tehranbureau An independent source of news on Iran and the Iranian diaspora
nextback

New Evidence of Fraud in 2009 Election

by MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles

11 Aug 2010 15:1346 Comments
TV+cast+vote.jpgRevolutionary Guard intelligence officer confirms Reformist accusations.

[ analysis ] Seven leading Reformist political figures have filed a lawsuit against several commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for their intervention in Iran's rigged presidential election of June 12, 2009, and its aftermath. The seven plaintiffs include four members of the Organization of Islamic Revolution Mojahedin (OIRM) -- Behzad Nabavi, Mostafa Tajzadeh, Dr. Mohsen Aminzadeh, and Fayzollah Arabsorkhi -- and three members of the Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF) -- Dr. Mohsen Mirdamadi, Dr. Abdollah Ramezan-Zadeh, and Mohsen Safaei-Farahani. They describe in their lawsuit how the Guard commanders planned the election "victory" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad long in advance and what they did in order to achieve their goal. The OIRM and IIPF are the two leading Reformist political groups to have been outlawed by the judiciary. All seven plaintiffs were arrested almost immediately after the election. After Stalinist-style show trials, they were all given long jail sentences.

Nabavi served in the government in the 1980s, and was deputy speaker of the 6th Majles (parliament) from 2000 to 2004. Tajzadeh was deputy interior minister in the first Khatami administration. Aminzadeh was deputy foreign minister and Arabsorkhi was deputy agriculture minister in both Khatami administrations. Mirdamadi, one of the three main leaders of the students who took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, was chairman of the National Security Committee of the Majles in 2000-4, and is currently secretary-general of the IIPC. Ramezan-Zadeh, formerly governor-general of Kurdistan province, was chief government spokesman in the second Khatami administration. Safaei-Farahani was a Majles representative from Tehran in 2000-4.

The basis for the lawsuit is a speech given by a hitherto little-known but high-ranking Guard officer, Sardar (commander) Moshfegh, who is linked with the Guards' intelligence unit and is deputy director of intelligence for the Sarallah military base. Moshfegh delivered the speech in question to a group of clerics in Mashhad last fall. Quoting from the speech, the plaintiffs point out how their arrest warrants were requested by the Guard command center in Sarallah several days prior to the election. Nabavi and others have previously said that when the security forces arrested them, the warrants were dated before the election.

The lawsuit also describes how Moshfegh bragged about the Guard commanders' plans for subverting the campaigns of the Reformist candidates long before it was even known which individuals would run; what the Guards did to disrupt the work of Mir Hossein Mousavi campaign's 40,000 volunteer election monitors on the eve of the vote; and how they eavesdropped on the internal discussions of the campaigns of Mousavi and the other Reformist candidate, Mehdi Karroubi. A fundamentalist blogger, Mohammad Javan Akhavan, who claims to be an engineering student, has posted Moshfegh's speech (available in Persian here and here).

Some background information on Moshfegh: It is not even clear that this is his true name. He has also been known as Ahmad Jahan Bozorgi. Born in 1955, he is a long-time student and follower of Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor. He has been an intelligence agent for many years. It has been reported that after the arrest of Reformist leaders, including the plaintiffs, in July 2009, he participated in their interrogation. He then repeatedly described to the members of the Basij militia what was said, or supposedly said, or his interpretation thereof. It has also been reported that he prepared a long report on the interrogations that was submitted to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Last year he headed the government-administered College of Intelligence. He has apparently been known by yet another alias, "Brother Beheshti," and is reputed to have had close links with Saeed Eslami (aka Saeed Emami), leader of the gang of intelligence agents that committed the infamous Chain Murders. He is known to be a close friend of the radical cleric Ruhollah Hossenian, who used to work at the Ministry of Intelligence. Hossenian famously rejected the accusations against Eslami -- concerning the killing of political figures by intelligence agents, Hossenian declared, "We were a murderer ourselves; murders are not done that way."

According to the transcript of his Mashhad speech, Moshfegh accuses six Reformist groups -- the OIRM; the IIPC; the Association of the Combatant Clerics (ACC), led by Khatami and Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha; the Executives of Reconstruction Party, close to former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; and the small Solidarity and Democratic parties -- of controlling both Khatami administrations and backing all types of conspiracies to destroy the Islamic Republic.

Toward the end of his presidency, Khatami said that the hardliners created a crisis for him and the nation every nine days. Moshfegh claims that all the major crises of which Khatami spoke were in fact created by the Reformists themselves, in order to defame the Principlists (the hardliners' self-anointed name). He references the infamous Chain Murders -- specifically mentioning Saeed Eslami -- and the attempt in the spring of 2000 to assassinate Dr. Saeed Hajjarian, a leading Reformist strategist. Moshfegh claims that these acts were conceived and executed by what he calls the "thinking room of the reforms."

Moshfegh then speaks about the online attack on Sayyed Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in the winter of 2008, right before the elections for the 8th Majles. An obscure website, Nosaazi (Reconstruction), which is run by a young fundamentalist named Nobakhti, criticized the younger Khomeini at the time. In Nosaazi's description, "his cheeks are rosy," due to the comfortable life that he enjoys as the grandson of the ayatollah, one that allows him to drive a BMW around Tehran. According to the Guard commander, Nobakhti, consequently arrested and interrogated, reported that Tajzadeh had told him that the next Supreme Leader would be the younger Khomeini. Nobakhti had therefore felt compelled to stage the attack on him, in order to protect Khamenei. So, once again, a leading Reformist is accused of being responsible for what the hardliners have done. In fact, Moshfegh talks about Tajzadeh with a mixture of admiration, for what he calls Tajzadeh's skills in psychological warfare, and disgust, for being a Reformist.

Moshfegh then claims that in the 2008 elections, 180 reformist candidates were allowed to run. The actual number was 105. He declares that they were heavily defeated and could form only a "weak" minority in the 8th Majles. In reality, out of the 105 candidates, most of whom were little known -- because all of the well-known Reformists had been barred from running -- 60 were elected. In other words, in those districts where Reformists were allowed to campaign, they won almost 60 percent of the seats, an absolute majority. And those Reformist representatives, together with 30 independent deputies, form a bloc of about 90, almost one-third of the total Majles -- hardly a "weak" minority.

Moshfegh then claims that the Reformists, due to their "defeat" in the 8th Majles elections, decided that they should be led by the ACC, the group of leftist clerics close to Ayatollah Khomeini. Moshfegh asserts that he has irrefutable documents that show that ACC chief Khoeiniha has always been linked to foreign intelligence agencies, which begs the question, Why has he not been arrested? As "evidence" for his claim, Moshfegh states that when Khoeiniha -- spiritual advisor to the leftist Islamic students involved in the 1979 embassy takeover -- was asked whether he had solicited Khomeini's view on the raid prior to the hostage crisis, Khoeiniha responded, "No, we did not, because if we had asked his opinion, he would have opposed the idea, due to his position" as leader of the Revolution. Moshfegh then explains that this establishes Khoeiniha's culpability in a tactic used by the Western powers -- ordering their agents in countries such as Iran to attack their embassies, in order to discredit the targeted nation. In other words, an event that the hardliners have always proclaimed proudly as the "second" revolution is reframed by Moshfegh as a conspiracy by the United States and its Iranian agents against the Islamic Republic.

Moshfegh then claims that Khoeiniha was also involved in the mission that former President Jimmy Carter ordered to attempt a rescue of the embassy hostages. The mission, dubbed Operation Eagle Claw, was aborted in a desert in central Iran, after a sandstorm damaged three helicopters and caused a fourth to collide with a transport plane, killing eight U.S. Special Operations servicemen. Moshfegh does not specify how Khoeiniha was involved. He also accuses Khoeiniha of involvement in the so-called Nojeh Coup, an attempt on July 11, 1980, by a group of military officers loyal to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his last prime minister, Shapour Bakhtiar, to overthrow the newly founded Islamic Republic. The attempt failed, and most of the officers were executed or expelled from the military.

Moshfegh also claims that Khoeiniha was responsible for educating and training two assassins, Akbar Goudarzi and Mohammad Kashani, members of an anti-clerical but militant Muslim group, the Forqan, that killed several leading revolutionary figures in 1979-81. He also accuses Khoeiniha of playing a lead role in the university student uprising of July 1998.

He then declares that the effort by Khoeiniha, Mohammad Hashemi -- the younger brother of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- Behzad Nabavi, and others to achieve a Reformist victory in last year's election demonstrates their desire to remove Supreme Leader Khamenei from the center of power in Iran. He quotes Nabavi as purportedly saying, "We should identify Ahmadinejad as the Leader's candidate, because once he is defeated, it will be a great defeat for the Leader as well." Referring back to Khatami's defeat of Ali Akbar Nategh Nouri, once a favored presidential candidate of Khamenei's, Nabavi supposedly continued, "We did this once in 1997 and [Khamenei] could hardly recover. This time, he will receive the final blow."

Moshfegh then says that for two years prior to last year's election, the Reformists held weekly meetings on Monday nights to strategize about the upcoming campaign. He said that, in addition to Tajzadeh, Aminzadeh, Arabsorkhi, and Mirdamadi, other leading Reformists took part, including Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Khatami's vice president; Aldolvahed Mousavi Lari, Khatami's interior minister; diplomat Mohammad Sadr; Mohammad Reza Khatami, the former president's younger brother; journalist Mohammad Naeimipour; and IIPC Central Committee member Saeed Shariati, who was arrested following the election and turned against the Reformists after his release.

