don't have to like either of them, its just if I had to live under one of them I would choose Bush. Not because I like him, but, because he is less brutal than Hitler was.

[patria grande]

How is that different from the Ayatollah?

When did I say I support the Ayatollah? In fact, I said I don´t support religious states, which means I don´t support theocracies and of course I don´t support the actions taken by this man. I was only trying to make a point about the good image and the support Sha´s dictatorship had in the West.



I get your point and I agree fully that the Shah was a terrible dictator. My point though, was that Ayatollah Khomeini is worse.
Its like saying for instance Bush is better than Hitler, marginal I know. You don't have to like either of them, its just if I had to live under one of them I would choose Bush. Not because I like him, but, because he is less brutal than Hitler was.

I really don´t know who is worse. As I said before, I don´t support Khomeini. I was just trying to establish my point of view regarding a statement I consider inaccurate.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I really don´t know who is worse. As I said before, I don´t support Khomeini. I was just trying to establish my point of view regarding a statement I consider inaccurate.

You think they are both as bad as each other. I think Khomeini was worse than the Shah. We could debate this for the next year and still not reach an agreement, because, how bad someone is cannot be measured. All we can use is our own opinions and evidence that is always in some way or another, biased.
Basically I think we both agree that we don't like either of them and that we shouldn't support either of them. Therefore discussion closed.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:03 AM

What are your sources for that kind of "information"?

I have a feeling that whatever links I post, you will rubbish them,
If you think that in advance, you must have some feeling your links are rubbish.


but I am a glutton for punishment -

The Dismal Reality of Ahlus Sunnah in Iran (http://www.islam.org.au/articles/24/iran.htm), Political Freedom? (http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/221/), More Political Freedom (http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran), Gap widens between Iran's rich and poor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4081302.stm), Left or Liberal ideas allowed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4571495.stm), Womens Rights? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4436445.stm), and, Persecution of Women (http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iran-e-azad.org%2Fenglish%2Fwomenpr.html).

Excuse me? Posting links about Iran at random is not providing sources for your claims. Please indicate which link supports which of your earlier claims. Brief quotes are good.

Please see my posts for an example of how it's done.

As is, we'd have to search all through each of those sites in order to see if there's anything which indicates, for example, that there were more human rights under the shah. From looking through a few of them, I didn't see anything which supports any of your earlier claims. (The ones I disputed.)

I gave a link earlier which describes the current marriage laws in Iran. Yes, with court approval a nine-year-old girl can be married, which is an atrocity of course.

***

It is possible to know whether the situation is worse under the shah or the Islamic Republic. It was worse under the shah. See my earlier posts - with sources.

What's more, it's important to know this: it indicates that working people made gains by making a revolution - despite everything - and indicates some reasons why Iran should be defended from imperialism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

All countries should be defended from imperialism.

[Severian]

Yeah, sure. But to actually do so, to explain why to a wider audience, it helps to have particulars. Rather than just repeating the general theoretical position that imperialism is bad.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We usually explain why it's in their class interest. It's not really a "good" or "bad" thing, that sounds like a moral argument.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If you think that in advance, you must have some feeling your links are rubbish

No I don't think my links are rubbish, however, sometimes even when links are used to back up something. A person who is adamant about their views being right, will not accept these links. I hope you are a little more open minded.


Excuse me? Posting links about Iran at random is not providing sources for your claims. Please indicate which link supports which of your earlier claims. Brief quotes are good.

I have no specific links for my claims, just what I have read and heard. All I was doing was posting links which show what a shithole, present day Iran is.


Please see my posts for an example of how it's done.

Vanity is not a good trait. ;)


As is, we'd have to search all through each of those sites in order to see if there's anything which indicates, for example, that there were more human rights under the shah. From looking through a few of them, I didn't see anything which supports any of your earlier claims. (The ones I disputed.)

My opinions regarding the Shah are based on what I have heard from Iranian people on the television. Now these people may have had a reason to lie, but, personally I believed them.
Also my mother, when she worked in London, met a number of Iranian women who left after the revolution. Now my mother has no reason to lie to me, politically we share similar views. So I take what she says about Iran after the revolution at face value. She believed the accounts given to her by Iranian refugees, so I do. I may be wrong to believe her, but, as I respect her honesty, and I do believe her.


I gave a link earlier which describes the current marriage laws in Iran. Yes, with court approval a nine-year-old girl can be married, which is an atrocity of course.

It was a good link you posted and also a good response. However I cannot in anyway respect or defend a country and its leaders, who think it is appropriate that 9 year old girls can be married off. The lack of respect for womens rights, trumps everything else they might have done. I suppose if I was female, I would be an ardent feminist.


It is possible to know whether the situation is worse under the shah or the Islamic Republic. It was worse under the shah. See my earlier posts - with sources.

As I said in my earlier posts, I believe the Shah was slightly better. Though admittedly I did'nt post sources. Whether sources were posted or not, it is still a matter of opinion which dictator we think was better.


What's more, it's important to know this: it indicates that working people made gains by making a revolution - despite everything - and indicates some reasons why Iran should be defended from imperialism.

Working people may have made gains through the revolution, however, like I said earlier, no amount of gains can, in my opinion, be upheld, while 9 year old girls are allowed to be married of. I find this wrong on so many levels and if Iran did fall prey to imperialism. I wouldn't particually give a shit, because, at least then it would not mean young girls were being raped. Like I said, I'm a feminist with a cock.

Finally I apologise if this post is not very coherent or intelligent. As I have just come back from being down the pub all day and I am quite drunk. Though I wanted to answer your points, so that you didn't think I was avoiding your argument.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:10 PM
I have no specific links for my claims, just what I have read and heard.
From pro-shah exiles, directly and indirectly. 'Nuff said.

CdeL, that's beside my point - which is that the truth is always concrete....

BTW, there are sizeable Kurdish protests in Iran at present, continuing despite bloody police attacks. (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6937/693752.html) Reflects the confidence which Iran's oppressed nationalities have gained through participation in Iran's 3 revolutions in the 20th century...and probably the ripple effects of the Kurdish self-governing region in Iraq.

[Led Zeppelin]

From pro-shah exiles, directly and indirectly. 'Nuff said.

I guess the Fedaian guerillas are also "pro- shah exiles". :rolleyes:

In reality (not in Severians fantasy world) all Iranian Communists agree that the current regime has less respect for human rights than the previous one.

Stoning was forbidden under the Sjah, so was publicly hanging homosexuals.

Politically it is even worse, more Communists were killed by the mullahs than by the Sjah! That does not mean we support the Sjah over the mullahs, we oppose both.

[Amusing Scrotum]

From pro-shah exiles, directly and indirectly. 'Nuff said.

Thats like saying accounts given by Holocaust victims are rubbish, because, they favoured the last German Chancellor and disliked Hitler.
Does it even occur to you that some of these Iranian exiles are neither pro Shah nor pro Khomeini. They are just giving their honest accounts. Though some exiles may have political and financial reasons for opposing Khomeini, others are being honest, and, trying to give an honest account. Also many exiles were part of the revolution, which definetely makes them anti-Shah.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

BTW, there are sizeable Kurdish protests in Iran at present, continuing despite bloody police attacks. Reflects the confidence which Iran's oppressed nationalities have gained through participation in Iran's 3 revolutions in the 20th century...and probably the ripple effects of the Kurdish self-governing region in Iraq.

Also points out that the police of Iran are attacking Kurdish protestors!

[Severian]

CdeL: Yes, I just said that.

ML wrote:

I guess the Fedaian guerillas are also "pro- shah exiles".

A.S. didn't mention them as a source for his assertions. Given the nature of those assertions, I think I can accurately describe those who made 'em as pro-shah.

A.S.' Nazi comparisons are often overused in internet debate, and in this case are particularly laughable. If you really have to compare somebody to the Nazis, it should be the shah's henchmen. And like the Nazis, they had to flee after losing power.


In reality (not in Severians fantasy world) all Iranian Communists agree that the current regime has less respect for human rights than the previous one.

Hmmm....when did you become a spokesman for "all Iranian Communists"? In any case, I didn't make any statements about the opinions of Iranian "Communists", that is Stalinists, so I can hardly be accused of promoting a fantasy world version of them. But since you bring it up:

The largest of these groups, the Tudeh Party, initially supported the Khomeini regime. So did the "People's Fedayeen", which ML mentions, and some other groups.

These parties proved incapable of distinguishing between the regime and the revolution, and never learned to do so. As the Tudeh Party and various left groups eventually fell out with the regime, they mostly turned against the revolution and the masses as well, possibly because the USSR was backing the Iraqi invasion.

The Mujahedeen Khalq's course in becoming a tool of the Iraqi regime - and now seeking to become a tool of Washington - was merely the most extreme expression of this tendency of the left.

As in '46, so in '79: the revolution and Iraqi workers and peasants were defeated in large part thanks to the betrayals of Iranian "Communists".