Another facet of the Reformists' attempt to return to power, according to Moshfegh, was Khatami's founding of the think tank Baran after he stepped down from the presidency in 2005. Baran -- an acronym for the full Persian name, which translates as Foundation for Freedom, Growth, and Development of Iran -- consists of former high officials in the Khatami and Rafsanjani administrations, moderate and progressive clerics, leading Reformist politicians and journalists, academics, and others. Baran has been holding regular, open monthly meetings since its inception to discuss issues facing the nation. According to Moshfegh, Abtahi supposedly said that the meetings were meant to send a message to the West that Khatami will again be a powerful president. Moshfegh also accuses Khatami of forming a shadow cabinet that awaits his return to power.

Moshfegh then turns to a different series of meetings, which he says provided another venue for Reformist schemes to reclaim power. Organized by Mehdi Hashemi, weekly breakfast sessions were held for two years every Thursday, rotating between the Reformists' homes. Moshfegh accuses Hashemi of being linked with foreign intelligence agencies, of organizing riots and attacks on government buildings and banks, of insulting Khamenei, and other crimes. He claims that the Guards have arrested a man whom Hashemi was paying $800 a day to set fires to buildings in east Tehran, another man who was supposedly doing the same in west Tehran for $1,000 a day, and a third who was organizing mobs to participate in riots for $2,000 a day. Altogether, Hashemi spent about $200,000 on such ventures, according to Moshfegh.

No well-known hardline figure, not even in the ultra-conservative judiciary, has ever publicly made such claims. In particular, Mehdi Hashemi has never been accused of committing such crimes, and the three arrested men supposedly on his payroll have never appeared in a court nor in any other public setting to "confess" to their crimes. Obviously, almost all of what Moshfegh says are complete lies. In effect, much of his speech is a deceitful attempt to justify the actual, heinous crimes that he and his group committed against the people of Iran to prevent, or at least contain, the rapid decline of support for the hardliners after last year's election.

Moshfegh then talks about what Mehdi Hashemi did for the autumn 2006 elections for the Assembly of Experts, the constitutional body that appoints the Supreme Leader and can theoretically sack him. The hardliners wanted to make sure that Rafsanjani, running for a seat from Tehran province, was not elected. To discredit him if that failed, they planned to claim that he had received a small number of votes. In order to prevent the planned vote fraud, Mehdi Hashemi organized his father's election monitors in Tehran and other cities in the province in an ingenious way. Each monitor was given a cell phone to report vote counts on an hourly basis to a central office. To avoid attempts by the hardliners to disrupt transmissions from the cell phones, they were connected to the center via satellite dish, rather than the normal route through Iran's communication network. As a result, the hardliners were unable to commit any large-scale fraud. Rafsanjani was elected with the largest number of votes. Just as importantly, the hardliners were not able to conceal the fact that Ayatollah Yazdi, Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor, received few votes, even after some that had been cast for Gholamreza Mesbahi, a relatively moderate cleric, were "read" for Yazdi.

Hashemi, a strong supporter of Mousavi, organized a similar monitoring network for last year's rigged election. According to Moshfegh, Hashemi set up three nerve centers to collect incoming data. Three because, according to Moshfegh, if two were discovered by security forces, the third could continue. Note that all the centers were set up to do was maintain a tally of the votes. According to Moshfegh, all three centers were discovered on the eve of the election, and their work was stopped.

The account that Moshfegh gives of disrupting the work of Mousavi's election monitors confirms the Reformists' accounts of what occurred. In fact, one of Mousavi's main complaints was that his monitors were prevented from reporting the fraud that was taking place. Moshfegh's speech is the first confirmation by a pro-regime figure of the accuracy of Mousavi's accusations.

Moshfegh accuses Mousavi of wanting to separate religion from governance. According to the Guard commander, Mousavi has said that a religious government is meaningless and ineffective. Religious people can govern, if elected, but not in a religious government. Moshfegh then links this thinking to that of Iran's Nationalist-Religious Coalition, led by Ezatollah Sahabi (an appropriate connection), but also, bizarrely, to that of American political scientist Samuel Huntington, proponent of the "Clash of Civilizations" theory of geopolitics. According to Moshfegh, Mousavi at the same time somehow believes in an ideology that Moshfegh calls "Orientalist Marxism."

According to Moshfegh, the Reformists did not want Mousavi or Karroubi to run. Even Khatami, he says, was worried about Mousavi running. But Khoeiniha and Nabavi, by Moshfegh's account, had told Khatami that they wanted only to use Mousavi's name. If he insisted on running, they would publicize photos of his wife, Dr. Zahra Rahnavard, taken before the 1979 Revolution, supposedly showing her in public without the hejab. As for Karroubi and his National Trust Party, Moshfegh claims that Nabavi said, "We will give him the control of two to three ministries. But if he insists on running, we will investigate what he did as head of the Shahid Foundation," a vast charitable organization founded to look after veterans of the Iran-Iraq war and the 1979 Revolution. Moshfegh claims that the information was presented to both Mousavi and Karroubi, and that it created a big rift between them and the Reformists, which was somehow resolved. Moshfegh also claims that the political changes that the Reformists espouse are not true reforms, but U.S.-formulated and hence fake reforms crafted to topple the Islamic Republic.

The reality is completely opposite to Moshfegh's claims. First, of course, the purported photos of Dr. Rahnavard have never surfaced. Even if they existed, they would prove nothing, though it is widely believed that the hardliners claimed that they had such photos to discourage Mousavi from running in the presidential elections in 1997 and 2005. And the truth is that Khatami actually preferred that Mousavi run and said that Mousavi could best resist the pressure of the hardliners. Moshfegh later contradicts himself on this very point, in fact, when he claims that Mousavi recognized that Khatami was not enthusiastic about pursuing the presidency and thus decided to run himself. As for Karroubi, nothing else has ever been said against him, even by the hardliners, regarding his work at the Shahid Foundation. Nabavi has strongly denied the statements and positions Moshfegh attributes to him, as has Mousavi.

Moshfegh contradicts himself again when he talks about Khatami. He claims that Khatami told the Reformists, "I can counter and handle the Leader and the Principlists, but I do not know how to solve my problems with you. Some of you say, ignore the Qu'ran. Some say, ignore the Constitution. And some say, ignore the Leader. But I do not dare to do such things." As a result, according to Moshfegh, the Reformists began threatening Khatami -- the same man who was supposedly worried about Mousavi running for election -- and demanding he make sacrifices on behalf of reform. They told him, according to Moshfegh, that if he did not run, they would not support Mousavi. To which Khatami supposedly responded, "With such thinking, if I run, then I will be destroyed, regardless of whether I won or lose!"

Then, according to Moshfegh, Khatami was told that after he announced his candidacy, he should travel to Shiraz and Bushehr in southern Iran, where the Reformists would arrange for crowds of 35,000 people to greet him. But when Khatami arrived in each city, only 5,000 people showed up. Consequently, according to Moshfegh, Khatami realized that all the polls with which he had been presented, showing that people would vote for him, were false. And thus, says Moshfegh, Khatami decided not to run. The truth, again, is very different: The number of people who showed up to greet Khatami in both cities was much larger than even 35,000, which shocked and scared the hardliners.

According to Moshfegh, when Mousavi announced his candidacy, Khoeiniha became really angry. The cleric supposedly said that he and his group did not like Mousavi even back when he was prime minister and supported by Ayatollah Khomeini. According to Moshfegh, Khoeiniha believed that it was Mousavi who forced Khomeini to accept U.N. Security Council Resolution 598, which called for a ceasefire between Iran and Iraq, and that Mousavi did not really believe in the "holy defense," as the war against Iraq was called.

The reality, one more time, is the complete opposite. It was the ACC and Khoeiniha who asked Mousavi to run in the 1997 elections. After he refused, they turned to Khatami. In 2005, the ACC and Khoeiniha again asked Mousavi to run, and were again rebuffed. It was then that they put up Dr. Mostafa Moein, former minister of higher education under Khatami, as their candidate.

Moshfegh also claims that Western and Arab countries did not like Mousavi, because they believe that he is a Marxist. But, then, Khatami -- that same man who Moshfegh says did not want Mousavi to run -- made several trips to the West and the Arab nations and convinced them to support Mousavi. Moshfegh also claims that Mehdi Hashemi had said that they should send a message to President Obama asking him not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad before the election.

Moshfegh also accuses Mousavi of not giving the Army and the Revolutionary Guards everything they needed to continue the war with Iraq. The same accusation was leveled against Mousavi two weeks ago by Mohsen Rafighdoust, minister of the Guards in the Mousavi administration. Mousavi, responding that Rafighdoust had been imposed on him, threatened to reveal the truth about the war. That made the hardliners so worried that Ali Saeedi, Khamenei's representative to the Guards, said, "It is better if the black box of the war is not opened." We do know that Mousavi was opposed to prolonging the war after spring 1982, when Iranian forces expelled Iraqi occupation troops from Khuzestan province.

Moshfegh then says that after Mousavi announced his intention to run for president, the Reformists decided to support him, because they did not have any other candidate. In turn, according to Moshfegh, Mousavi told the Reformists, "My thinking is 90 percent similar to yours." The program that Mousavi and the Reformists supposedly agreed on was to remove control of the armed forces, Guardian Council, and Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (the national network of radio and TV stations) from Khamenei, and to separate religion from governance. The eventual goal was to eliminate the post of Supreme Leader.

This, according to Moshfegh, was also the thinking of the United States and its allies. The commander claims a campaign headquarters was even established in the United States for the Iranan election. Whereas President George W. Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to launch a military attack, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice preferred to initiate a "soft" war on Iran via the Reformists.

One of the most striking aspects of what Moshfegh says is the way it exposes how deeply he and his cohorts believe in conspiracy theories. Anything that goes wrong for them is the result of a conspiracy by the West. Another striking aspect is how righteous Moshfegh and his cohorts feel. He believes that he and the hardliners never make a mistake, never commit a crime. Are we to believe that the West is somehow entirely responsible for the terrible state of affairs in Iran?

Concerning Mousavi, Khatami, and Karroubi, the Guard commander acknowledges the question begged by his slew of accusations: "You may ask, Why have these people not been arrested? Well, we took their case to the Supreme Leader. But he said that there is no need to prosecute them. He ordered us just to inform people about what has happened, and the people will reject the Reformists." Incredible. This unprecedented mercy is granted by a system that imposes lengthy jail sentences on participants in lawful, peaceful demonstrations against a stolen election and murders 110 of them.

Ultimately, the most important aspect of this speech is its confirmation of what the Mousavi and Karroubi campaigns have said all along -- namely, that the hardliners did not allow their monitors to do their work, which enabled the regime to commit massive, historic vote fraud and declare Ahmadinejad, once again, the democratically elected president of Iran.

Copyright © 2010 Tehran Bureau

SHAREtwitterfacebookSTUMBLEUPONbalatarin reddit digg del.icio.us

46 Comments

Mohammad, thanks for your summary of the speech. It could not have been much fun.

But what is it which confirms the Reformists' suspicions? Here we have a plainly delusional man who includes among his (delusional?) claims story about the reactionaries' dirty tricks against the Reformists.

This guy is about on the level of Glenn Beck. How can anything he says be taken seriously?

Evan / August 12, 2010 3:11 AM

This is an internal struggle between the 2 sides of the Islamic Republic. Both sides are corrupt, backward and Islamist. They are after power to enrich themselves.
Iranians have been murdered, tortured and imprisoned by both sides. During Mousavi's reign tens of thousands of political prisoners were tortured and murdered. Hundreds of thousands of teenage boys were sent to front to be martyred for the propaganda purposes, with no military significance.
Why doesn't Mousavi tell the TRUTH about the WAR?

Maziar / August 12, 2010 5:03 AM

Dear Dr. Sahimi,

Mousavi is a lost cause. Please start looking beyond the Barbaric Republic. Your generation ruined Iran. At least give my generation a chance at a better life. You are way too smart to waste your talents on this man and the backward genocidal system of governance he and his colleagues represent.

Niloofar / August 12, 2010 12:12 PM

Concentrating on circumstantial aspects and intrigue surrounding the 2009 election is a dead end.

There are certainly more serious matters at hand, including the issue of sanctions, the possibility of war and the economy.

Pirouz / August 12, 2010 5:08 PM

Niloofar:

I do not know which is your generation (as I do not know your age). But, it is more than welcome to take the lead to create a better Iran. It is not up to people like me. I only express my own opinion, and respect others'. However, all I know is that Mousavi, whatever he stands, is supported by a large segment of the society in Iran. Just look at what happened recently: A group of political prisoners went on hunger strike. All the threats by the hardliners did not stop them. Their transfer to solitary confinement did not stop them. But, as soon as Mousavi asked them to stop the hunger strike, they did.

At the same time, even if we assume that your generation has the potential to create a better Iran without my generation, the questions are: Who are the leaders? What are the organizations? What is the vision? What is the plan of action? Confronting the hardliners that are armed to the teeth, control the vast resources of the state, have a significant, albeit narrow, social base, and are ready to fight, takes more than idealism and beautiful words.

Idealism is good for providing a vision for the future. But, at the end of the day one must deal with the facts on the ground.

Muhammad Sahimi / August 12, 2010 6:03 PM

Evan,
You obviously did not read the article or care about the facts. Being an anti war liberal does not mean that you have to also be an apologist for the fascist dictatorship that has come to power in a coup. Purposely ignoring the facts to validate your own beliefs is an immaturity quite common in the American public mentality, unfortunately including the supposed left.

Niloofar and Maziar
You have an unrealistic and skewered understanding of Iranian History. It seems that you have never lived in Iran nor have any idea of realities on the ground. At the time of war Khomeini was the All Mighty and Khamenei was the President, in charge of Sepah and the war. Mousavi was in charge running the economy as the PM, which in fact he did a great job of, considering the conditions. He simply had no say in how the war was run or how the prisoners were to be treated.
How come you do not hold any other person responsible for the atrocities that were committed? Only the leaders of the Green Movement?
Three million people came out for Mousavi and Greens in Tehran 3 days after the election. How many people have come out for any other person or cause in Iran in the past 30 years? How do you give yourself the right to disrespect and discredit the people who have put everything on the line at every opportunity you get?
It is quite obvious you trying to shore up support for other opposition groups who are all talk and no substance at the expense of the Green Movement and the people of Iran. It is sad fact that the brained washed kids of Diaspora are just as useful to the IR regime as the brainwashed kids of the Basij.

Pirouz,
I respectfully disagree. If we are ever going to take back the country from the coup masters we need to start holding people accountable for their actions. One reason the movement did not succeed last year was because it lost track of what it came out for in the first place. A fair election is the basic right of Iranian people and if we implicitly ignore and accept the criminal nature of vote fraud in our country then the future of Iran is surely doomed regardless of any sanctions or wars.

Ali / August 12, 2010 10:28 PM

Dr. Sahimi

Great article.

I have one question regarding Mousavi's threat to reveal the truths of the war. I understand that a letter has surfaced in which Mousavi complains of not being informed of the various decisions being made outside of the country while he was Prime Minister (specifically in relation to Lebanon and Saudi Arabia), altnough I have not come across the original letter myself and am not certain if the report is authentic.

Other than this supposed letter, do you have any idea what "truths" Mousavi is concealing, or threatening to make open? And why do you suppose he continues to hold on to this secret?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

B / August 12, 2010 11:48 PM

Ali,

Thank you for showing the whole world the kind of leadership and democracy you adhere too.

Is Karubi one of those 3 million people?

Then pay attention to what he said, "the people of Iran are the leaders of the Green movement and not any individuals."

"How come you do not hold any other person responsible for the atrocities that were committed? Only the leaders of the Green Movement?" Because other persons are not running for President learned one.

3 million people came out for Iran. People in Iran have made it abondantly clear that Mousavi was an excuse. They want democracy for Iran and democracy cannot be achieved under this archiac establishment learned one.

"It is quite obvious you trying to shore up support for other opposition groups ..." I am? You know me better than I learned one. You are amazing.

"How do you give yourself the right to disrespect and discredit ..." It is called freedom of speech learned one. Get used to it.

"Mousavi was in charge running the economy as the PM ..." Really? In a civilized society people resign rather than taking part in a genicidal government. Why did he not distance himself right there and then and only when his presidential election did not go as planned and in his favor? I was part of the gang, but did not know anything about the crimes does not cut it learned one. You need to think a little harder. Dr. Sahimi was far more ellegant than you and he does have some valid points as food for thought. I rather discuss it with him thank you.

Kid? hardly, younger? yes.

Anonymous / August 13, 2010 12:39 AM

The recent report from ICC judge names Mousavi as the third person (legally) responsible for murders of 80's, only after khomeini and Khamenei. There are evidence that he puts forward in the form of his interviews and his written orders to indicate that he had heavy hands, if not in initial order, but in implementation of orders. He is simply a thug and a murderer in search of power and publicity.

Mousavi is no leader as we see from demise of the GM. His only objective is what it has always been with islamists -- maintain power and retain the islamic republic. Support of people for him is either symbolic or out of ignorance. The same ignorance that supporters of khomeini displayed 30 years ago. It is the moral responsibility of any decent human being to oppose this murderer turned "saint", and hope that he faces justice along with the rest of mullas. The fact that he may have a following does not change facts or bring back thousands that HIS intelligence services murdered. Khomeini also had a lot of followers and we all know where he took them.

ABBAS Shaker / August 13, 2010 1:56 AM

Pirouz,

I disagree with your statement. You and the regime you represent are trying to unite the Iranian people under the banner that we as a nation are under threat from outsiders.

The truth is that this backward regime is interested in its islamist ideology first and foremost, Iran comes second (as mesbah yazdi has stated in the next story). This regime will never be able to unite the people because of its arrogant disregard of the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious nature of Iran.

When you have Shia fanatics excluding others, be they Kurds, Ahvazi Arabs, Baluchis, Bahais, Sunnis, women or people with a different political view (e.g. liberals, secularists), on the basis of their absurd ideology you will only create division. And that is what the islamists have done to Iran - a culture of the privileged khodemoonis and then the rest who can go to hell.

Agha Irani / August 13, 2010 2:24 AM

Dear Anonymous (Niloofar or Maziar)

“Is Karubi one of those 3 million people?”

Yes. Karrubi is clearly with Mousavi and the Green Movement.

“Then pay attention to what he said, "the people of Iran are the leaders of the Green movement and not any individuals."”