How Stalinism betrayed the post-WWII revolution in Iran (http://themilitant.com/2003/6713/671361.html)
More details/partial correction (http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6541/654160.html)

Out of all the groups in Iran claiming to be communist, there was one, the Workers Unity Party (HVK in Farsi), which participated in the mass mobilization to defend the revolution from the Iraqi invasion and other imperialist-sponsored attacks, fought at the front, etc....and at the same time raised demands which pointed towards replacing the Islamic Republic with a workers and farmers government, and sought to build the shoras and independent organizations of the workers towards this goal.

From one of its 1980 resolutions:

The government's incapacity to solve the problems of war and revolution has been revealed before the masses. It has made no concerted effort to arm the people. It has failed to implement economic planning to counter high prices, unemployment, and hoarding, which are accelerating in face of the government's hesitation to monopolize foreign trade. The Komitehaye Haft Nafare have made no progress in distributing land to poor peasants or in improving conditions in the villages. Steps have been taken to limit the activities of political parties and newspapers that support the revolution and impose censorship.
.....
The people regard the government of the Islamic Republic as being in the same trench with them in this war. As long as the working class is not prepared to take on the command of the war, it defends the revolution under the military command of the government.

Political preparations for creating a workers' and farmers' government are on the agenda today. These preparations include maintaining the political independence of the working class; presenting a proletarian program counterposed to the debilitating and divisive policies of the capitalist government; struggling for military and political mobilization of the masses, fighting for unification and expansion of workers' shoras; struggling for the right of self-determination of the oppressed nationalities, essential in strengthening the anti-imperialist barricades; struggling for land and better conditions for the poor peasants; and fighting against poverty.
On pp.320-321 of New International#7.

At the time that was written, most if not "all Iranian Communists", that is Stalinists, were supporting the Khomeini regime, and even its attacks on the Kurds and other oppressed nationalities.

[Led Zeppelin]

This is rather amusing, most "Stalinists" call me a revisionist and most Trotskyists call me a "Stalinist", I guess i'm an "oddball", or as I like to call myself; a real Marxist-Leninist.


If you really have to compare somebody to the Nazis, it should be the shah's henchmen.

And not the Mullahs henchmen right? Even though they killed more, I guess that doesn't matter to you since they are "anti-imperialist".


Hmmm....when did you become a spokesman for "all Iranian Communists"?

I'm not, I just know what their party programs and their views on the history of the revolution are.


In any case, I didn't make any statements about the opinions of Iranian "Communists", that is Stalinists

How can a party that does not support Stalin be "Stalinist"? Is this another Trotskyist "miracle" in ideology? (for instance Trotskyists claim that the USSR under Kruschev and co. was "Stalinist" disregarding the fact that they were anti-"Stalinist", i.e., attacked Stalin's historical role)


The largest of these groups, the Tudeh Party, initially supported the Khomeini regime.

True, and later many of them got slaughtered because of it, for example they gave their member list to the government, bad idea.


So did the "People's Fedayeen", which ML mentions

Here's where you're wrong, The Fedaian split over the issue of supporting the Islamic regime or not, the Fedaian minority decided to not support Khomeini and stayed underground, agitating for socialist revolution, in the 80's a large amount of Fedaian majority members got slaughtered, like Tudeh they gave the government their member list and turned in their weapons.

The Fedaian guerillas also kept on the struggle against the Islamic regime.

But you're right, most Communists did support Khomeini up until the mid 80's.


The Mujahedeen Khalq's course in becoming a tool of the Iraqi regime - and now seeking to become a tool of Washington - was merely the most extreme expression of this tendency of the left.

The Mujahedeen was never Communist.


As in '46, so in '79: the revolution and Iraqi workers and peasants were defeated in large part thanks to the betrayals of Iranian "Communists".

How Stalinism betrayed the post-WWII revolution in Iran
More details/partial correction

Again, the Fedaian is not "Stalinist", it is the only party I support.


Out of all the groups in Iran claiming to be communist, there was one, the Workers Unity Party (HVK in Farsi), which participated in the mass mobilization to defend the revolution from the Iraqi invasion and other imperialist-sponsored attacks, fought at the front, etc....and at the same time raised demands which pointed towards replacing the Islamic Republic with a workers and farmers government, and sought to build the shoras and independent organizations of the workers towards this goal.


Never heard of them, most Iranians probably haven't either.