Exactly, people of Iran not me and you in the west. We are simply loudmouths who speak from the comfort of our homes with the rights afforded to us by blood of people other than our own.

“"How come you do not hold any other person responsible for the atrocities that were committed? Only the leaders of the Green Movement?" Because other persons are not running for President learned one.”

For one he is not running for the presidency anymore but whether you like it or not he is the leader of the Green movement. He would never satisfy the likes of monarchists and MK who view anyone with any role in Iran in the past 30 years with hatred. The people who stayed in Iran are the ones who can and should run the country. Those who left 30 years ago have simply no right to judge what they cannot know. Your blind hatred for the honorable men in Iran has no valid excuse while you leave out the likes of Khamenei, Jannati, Yazdi, Moghaddam, Ahmdainejad and IRG leadership from your judgment.

“3 million people came out for Iran. People in Iran have made it abondantly clear that Mousavi was an excuse. They want democracy for Iran and democracy cannot be achieved under this archiac establishment learned one.”
So the fact that they were wearing Green (Mousavi’s campaign color if you are unaware) and held his picture and showed the V sign (His campaign sign) means that they were just using him as an excuse? So was Where Is My Vote is an excuse? Who are you to say speak for the Iranian people? Even though I do not know you I can tell for a fact that you have never lived in Iran. What does democracy mean to you? Let me guess; Not Islamic Republic? Let me enlighten you democracy means inclusion of all groups and ideas including those in the IR. You are in fact brainwashed by your parents

“"It is quite obvious you trying to shore up support for other opposition groups ..." I am? You know me better than I learned one. You are amazing.”

That was very obvious but thank you.

""How do you give yourself the right to disrespect and discredit ..." It is called freedom of speech learned one. Get used to it."

Being dismissive of Iranians who died yelling Mir Hossein Ya Hossein, are on food strike in jail (almost all of Mousavi supporters and aids in addition to many others who have voted for him) or have had to go underground is not freedom of speech. You are entitled to your personal views but try and at least educate yourself a bit and do not simply repeat like parrot everything your parents tell you or things you hear on some of the LA based channels. You are unknowingly working in the interest of current government in Iran.

""Mousavi was in charge running the economy as the PM ..." Really? In a civilized society people resign rather than taking part in a genicidal government. Why did he not distance himself right there and then and only when his presidential election did not go as planned and in his favor? I was part of the gang, but did not know anything about the crimes does not cut it learned one. You need to think a little harder. Dr. Sahimi was far more ellegant than you and he does have some valid points as food for thought. I rather discuss it with him thank you."

You are ignorant of the facts and maybe that is why you are scared of having a discussion with me. As I mentioned before it is historical fact that Mousavi had no role in the killings but you rather leave the real culprits out just to keep parroting the points that have been fed to you. What did you expect him to do when he found out? I was there. We all knew. There was nothing any of us could do. You were NOT THERE for the war. No one could speak. A miserable death awaited anyone with any opinion. Montazeri , with all his stature, was in line to be the next leader but spoke out and they easily put him away for the rest of his life. I am sure that means nothing to you because he was once part of IR.
Why do you think Mousavi was sidelined after the executions and has not taken part in the government since? Do you really think that 70 year old man is running for president for his own good? He was running for us and still is. IR knows its enemies well. Simply by putting Mousavi under House Arrest and not in jail it gives the LA based Diaspora enough ammunition to attack him. Not that you need it. You will find an excuse one way or the other.
I am simply asking you to respect the true men and women of this fight; the ones in Iran. You and I do not count anymore. We do not have the right to speak for the Iranians in Iran just because we went to few rallies in the comfort of the West and waved a flag to make ourselves feel better. Please open your eyes and listen. Youtube will help.

Ali / August 13, 2010 2:26 AM

Ali,

I did not mean to post Anonymous; I simply forgot to type my name.

I do not agree with you when you suggest we do not count in the West. Why do we have this site in the first place if people should not be allowed to post their opinions? You do not make any sense.

Perhaps you need to open your eyes and see Iran for what it really is today. Iran is going nowhere but backwards. Mousavi, good bad mediocre is a thing of the past. Yesterday the Obama administration announced it is willing to talk to the clown Ahmadinejad under certain conditions. What does that tell you? They have written everyone else off. We have to start thinking about the day after the Barbaric Republic. Some 31 years have been wasted already. As a matter of fact I respect Montazeri a lot more than I respect you and I am not going to suggest you are totally wrong, but at least the man had courage and he stood for what he believed in when others remained silent to save their behind. I find it quite disturbing when you claim everyone knew about the murders and nobody was willing to do anything about it. Well, in America and a number of other developed countries of the world people did do something about it hence, the developed countries. I have every right to express my opinion and I shall exercise my right to do so and I will continue to listen to my mother. Why would she lie to me? That is a sick thought.

Your generation ruined Iran. You people should at least have the courage to admit it. I am sorry if I am blunt, but in the West losers disappear from the political scenes and for a good reason.

I have just as much respect for your generation as you had for scores of innocent lives you put against the wall and cheered about it starting from day one. What goes around comes around. Get used to it. Remember?

Niloofar / August 13, 2010 4:11 AM

“I do not agree with you when you suggest we do not count in the West. Why do we have this site in the first place if people should not be allowed to post their opinions? You do not make any sense.”

My dear, you need read the whole paragraph. You and others who use this forum to insult the majority of Greens in Iran are entitled to your opinion; just know that you are only spreading the seeds of disunity just to prove that you are better than “them”. This and other forums are all you have to show for.

It is beyond me why you are attacking the only existing opposition to the current disaster in Iran. If anything monarchist and others should be backing the opposition, but true to the form, they are clueless of the realties on the ground. You dream of a utopia where Islam will not exist will only be that; a dream. Islam is part of Iranian culture and any future democracy has to respect all Iranians including the religious ones. We will not be able to accomplish much from this side of the ocean with our hatred for those who are actually fighting and suffering for the rest of us. There are many positive things to talk about and do but all hear from the long displaced Diaspora is negativity and disrespect for others. You need to study the history of civil rights movement in the States. You will see that the path to victory is unity and not hatred.


“Perhaps you need to open your eyes and see Iran for what it really is today. Iran is going nowhere but backwards. Mousavi, good bad mediocre is a thing of the past. Yesterday the Obama administration announced it is willing to talk to the clown Ahmadinejad under certain conditions. What does that tell you? They have written everyone else off. We have to start thinking about the day after the Barbaric Republic. Some 31 years have been wasted already. As a matter of fact I respect Montazeri a lot more than I respect you and I am not going to suggest you are totally wrong, but at least the man had courage and he stood for what he believed in when others remained silent to save their behind. I find it quite disturbing when you claim everyone knew about the murders and nobody was willing to do anything about it. Well, in America and a number of other developed countries of the world people did do something about it hence, the developed countries. I have every right to express my opinion and I shall exercise my right to do so and I will continue to listen to my mother. Why would she lie to me? That is a sick thought.”

Obama and the gang never wanted the Greens to succeed. That would only mean a powerful and prosperous Iran. Right from the beginning he ignored the atrocities and in fact encouraged them.

You are naïve to think that we could do anything about the murders. I was 10 or 12 at the time but is beside the point, everyone found out after the fact when it was too late and it did not matter. You obviously have not lived in a dictatorship at war. We had lost over 1 million people just in the war alone. A few thousand more were just numbers at that point. You yourself do not care for those people and just using them to justify your flawed argument. You were looking for an excuse to discredit Mousavi and that is the only reason you are all of a sudden so caring of those brave innocent men and women. That is talking point that has been spoon fed to you.

Your idolization of America and other “developed” countries is a bit misguided. These countries are not much better than IR; they have no respect for human lives or values. They tap your phone lines, take you to jail and torture you without charges and assassinate people all over the world. This has been their official policy for at least the past 60 years. These are the same countries that sold mass destruction and chemical weapons to Iraq to kill innocent Iranians. These countries, specially America, have a majority who is ignorant of truth in the middle east and think of us Iranians as Arabs and would rather nuke us than talk to us. Their development has come at the cost of black people, minorities and less developed countries, especially in South America where any free voice was silenced by brutality.
That fact you take your mother’s words for granted is very sad. That is why we still have racists in America, and religious fanatics all over the world. Parents are set on their ways, you should base you knowledge on books and facts not words of mouth.


“Your generation ruined Iran. You people should at least have the courage to admit it. I am sorry if I am blunt, but in the West losers disappear from the political scenes and for a good reason.”

Generation accusations do not make sense to me but your mother would fall into the generation you are accusing. Maybe you should look into the roles of BP and CIA for the true reasons of modern Iran’s misfortunes.


“I have just as much respect for your generation as you had for scores of innocent lives you put against the wall and cheered about it starting from day one. What goes around comes around. Get used to it. Remember?”

I have put no one against the wall dear. I have lived most of my life in Iran, was beaten up by Basij and others more times that you have read books and was part of the student movement in 99 which only meant more misery but I am proud of it. Your lack of respect is nothing to gloat about. Please pick up a few history books of Modern Iran and then comeback with some points worth answering.

Ali / August 13, 2010 6:08 AM

Agha Irani,

"....you and the regime you represent are trying to unite the Iranian people under the banner that we as a nation are under threat from outsiders"

---You nailed it right over the head.

Ahvaz / August 13, 2010 6:29 AM

Niloofar, you write "in America people did something about it" ... About what? Killing millions of Vietnamese? Thousands of Iraqis? Afghans? Iranians? ( you may want to fact check to see the chemical weapons your "developed country" sold to Saddam to mutilate Iranians)

If there's one thing that still makes me have any hope for Iran is that the dissidents, prisoners, Mousavi... Do not sound like trained puppies.

You have every right to express your juvenile, irrelevant drivel ... As does your mom and family. So long as you remain irrelevant to Iran, there is still hope.

Houshang / August 13, 2010 8:50 AM

Thank you Abbas.

It is quite evident there is ample support through out the world to bring these people to justice for their crimes against humanity. It is only a question of time.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/iranians-involved-in-1988-massacres-remain-in-public-life-20100613-y5uo.html

Niloofar / August 13, 2010 12:38 PM

Dear Ali (Aug 13 @ 6:08 AM)


Pedigreed Persian Princess Niloofar has never been to Iran in her 30 years (too busy), but she has read one book about modern Iran written by her favorite author, Amir Taheri!


This, combined with the wisdom of her mom, deep admiration for the US Marine Corps, and groupie status in mini-Pahlavi's "pro-democracy" initiatives, makes Niloofar one of the most perceptive minds on TB.

Ali from Tehran / August 13, 2010 7:46 PM

You folks have been very educational. I need to ask you one more question and just out of curiosity. What are you people doing in the West when you hate it so much and feel so removed from it? You must have miserable lives. I happen to love America and I am grateful for what she has provided for me. I am free to make my own choice.

I do not have anything against Islam and everything against Islamists. Iran was a Muslim country prior to this glorious revolution of yours. People enjoyed their social freedoms and practiced a religion of their choosing without interference from others. Look at what you have done to that country. A little humility on your part is in order.

I do not know why one has to be a monarchist if one opposes the Islamist approach, but monarchy appears to work fine for many democratic nations of the world. Whether a Republic or a Monarchy is a choice for the Iranian people when due.

Also, it is quite apparent portraying Iran and Iranians as conservative religious people serves the Islamist agenda and any deviation of which prompts aggressive reactions since such depiction is central to your trembling existence. It never fails, Iranians outside lack understanding, feelings and are totally disconnected when the root cause is the very extreme intolerance that you people exhibited from day one of your despicable emergence to power in once the most peaceful and certainly one of the most prosperous countries of the Middle East.

I look upon my mother as a close friend whom despite all the hardships in her life has been a guiding light, but when her words are echoed by scores of Iranians then it leaves me no choice to decide whose side is telling the truth. Books are fine, but they will never replace real people, their collective experience and legitimate feelings.

Your miserable existence is reaching its end. May the good lord have mercy on you despite your immense cruelty to so many innocent people across Iran. May the good lord have mercy on you.

Niloofar / August 13, 2010 8:59 PM

Ali,

As it happens I am one the OLDER GENERATION and was a lecturer 30 years ago. I was in Iran before and 1979 and while Mousavi was PM and witnessed FIRST hand, destruction of Iran's culture and economy, educational system and everything else. Over the last 10 years, I have lived in Iran most of the time. I was there during the UPRISING after the so called elections. It was an uprising more massive than what I saw during 1978/79.

It is obvious that most of those who support Mousavi, as supporters of the Islamic Republic, are in the RafsanJani Mafia and are only opposed to the Fascists running the country because they have been excluded from thievery that is going on.

My FIRST hand experience tells me that most Iranians in the West who support Mousavi have FINANCIAL interests tied to the Islamic Republic Regime, even if it is high interest rate Bank accounts.

What Niloofar says about MY GENERATION is what I hear every time I talk to Iranian students in Iran and even shopkeepers who think I must have been a revolutionary due to my age.

Niloofar, MORE power to YOU and YOUR generation!

Maziar / August 13, 2010 10:26 PM

Niloofar

Your logic is flawed and you are unable to address any of the points I made. You did not even read my post before responding which only proves your ignorance. You are advocating hatred and death for those who disagree with you but you do not even bother to listen to what they have to say. You are exactly the same if not worse than IR.

You and Maziar are like KKK Clan members who base their views on the ideology of the people in their Clan and are proud of it!

Niloofar: “Books are fine, but they will never replace real people, their collective experience and legitimate feelings.”

Maziar: “It is obvious that most of those who support Mousavi, as supporters of the Islamic Republic, are in the RafsanJani Mafia and are only opposed to the Fascists running the country because they have been excluded from thievery that is going on.”

Your statements are ramblings that only prove your Clan mentality. True to form you make accusations with no substance. You are in fact unworthy of my time or responses since you are unable to even make one valid point.

Ali / August 14, 2010 12:09 AM

You twice use the word "rigged" in your article, yet do not suggest any mechanism through which the vote was rigged, or present any evidence at all that this is the case. Closing down monitoring centers is suspicious, but it's not dispositive. Mousavi had monitors throughout the country; precinct-level results have been released. If the numbers were fabricated, there would be hard evidence.

Zach / August 14, 2010 12:53 AM

Maziar:

Your sweeping statement about supporters of Mousavi is truly absurd, but I only speak about myself. I am a firm supporter of Mousavi - not because he is the best we can have under ideal conditions, but because aside from him and Karroubi and a few others we do not have anyone to lead the movement. I have no financial interests in Iran - none, zilch, zero, nada - nor am I a supporter of Rafsanjani. And those who follow my writings here know what happened to my family in Iran in the 1980s.

You have never ever made one constructive comment here, and it is not just here; you do the same at iranian.com as well, except that this website is totally different from the IC. The only thing you seem to be interested in is attacking, making unsubstantiated accusations, finger pointing, etc. This type of commenting is way way beyond your age.

Enlighten us with how YOU think the democratic movement - Green or otherwise - can or should advance, and then we can have a civilized debate.

I asked Niloofar the same question, but she never responded, and this was not the first time I asked.

Muhammad Sahimi / August 14, 2010 1:41 AM

Of course it is not easy to propose THE solution to make Iran a peaceful place and suddenly solve all the problems people are fighting since 100 years ago. But I do believe any successful movement must have a firm theory which has been missing in almost all Iranian's actions (due to many reasons). Yes, people did the revolution in 79, but much less had been spent about what they wanted to do after the revolution...
Anyone/group who is working on this matter should always remember that the majority of Iranian are religious people. They will not accept any solution which might be against their religion which is something that they lived with that in whole life! Listening to one of Dr. Soroush's recent speech, I heard something interesting about this issue which might be of interest here as well.
He was talking about secularism. According to him, nowadays as soon you mention this word, people get afraid in Iran because they think ohhh someone wanna to come and destroy our believes, etc. He made an almost two-hours speech about the meaning of this word and in the end his conclusion was using this word is more distractive rather than productive and even philosophers in western country do not use that much this word any more (because of too much different ideas about secularism).
This is why he used his own expression as DOLATE FARA DINI: He was mentioning that we do not say politics should be separated from religion in all aspect. He defined two dimensions for the politics, i.e. the real dimension and the legal dimension. As an example, when you go to a bank, you pay easily $10000 to the person who is sitting there to pay to your account(this is the legal aspect of this individual), but you do not trust him/her even 1 dollar when he/she is out (this is the real aspect of this individual). Back to my point, he was saying the legal aspect of the politics should be separated from the religion, BUT NOT THE REAL ASPECT, and this is the government "we" are looking for to form in Iran. What does it mean? it means for example that the government should not make any distinction among people with different religions, though the government can of course has its own opinion about God, Islam, Christianity, etc through his real dimension. This idea still considers the right for everyone (including Grand ayatollah, Dr, an engineer or anyone else) to be the president of the country.

I think this point of view and this clarification fits much better to the Iranian society (i.e. legal point of view, politics should be separated from religion, but not the real point of view).

Anonymous / August 14, 2010 5:48 AM

Article 4 of the Islamic Republic constitution states:

"All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the fuqaha' of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter. "

Simply put, all laws must be Islamic (we all know what that means) and Mullahs of GC have aboslute power to decide whether they are or not!

Mousavi supports this constitution. Anyone who is for Freedom & Equality can in no way agree with that.

Second, none of the Islamic Republic elections can be classified as FREE. Therefore, elected bodies, laws and the President of the I.R are NOT VALID. Therefore, the elections were INVALID before anyone even voted.

People of Iran want Freedom & Equality and a constitution that reflects those values. Only then there can be FREE ELECTIONS and not before.

Until then, it does not matter who is the President as anyone who has more Mullahs in his pocket or visa versa can decide what laws to enact and who benefits from I.R.

I restate that anyone who is aware of these FACTS and supports Mousavi or I.R. is either an Islamist or a hypocite or both!

Maziar / August 14, 2010 6:05 AM

Hi Ali
I really think that you should not bother trying to reason with folks like Niloofar. By saying "Your miserable existence is reaching its end ", she is indeed treating your life now. Do you think this kind of people are amenable to logical debate and exchange of ideas. She is a scary radical and mentally ill person.
If i were you i would sue her, its not hard for FBI to trace her.

She is not here to listen, to read or any purposeful intelectual activity, no matter how much time or mental energy you use to lay out your reasoning. She is just accusing others for what is happening in Iran. Is not that typical of like Ahmadineja ilk.

What is irritating me is that she more than once, if you look at her other posts in the past, says that "YOUR GENERATION " did this and did that. What the hell she is thinking? She probably does not even know what generation literally means!