From one of its 1980 resolutions:
The government's incapacity to solve the problems of war and revolution has been revealed before the masses. It has made no concerted effort to arm the people. It has failed to implement economic planning to counter high prices, unemployment, and hoarding, which are accelerating in face of the government's hesitation to monopolize foreign trade. The Komitehaye Haft Nafare have made no progress in distributing land to poor peasants or in improving conditions in the villages. Steps have been taken to limit the activities of political parties and newspapers that support the revolution and impose censorship.
.....
The people regard the government of the Islamic Republic as being in the same trench with them in this war. As long as the working class is not prepared to take on the command of the war, it defends the revolution under the military command of the government.

Political preparations for creating a workers' and farmers' government are on the agenda today. These preparations include maintaining the political independence of the working class; presenting a proletarian program counterposed to the debilitating and divisive policies of the capitalist government; struggling for military and political mobilization of the masses, fighting for unification and expansion of workers' shoras; struggling for the right of self-determination of the oppressed nationalities, essential in strengthening the anti-imperialist barricades; struggling for land and better conditions for the poor peasants; and fighting against poverty.
On pp.320-321 of New International#7.


I don't see how this is of any importance to the discussion at hand.


At the time that was written, most if not "all Iranian Communists", that is Stalinists, were supporting the Khomeini regime, and even its attacks on the Kurds and other oppressed nationalities.

Not the party I support.

Also, the Fedaian guerillas have good ties with the Fedaian minority, so they can be seen as one party.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 19 2005, 09:42 PM
And not the Mullahs henchmen right? Even though they killed more, I guess that doesn't matter to you since they are "anti-imperialist".
I'm the last person on this board you should accuse of holding that political approach; have you seen any of the debates on the Iraqi resistance?

Or, heck, did you read the quote from the HVK resolution I typed out? Far from supporting anything just because it's "anti-imperialist".

And...source for that factual claim?


How can a party that does not support Stalin be "Stalinist"?

Stalinism defined (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism)

Old post:
For a Marxist, political tendencies are defined fundamentally by the class interests they serve, not by individuals. Stalinism is the rule of a privileged bureaucratic caste over a postcapitalist economy.

And, secondarily, the politics of their franchise parties worldwide. They were defined by their allegiance to these bureaucratic regimes, and identified the interests of the world working class with the interests of the "workers' fatherland", as defined by its rulers.

This was the basis of all their actions, and the main characteristic separating them from the social democracy. The larger remaining Stalinist parties, like the CPUSA and the French Communist Party, have become social democratic now that their sponsors have gone. Some of the smaller remnants and fragments of Stalinism, through inertia, are still clinging to positions which served Moscow or Beijing's interests at some past time.

I might comment there was no fundamental policy change between Stalin and his heirs; except they did become somewhat less repressive.

And Communist with a capital C means a member of an official, usually Moscow-franchised, Communist Party.


This is rather amusing, most "Stalinists" call me a revisionist and most Trotskyists call me a "Stalinist",

I have to regard this as evasive crap considering you've got a picture of Stalin prominent on your homepage, as well as hosting a bunch of his writings.


Here's where you're wrong, The Fedaian split over the issue of supporting the Islamic regime or not, the Fedaian minority decided to not support Khomeini and stayed underground, agitating for socialist revolution,

Here's where I didn't say anything about yer favorite fragment, for the simple reason I don't try to keep up with every group. I responded to your statement about "all Iranian Communists" a subject which does have a certain significance.

[Led Zeppelin]

And...source for that factual claim?

"Our organisation had suffered great damages. The assaults which the organisation had suffered were partially due to mistakes and lack of experience and partially because of the deviations which we hadn't been able to correct. Between 1981 and 1985 repressive assaults caused massive damages to the organisation. In one barbaric attack in 1981 the majority of the central committee and a large number of the organisation's outstanding cadres were either murdered in a direct battle with the regime or arrested and rapidly executed. During 1982-85 a number of other assaults affected the organisation. The Majority of the arrested comrades were executed and many others got long prison sntences. The regime's barbarism did not stop here. A large number of sympathisers were also executed because of their activities among the workers or merely because they distributed our organisation´s publications."

On the verge of the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Organisation of Fedaian (Minority) (http://www.fadaian-minority.org/english/25years/text.html)

"Despite OIPFM’s policies of trying not to position itself in direct conflict with the government, it was clear that the ruling fundamentalists could not tolerate activities and even the existence of Fadaian. During the period of 1980-82, although OIPFM was principally supportive to the Islamic governments’ agenda, such as Iran-Iraq war, anti-imperialist posturing, and certain aspects of economic reforms, it was not legally permitted to be active. Even in those years, several death sentences were given to Fadaian members and there were always hundreds of Fadaian activists jailed as prisoners of conscience.