PersianTraveler / August 14, 2010 10:47 AM

In no way does the headline of this article match the contents of the article itself.

M. Ali / August 14, 2010 1:00 PM

Mr. Maziar,

Secular as far as I am concerned means worldly rather than spiritual or not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Can you relate to this logic posted Anonymous?

"This is why he used his own expression as DOLATE FARA DINI: He was mentioning that we do not say politics should be separated from religion in all aspect."

Is this not an example of absolute charlatanism?

Thank you for posting article 4 of the Islamic Republic's constitution. It truly reflects a dead end however, I need to ask you a question and please take time to answer it as precisely as possible.

Are people in favor of a religious government in Iran?

Most people in America practice their Christian faith and attend their various churches yet keep their government accountable through their very worldly set of rules and regulations. Does this mean the Christian faith is in danger in this country as Islamists suggest about Islam in Iran?

Thank you.

Niloofar / August 14, 2010 1:40 PM

There has been a lot of speculation recently on Mousavi's criminal complicity in the 1988 prison massacres.


The question has come to the fore because of the release of an enquiry by a British judge, Geoffrey Robertson, entitled: "Massacre of Political Prisoners in Iran, 1988."


The enquiry was commissioned by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, funded by the US government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy (NED).


Two posters on this thread - our resident shill, Princess Niloofar, and a fact-challenged newcomer, Abbas Shaker - have capitalized on it to delegitimize Green Movement leaders in Iran.


Abbas Shaker, in his crude post of Aug 13 @ 1:56 AM, claims:


“The recent report from ICC judge names Mousavi as the third person (legally) responsible for murders of 80's, only after khomeini and Khamenei. There are evidence that he puts forward in the form of his interviews and his written orders to indicate that he had heavy hands, if not in initial order, but in implementation of orders. He is simply a thug and a murderer in search of power and publicity.”


Princess Niloofar then jumps barefoot into the fray @ 12:38 PM with a link to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Geoffrey Roberton himself. Niloofar intones:


“Thank you Abbas.”

“It is quite evident there is ample support through out [sic] the world to bring these people to justice for their crimes against humanity. It is only a question of time.

www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/iranians-involved-in-1988-massacres-remain-in-public-life-20100613-y5uo.html”


Curious, I decided to follow the link Princess Niloofar had provided. Indeed, in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Geoffrey Robertson pulls few punches:


“If there was justice in the world, both men [Mousavi and Khamenei] would be still be serving prison sentences, along with Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and a number of the nation's top judges and politicians. All were complicit in one of the gravest crimes against humanity since World War II, the mass slaughter of political prisoners at the close of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. ... They implemented a secret fatwa which ordered the mass murder of left-wingers in prisons nationwide.”
(Iranians involved in 1988 massacres remain in public life, Geoffrey Roberton, June 14, 2010, Sydney Morning Herald)


But, strangely, if one actually goes through the trouble to read Geoffrey Robertson’s own Report, it says something quite different:


“There is no evidence of his [Mousavi’s] direct involvement, but his position as Prime Minister makes him a suspect: he has to explain what he knew, when he knew it and what he did about it.”
(The Massacre of Political Prisoners in Iran, 1988 / Report of an Inquiry conducted by Geoffrey Robertson, QC / Published by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, Page 104)


Indeed, the most damning evidence that Robertson provides against Mousavi is the following:


“Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi ... was asked in December 1988 by an Austrian television reporter what he had to say about the allegations made by the western media concerning the Mojahedin killings: incautiously, he tried to defend them with the dishonest response that “they [i.e. the MKO prisoners] had plans to perpetrate killings and massacres. We had to crush the conspiracy... in that respect we have no mercy”.” [Etela’at, 22/12/2008, p.2]
(Ibid, Page 2)


I find it very strange that an eminent (by Western standards) jurist like Robertson would not take the trouble to consult directly the archives of the Austrian TV channel which conducted Mousavi’s interview, resting his grave charges instead on a second-hand account of doubtful accuracy and authenticity published in the government-run Etela’at.


Even more surreal is that a judge who pronounces in his own Report that “there is no evidence of [Mousavi’s] direct involvement” in ordering and carrying out the extra-judicial murders of 1988 would pen a newspaper article shortly afterward charging that Mousavi had participated in implementing the secret Fatwa ordering the prisoners’ execution, and thus deserved to be behind bars.


I guess even judges hate to let facts get in the way of a good story.


And it may interest the casual reader to know that Geoffrey Robertson, whose heart bleeds so profusely for the victims of the Islamic Republic, is on the record applauding the atomic bombing of the civilian population of Hiroshima, which he considers "fully justified."

Ali from Tehran / August 14, 2010 4:52 PM

Robertson is a respected judge and his opinion is legally valid irrespective of who funded it and who triggered it, far more valid than that of an unknown face on the internet. His personal non-legal views also have nothing to do with his based-on-law views and is not a subject of interest here.

However, an ordinary person of iranian descent does not even need any legal opinion to evaluate likes of Mousavi; one only needs an ounce of morality or humanity or selfless care for iran or empathy for iranians to judge likes of Mousavi. In the absence of that morality, reasons can be always found to side with the devil himself let alone likes of Mousavi.

The question that supporters of Mousavi (at least those of the previous generation) should ask and answer first is if they supported the misguided revolution of '79 and its murderous leader khomeini "at the time". If they did, then their judgment is as good today as it was 31 years ago and the outcome would be the same; case closed!

Mousavi and likes of him are more dangerous than Khomeini was in 1979 and Ahmadi N is today. Khomeini of 1979 did not have as dark a past as Mousavi has and thus mousavi is overtly more dangerous than Khomeini covertly was then. Mousavi is even more dangerous than Ahamdi N. since Mousavi would only prolong the despicable life of IRI as khatami did. IRI needs to totally collapse before any lasting change can be brought in; Mousavi at best can only delay that inevitable collapse and further the suffering of the people and looting of the country.

Problems of iran today are not likes of dress code that (like khatami) he could relax and be done with it; problems of iran are far more fundamental than revolutionary fossils like Mousavi can even comprehend let alone remedy with bringing back ideals of his departed Emam: it is the concept of islamic republic which has fused into minds of all these various shades of islamists and neo-islamists and reformist-islamists. At a minimum, mousavi will provide an opportunity to waste the time of the nation and allow his brethren conservatives to gather strength for another round of blow to the nation.

Support for Mousavi is not only immoral but treasonous, no matter how widespread it may be, the same way that "far wider" support for Khomeini turned out to be nothing short of treason. Herd mentality did not work then and does not work now. Support for someone should instead be based on uncompromising sense of morality, rule of law, social justice, care for human life, nationalistic respect for iran and iranians, etc.

Khaaneh az paaybast viraan ast; Khaajeh dar fekre naqshe eivaan ast.

ABBAS Shaker / August 14, 2010 8:24 PM

what is "charlatanism"?

I am wondering why some people just insist to remove completely the religion component fm the government in Iran?

I totally understand that people who lived almost whole their life outside Iran and their information about complicated layers of Iranian society does not go beyond some memories from the parents or some news agency, of course they think they can "just" drop the religion from the society easily.

I want to go a bit further and says not only Iranian, but also American does not accept to vote on someone who is clearly against Christianity. Is Barak Obama dare to clearly question the Christianity? Does he do that? Will people vote on him? Does American vote on a Muslim or Jewis? Very likely no, why? because believe or not, in the end of the day this component is important for people and you can not expect people to simply ignore what they are practicing for many years. I am indeed surprised how ignorant some people are and can not see such a obvious fact...

Besides, religion is something working in Iranian society for more than 1000 years! it's now in their blood, their belief, their daily life, their etc. Almost all people I know ranging from professors, students, engineers, business man, simple workers, political figures, etc. all of them like to listen again to RABBANA by Shajarian in Ramadan! nowadays, they like to eat Zolbia, why? because they grew up by these, because its nostalgic, because they were/are/will be like this in whole life, and many more because. Many people in Iran practice the religion orders in their most private daily activity. Many people even consider that for their sexual relation! so now you out of nowhere come and says NO Iranian does not want religion! are you crazy? Of course these people never accept someone come and eliminate this component from their life.

again what is "charlatanism"? is it "charlatanism" to say you can be president regardless to your religion, but treat everyone regardless to their believes? is it "charlatanism" to say in your real dimension, you definitely can belief in whatever you like, but in legal dimension, you should separate politics from religion? is it "charlatanism" to say since you are a human, you have the right to stay on your belief, but when you are in power, you should look at the people equally? when you are in power, you should follow the desire of the majority of the people. Is it "charlatanism" if you consider the desires and traditions of millions millions Iranian when you wanna to think about a "solution" for the society!
The fact that someone grew up in Hollywood or Disneyland does not mean he/she should expect to dictate his/her standards to millions of Iranian living in Baluchestan , Kurdistan, Kerman, Lorestan, etc.

Nima / August 14, 2010 8:36 PM

Dear Niloofar
I am not Maziar but I take the freedom to respond to your questions.

"Most people in America practice their Christian faith and attend their various churches yet keep their government accountable through their very worldly set of rules and regulations. Does this mean the Christian faith is in danger in this country as Islamists suggest about Islam in Iran?"