The overwhelming prosecution and oppression of OIPFM began from the spring of 1983. The leadership was transferred outside the country and ‘security services’ did not succeed to decimate the Central Committee. In 1988 thousands of political prisoners, under the direct mandate of Ayatollah Khomeini, were secretly murdered in captivity. During these horrendous years hundreds of Fadaian, including eight members of the leadership, were executed, thousands were arrested, and several thousand were forced to escape the country."

The organisation of Iranian people's fadaian (majority) (http://web.telia.com/~u31525377/english/his01eng.htm)

"Tudeh members suffered more than ten thousand years of imprisonment and thousands were executed or killed under torture for adhering to the ideas and principles of Marxism-Leninism to build a better, more just society for future generation.Even today, Tudeh members are suffering in the dungeons and torture chambers of the Islamic Republic, fighting for democracy and socialism."

Brief history of the Tudeh party of Iran (http://www.tudehpartyiran.org/history.htm)

Now you tell me how many Communists died under the Sjah's rule, were there "tens of thousands"?


I might comment there was no fundamental policy change between Stalin and his heirs; except they did become somewhat less repressive.


The Abolition of Centralised Economic Planning (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap1.html)
Profit as the Regulator of Production (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap2.html)
The Restoration Of Capitalism In The Soviet Union (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html)

I guess those are not "fundamental policy changes".


I have to regard this as evasive crap considering you've got a picture of Stalin prominent on your homepage, as well as hosting a bunch of his writings.


Having a picture of Stalin on my homepage and hosting a bunch of his writings does not hide the fact that I am called a revisionist by both Trotskyists and "Stalinists".


Here's where I didn't say anything about yer favorite fragment

"So did the "People's Fedayeen", which ML mentions"

You didn't?

[bcbm]

The Mujahedeen was never Communist.

The MKO originally had Marxist ideas.

[Led Zeppelin]

The MKO originally had Marxist ideas.

Those "Marxist ideas" were worthless since they always stayed muslim.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 20 2005, 04:42 AM
Now you tell me how many Communists died under the Sjah's rule, were there "tens of thousands"?
I don't know. You made the assertion, you back it up. Be nice if you had something other than your party's political statements as a source. Though I don't specially doubt any of their assertions so far.

None of your sources quoted in bold says anything about "tens of thousands", so who are you quoting?

And the question should certainly be how many workers, not how many "Communists".


"So did the "People's Fedayeen", which ML mentions"

Fine. I shoulda specified Fedayeen(Majority).

You didn't specify which faction, neither did I, and I didn't know and still don't care that the split had happened by that point.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 20 2005, 06:41 PM

The MKO originally had Marxist ideas.

Those "Marxist ideas" were worthless since they always stayed muslim.
Nonetheless they had Marxist ideas with Islamic influence.

[Led Zeppelin]

Nonetheless they had Marxist ideas with Islamic influence.

In other words not Marxist.


I don't know. You made the assertion, you back it up. Be nice if you had something other than your party's political statements as a source.

Let's be realistic, where else can I find them?


None of your sources quoted in bold says anything about "tens of thousands", so who are you quoting?

"In 1988 thousands of political prisoners, under the direct mandate of Ayatollah Khomeini, were secretly murdered in captivity."

This is about the 1988 political murders, they were in the thousands, the 1983 wave of killings had higher casualties.

The best source I have for this are some of my relatives who were jailed themselves.

You can't find accurate death tolls on google.


And the question should certainly be how many workers, not how many "Communists".

Why would the government kill workers who are not politically active?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 22 2005, 05:09 AM

None of your sources quoted in bold says anything about "tens of thousands", so who are you quoting?

"In 1988 thousands of political prisoners, under the direct mandate of Ayatollah Khomeini, were secretly murdered in captivity."
I don't see the words "tens of thousands" there.

Maybe this is a new concept to you, but when you put words between quote marks, you're supposed to actually be quoting somebody else's exact words.



And the question should certainly be how many workers, not how many "Communists".

Why would the government kill workers who are not politically active?