US is indeed one of the most religious "democracy" in the world. I would recommend for your question to look at some european countries (like Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherland, which are as well considered to be more "democratic" then US). While the media unfortunately only focus on the new regulations and rules "against Islam" they ignore that several of this countries started to have laws and rules "against christian traditions" as well. For example the ban of cruxifix from Schools. The fact that "Bible class" or "Religious lessons" got either banned from School or changed into information and discussion about different religions. The infamous Minarette-Ban led afterwards to discussions about the Churchbells. The percentege of People without specific religious affiliation is constantly increasing. Kids hardly know who Johannes exactly was and are more guessing about the 10 Commandments. So: Yes, in several western countries the christian faith is in danger.
BUT: Is this a good development? Is there a problem telling a Kid it is a Sin to murder, steal, lie,.., and God would evaluate your actions eventhough you could hide it from the parents or a judge?

To US: I understand and respect, that you love this country. But see, in many western countries US is considered a "danger" to the world peace and many, many people from very educated and democratic countries do not trust the US gouvernment and do not believe in their "good intentions" but more in their "quest for oil".

"Are people in favor of a religious government in Iran?"
I think no single person can judge this. In my opinion the first step is to create the possibility to conduct voting and election (democracy means not only everyone can vote, but as well anyone can be voted for). That is the first step to build a government that represents the people of Iran. Once the people are free, maybe they will prefer religious people as their representatives, maybe not, maybe a bit of both.

Respectfully
Salome

Salome / August 14, 2010 10:00 PM

Nima: You were not addressing me, nonetheless you may want to consider my response to a couple of issues that you raised. I only address two:

You said at the end: "The fact that someone grew up in Hollywood or Disneyland does not mean he/she should expect to dictate his/her standards to millions of Iranian living in Baluchestan , Kurdistan, Kerman, Lorestan, etc."

First, some of us passionate-about-iran people grew up in iranian heartland and only left out of desperation. The people who grew up in HW or DL often do not care much about Iran; some barely even speak Persian or follow-up on iran events. And if they do, they have every right to do so, equal to anyone else but no more.

Second, the problem is NOT that even those whom you mention want to dictate their standards on people of Baluchestan, Kurdestan, etc. BUT to give people of Baluchestan, Kurdestan, etc a voice. Their voices are being suppressed, NOT by people of HW/DL but by IRI leaders. The purpose is not dictation by anyone, but lack-thereof. Number one enemy of the desperate people of Baluchestan (who still take pride in the single significant project, the university built by previous regime) is the Islamic Republic, not people from HW/DL who have (at least so far) had no impact on their lives and only want to give voice to them; something that IRI suppresses on a daily basis. See here for examples:

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/jan/1167.html

You also asked: "what is 'charlatanism'"? Let's start with Webster definition that a Charlatan is "one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : fraud, faker — char·la·tan·ism \-tə-ˌni-zəm\ noun".

The important keywords are "pretenses to knowledge" and "fraud". For example, both Emam Khomeini and Doctor Shariati were charlatans as both fit both elements of this definition. Both "pretended" that they knew what Islam/Prophet/God wanted (even though they disagreed with each other at times), and both perpetrated "fraud" on people (by contradicting, e.g., what khomeini had written in the past as well as how he behaved later once in power). They both wanted to impose their personal fanatic views on people although their target audiences were different groups of people (uneducated for khomeini, educated for Shariati), but both served the same purpose: to pretend that "Islam was something else" and deceive people to ganging up on Pahlavi regime, to lead to getting rid of Pahlavi regime (note: the "objective" was to get rid of Pahlavi and take over the country and impose their views, NOT to remove the Pahlavi regime "because" it was an obstacle to democracy in iran). This is less apparent in case of Shariati since he died before revolution, but his co-conspirators (Motahhari, Beheshti, Montazeri, Bazargan, ...) suffered from the same disease.

There is a BIG difference between being religious and using religion in one's personal life and personal choices, and "IMPOSING" that on other people. People may want to vote for a religious person or a non-religious person. They have every right to do so. What they have not the right to do is to vote on behalf of others or to vote to suppress others because religion is god-sent and only they (Khomeini et al, or Shariati and alike) know what that God really wanted. You are confusing the two. The former is fine, the latter is a disaster.

ABBAS Shaker / August 14, 2010 10:16 PM

Dear Abbas Shaker,


I am certain that your apocalyptic view of Mousavi is not universally shared, but feel free to direct towards him any amount of invective your tender heart desires.


Discerning persons will ignore the bombast and make up their own minds.


For one who harps incessantly about "morality", you have an extremely cavalier attitude towards truth and accuracy. To illustrate, in your earlier post of Aug 13 @ 1:56 AM, you allege:


“The recent report from ICC judge names Mousavi as the third person (legally) responsible for murders of 80's, only after khomeini and Khamenei. There are evidence that he puts forward in the form of his interviews and his written orders to indicate that he had heavy hands, if not in initial order, but in implementation of orders. He is simply a thug and a murderer in search of power and publicity.”


But Geoffrey Robertson’s Report never refers to any "written orders" or "heavy hands", and does not place Mousavi third in line of legal accountability. Furthermore, Robertson's conclusion reads very differently from your mendacious account. He says:


“There is no evidence of his [Mousavi’s] direct involvement, but his position as Prime Minister makes him a suspect: he has to explain what he knew, when he knew it and what he did about it.”
(The Massacre of Political Prisoners in Iran, 1988 / Report of an Inquiry conducted by Geoffrey Robertson, QC / Published by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, Page 104)


And in your tantrum @ 8:24 PM, you conveniently ignore my observation that Judge Geoffrey Robertson's accusations in the Sydney Morning Herald article contradict his own conclusions in the Report commissioned by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation.


The fact that Geoffrey Robertson endorses the atomic terror bombing of Hiroshima may not seem germane to you, but may interest a few readers here, a mere handful of whom may like to know whether 'crimes against humanity' are recognized by objective measures or exist only in the eye of the (Western) beholder.


Don't forget to take your pills.

Ali from Tehran / August 14, 2010 11:16 PM

Mousavi's relentless support of Khomeini is what taints his character. Otherwise he has demonstrated a valiant commitment to the Green Movement, to reform and to justice.

One step at a time.

Pak / August 15, 2010 1:49 AM

for over a year, we have had to endure the non-sensical, self-serving, and laughably arrogant posts of jokers like Comical Ali from Tehran. over and over, these apologists attempt every back-bending, mind-blowing stunt to convince the world of the saintliness of Ya Hossein Mir Hossein Mousavi. they are having a hard time, as most of the sane, logical world has difficulty absolving the prime minister of a genocidal government from any responsibility whatsoever for a mass murder committed on his watch. oh, but look at Hiroshima! no, look the other way - there's reza pahlavi on TV! no wait, sorry, look at the shah - he didn't give anyone a vote! no, actually, it's obama - yes, look at how hypocritical he is! jokers - are we 2 year olds, able to be distracted in such facile ways? what do any of these other events have to do with mousavi's culpability?

the point none of you can defend is that khomeini is a pedophilic genocidal madman. your friend mousavi was his boy toy. to this day, he still calls khomeini his "imam" and proudly professes his continued islamic loyalty to him. mousavi was one of the integral pieces of the 80's government that likely did more damage to iran than any other government in history. instead of calling it for what it is, you instead want to try to defend the position that he had no technical role in the specific authorization of the murders? you want to instead focus on how great the economy did? don't you realize you lose a vast part of your credibility with your inability to simply suck it up and admit your buddy mousavi - who looks so serene today - may actually be a bloody (though possibly reformed) murderer?

i'm sure the cries of "monarchist" will follow this post, as that is the preferred tactic of choice on this website. it's yet another red herring - just like the crack about hiroshima.

it's OK for people to support mousavi in a purely machiavellian way, as prof sahimi has hinted to in the past. i certainly do - if he can be a means to an end, then use him, use him as much as possible, and if/when a real government ever comes to be, prosecute his butt right along with rafsanjani, mahmoudi joon, and every last one of their accomplices. but until then, have some decency, and just one time stop indirectly professing your support for khomeini and insulting all the good people whose lives have been lost/ruined as a result of his fanaticism and that of all those lieutenants of his (saint mousavi alike), and instead take the high road and both:

a) call mousavi and khomeini out for what they are and what they've done, and
b) simultaneously support mousavi at this present time only and only for his temporary usefulness.

yes, it is possible to hold both of those thoughts at the same time without killing the democratic movement of iran.

np / August 15, 2010 4:08 AM

Ali: Your language resoundingly resembles that of Ahmadi N. and you need someone like him to deservedly respond to you. I am very happy to see how similar the two of you are. I do not expect supporters of any shade of IRI to be any different.

Obviously you not only do not know the difference between decisions in a war zone and circumstances around WW II versus mostly innocent prisoners already in jail, but are also willing to inject unrelated issues into discussion to muddy waters. Next you will find ways of injecting zionists, neocons, imperialists, monarchists, bahais, communists, mojahedin, ... rather than focusing on the issue at hand.

If Mousavi is so innocent, he should remedy the doubts of (a fraction) of iranians by taking his evidence to the fairest international court (e.g. ICC) and let them decide once and for all. He is the only one who is fully aware of his own role and can enlighten us rather than evade the subject by endorsing his Emam again and again. That would be a win-win for all irrespective of if he receives guilty (a lesson to rest of IRI leaders) or not guilty (then we all line up behind him) verdict. I am sure there are lots of iranians who are willing to pay for his travel and his defense.

In the meantime, you are more than welcome to passionately love and support Mousavi or any other devil that you want to importune upon iranians. I believe Iranians deserve a far better choice (after 150 years of struggle for freedom) than a recycled mass-murderer and you don't; so be it.

ABBAS Shaker / August 15, 2010 4:22 AM

Dear Ahvaz,

Thanks - but I'm not sure is my observation a good thing or a bad thing?

Personally I think the IRI will never unite Iran under its divisive ideology even with a foreign threat. I think it will take a new regime with a different approach (and ideology) to bring all Iranians together.

Agha Irani / August 15, 2010 8:09 AM

@ Abbas Shaker,


Again, you weasel out of answering the main contention of my post: why did you falsify the conclusions of Robertson's report?


And as for the dyspeptic "NP" claiming:


"for over a year, we have had to endure the non-sensical, self-serving, and laughably arrogant posts of jokers like Comical Ali from Tehran..."


Who's "we", English teacher? Do you still consider yourself the Distiller of the Public Sentiment on TehranBureau, sans Referendum?

Ali from Tehran / August 15, 2010 3:29 PM

Dear Abbas Shaker,


Comparisons of Mousavi to Lucifer and me to Ahmadinejad aside, I’m still waiting for an explanation of why you falsified the conclusions of Geoffrey Robertson’s report.


Let me refresh your selective memory with an excerpt of your poetic "heavy hands" passage:


“There are evidence that he [Geoffrey Robertson] puts forward in the form of his [Mousavi’s] interviews and his written orders to indicate that he had heavy hands, if not in initial order, but in implementation of orders.”
(Abbas Shaker, Aug 13 @ 1:56 AM)


Now compare to the conclusion of the actual report:


“There is no evidence of his [Mousavi’s] direct involvement, but his position as Prime Minister makes him a suspect: he has to explain what he knew, when he knew it and what he did about it.”
(The Massacre of Political Prisoners in Iran, 1988 / Report of an Inquiry conducted by Geoffrey Robertson, QC / Published by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, Page 104)


Care to explain, Abbas kholeh?


As for dyspeptic NP's most recent upchuck of bile @ 4:08 AM; who's the "we" in your post above, NP? Still grandstanding as Master Distiller of the Public Sentiment - sans Referendum?

Ali from Tehran / August 15, 2010 6:57 PM

I am even more confident that your language is in league with those that you worship. Please continue to worship and defend Jack-the-ripper saint of iran. Everyone gets what he deserves.

You go search for his interviews as well as his hand-writings on the net yourself. I only dialogue with grown-ups worthy of response.

ABBAS Shaker / August 16, 2010 2:31 AM

Dear Abbas Shaker,


Sorry to see you chicken out of a simple challenge.


Being the immature, devil-worshipping nitwit I am, it should have been simple for you to rebut my points - if only to edify the segment of TehranBureau readers that fits your "grown-up" criterion and is not fully "in league" with Lucifer.


Oh well, better luck next time.

Ali from Tehran / August 16, 2010 3:09 AM

Dear Salome,
Thank you.
I would like to start with your last comment first.

"I think no single person can judge this. In my opinion the first step is to create the possibility to conduct voting and election (democracy means not only everyone can vote, but as well anyone can be voted for). That is the first step to build a government that represents the people of Iran. Once the people are free, maybe they will prefer religious people as their representatives, maybe not, maybe a bit of both."

To create the right conditions for a free referendum and a follow up election of a pluralistic government is what I have always favored and I am in total agreement with you. I do not believe given the freedom of choice Iranians will vote for another a religious figure in a 100 years, but that is my opinion based on what I have been told by many Iranians some of whom travel to Iran occasionally for personal reasons.

Although I do see your point about the inability of a single person to tell me whether Iranians are in favor of a religious government which would be viewed as one's personal opinion, but one can measure the mood of any community or nation through valid and approved procedures that are practiced throughout the world. However, the easiest method is by taking time to talk to people. I am yet to encounter any group of Iranians other than Islamists to favor a religious state. Why would these Islamists resort to murder, rape, torture and terror to stay in power if they enjoyed the support of the majority? It is only common sense.

This brings us to the moderate Islamists who claim to be democratic. How they can be Islamist and democratic is beyond me. However, it would be safe to assume they have no opposition to a national referendum with the very objective to decide if the Iranian people favor a religious government in the first place and refrain from political charlatanism such as Dolateh Fara Dini that does not separate politics from religion in all aspects. In other words, Barbaric Republic part II where people are so used to eating zoolbiah before their evening prayers that they are unable to take religion back to the privacy of their own homes and places of warship of their choosing. Please God give me grace.

Is it not curious when I mention secularism in the slightest manner I experience numerous objections and accusations of speaking on behalf of the Iranian people, yet when score of people claim the majority of Iranians are religious I hardly see any opposition from this graceful crowd??? Does that tell me something about their true nature?

It is totally logical for people to move away from ignorance associated with religious intolerance in an ever more pluralistic and scientific world. America is more conservative than Western Europe. As for how the world views the United States with distrust and that U.S. is only after oil, I respectfully decline your views since I believe you view the United States through a very narrow window of thoughts. Unfortunately this narrow view is very common amongst Iranians particularly those of the previous generation. However, that is not the subject of my discussion.

I still say we need to start looking at the day after the Barbaric Republic and I encourage Dr. Sahimi to start a collective approach as to what Iranians on the outside need to do to ease the transition. We are not able to reverse the events of the past, but we can position ourselves for a better future. All great achievements start from a simple dream.

Niloofar / August 16, 2010 8:26 PM

good article, blaming people or generations doesn't change a thing; the fact is, if change is going to happen it has to happen from inside the current political system, similar to the collapse of the soviet union, war and external fractions will only complicate the situation.

i think that mousavi/ khatami or the reformists now have tasted how it feels to be betrayed by the very system that they truly believed and invested in so much; now, they know the only way to survive and to redeem themselves is to actually try to get a free election by enforcing the existing constitution, as khatami has always insisted on, to move in context of the LAW, the most unfamiliar word in Iranian history especially the IR era

i just can't see how they would be able to do it..or will they even push that far, or would they even want to, at all?... the sure thing is, Iran has changed alot even from a year ago and will continue to change, surly we are witnessing a true turning point in Iran's history, i just hope this reform happens with the minimum price paid by the public

all i see is that things shouldn't happen over night, it should happen step by step, once an elected government is in power then the Islamic republic constitution should be revised into a republic (Iranian), the armed forces should be defined as protectors of that constitution and the country, not the leaders; an independent Judicial system then has to start investigating and prosecuting all responsible for all the crimes that has took place in the past 30 years or more, (i look forward to see Neda's murderer and many others whom have been raped, tortured and murdered in prisons, put to justice some day)...

while most importantly, educating the public, the manner of tolerance and respect towards objection and opposition of any kind, and especially towards different religious and political views; without considering that objection as an "enemy" ; i strongly believe this imaginary "enemy" figure has turned into an problematic political/social culture inside Iran

unfortunately all this more looks like a nice dream, even to myself......

Alal / August 19, 2010 8:05 PM

I attended Sharif University in September 1975. We had to hide the books we read (fears of Shah's SAVAK), but we read them. Many good parents wanted the appearance of a stable environment for their youth, so they discouraged us (perhaps like Niloofar's mom), but we read them. We compared data from all the sources to compare, because we KNEW that the bigger the power, the bigger the lies and the bigger the lies the easier it is believed by the innocent public. It was important for us to have a short wave radio (ask your mom) because we KNEW that to know the truth you had to listen to the opposing party.

Over a quarter of a century is gone. Not all but many in the Iranian diaspora only watches a few drunk on TV in the city of rotten angles (LA), they do not check the facts, the bigger the lies, the bigger comfort it brings them, they repeat each other for comfort.

And then as I am about to loose hope in humanity, there is someone who presents a well thought article, supported by agreed upon facts, and reminds me that we are still progressing.

I love you all, naive or not so.

Javad / August 22, 2010 7:41 PM

Javad,

Sorry but even I know there was no Sharif University in 1975. You do mean Aryamehr University of Technology, don’t you dear?
Would you like me to shelf this as big white lie or little white lie dear? Just kidding, just kidding. I know Islamists aren't allowed to use the 'A' word. It's O.K.

You read books in 1975? So, there were books for you to read in 1975? What a country?! Let me understand you better, please. This is so interesting. They let the books get printed, but they would not let you read the books? Emmm, was that a marketing strategy? "but we read them." Good for you, God I am so excited. They read their books Ma.

"We compared data from all the sources to compare, because we KNEW that the bigger the power, the bigger the lies and the bigger the lies the easier it is believed by the innocent public." Wait, wait Javad, but then you believed him when he said, "water and electricity will be free...." Oh dear, how right you are, "the bigger the lies the easier it is believed by the innocent..". Did you hear that Ma? They were innocent.

O.K. O.K sorry, I just got too excited. You were saying?
"And then as I am about to loose hope in humanity.." lose dear, loose is a little different to lose.
"here is someone who presents a well thought article, supported by agreed upon facts."

How nice. You make me cry.
You got an A- dear. That's because there is always room for improvement. I really like the ending, "...agreed upon fact." Very touching.
By the way, did you major in Techno_Theatrics at Ariyamehr, sorry Sharif U.?

Such a dandy fellow. Cheers Javad.

Niloofar / August 23, 2010 4:32 AM

they actually did rig the election last year with the supervision from khamenei.

ali zadeh , Tehran / December 22, 2010 1:42 PM