Oy. You just have no concept of the actual class struggle outside your sectarian concept of narrowly party politics, do you? Well, I knew that: I've never seen you make a post about actual politics, as opposed to doctrines and icons you like or don't like.

http://www.iranian.com/Times/Subs/Revolution/Feb99/Images/troops.jpg
See those people? Probably most of 'em not "Communists", or associated with any party. Nevertheless, politically active, and risking being shot down by the shah's army.

http://www.iranian.com/Times/Subs/Revolution/1999/May/Images/oil.jpg
Oil workers on strike, 1978. Again, probably most of 'em not associated with any party. No party led the strike. These workers were taking a tremendous risk.

http://www.iranian.com/Times/Subs/Revolution/Oct98/Images/fire.jpg
The caption is "Troops open fire on people who try to take over a barrack in Tehran, a day before the fall of the monarchy in February 1979."

ML, bewildered, asks the troops, "Why would you kill workers who aren't politically active?"

http://www.iranian.com/Times/Subs/Revolution/April99/Images/man.jpg
Caption is: "Man with photographs of people killed by army soldiers."

So should we count all of 'em, or verify they had Tudeh or Fedayeen membership cards first?

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 15 2005, 09:58 AM
The Iranians give money to the anti-US fascists! Hezbollah style bombs! Why should we decide what form Arab resistance should take towards crusader scum!
Fuck anarchist knit-pickers. Long live Shia anti-imperialist politics!
You bastard, Hezbollah targets civilians as well. That's like someone supporting the bombing of civilians in Iraq, because somehow the death of civilians 'hurts the crusader'. I hope all religious fighters kill each other, that's the only fate they deserve.

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by Chinghis Khan+Sep 24 2005, 09:19 PM--> (Chinghis Khan @ Sep 24 2005, 09:19 PM)
Tino [email protected] 15 2005, 09:58 AM
The Iranians give money to the anti-US fascists! Hezbollah style bombs! Why should we decide what form Arab resistance should take towards crusader scum!
Fuck anarchist knit-pickers. Long live Shia anti-imperialist politics!
You bastard, Hezbollah targets civilians as well. That's like someone supporting the bombing of civilians in Iraq, because somehow the death of civilians 'hurts the crusader'. I hope all religious fighters kill each other, that's the only fate they deserve. [/b]
When have the Hezbollah attacked the civilians?

[bcbm]

In other words not Marxist.


Marxism is an "all or none" package? If you take some ideas from it, they cease to be "Marxist" when seperated from the rest? <_<

[Led Zeppelin]

Marxism is an "all or none" package? If you take some ideas from it, they cease to be "Marxist" when seperated from the rest?

If they are basic ideas then yes, that is what makes a theory, basic ideas.

I sense a degree of hostility from Severian which I find rather amusing, keep up the good work.


I don&#39;t see the words "tens of thousands" there.

Maybe this is a new concept to you, but when you put words between quote marks, you&#39;re supposed to actually be quoting somebody else&#39;s exact words.

Maybe this is a new concept to you, read posts before you respond to them:


"In 1988 thousands of political prisoners, under the direct mandate of Ayatollah Khomeini, were secretly murdered in captivity."

This is about the 1988 political murders, they were in the thousands, the 1983 wave of killings had higher casualties.

The best source I have for this are some of my relatives who were jailed themselves.

You can&#39;t find accurate death tolls on google.

I emphasized the part that you ignored, probably intentionally.


You just have no concept of the actual class struggle outside your sectarian concept of narrowly party politics, do you?

Actually I have, thanks for asking before you jumped to conclusions, oh wait, you did that already:


Well, I knew that: I&#39;ve never seen you make a post about actual politics, as opposed to doctrines and icons you like or don&#39;t like.


:rolleyes:


See those people? Probably most of &#39;em not "Communists", or associated with any party. Nevertheless, politically active, and risking being shot down by the shah&#39;s army.


Oil workers on strike, 1978. Again, probably most of &#39;em not associated with any party. No party led the strike. These workers were taking a tremendous risk.


The caption is "Troops open fire on people who try to take over a barrack in Tehran, a day before the fall of the monarchy in February 1979."

ML, bewildered, asks the troops, "Why would you kill workers who aren&#39;t politically active?"

Caption is: "Man with photographs of people killed by army soldiers."

So should we count all of &#39;em, or verify they had Tudeh or Fedayeen membership cards first?

ML:"Now you tell me how many Communists died under the Sjah&#39;s rule, were there "tens of thousands"?"

Trotskyist:"And the question should certainly be how many workers, not how many "Communists"."

Here I was referring specifically to Communists, i.e., politically active workers and intellectuals, not non-politically active workers, but then:

ML: "Why would the government kill workers who are not politically active?"

Now, are workers who strike and protest politically active or not?