Comments on: LEVERETTS RESPOND TO CRITICS http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:54:55 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: @Reza http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-858 @Reza Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:51:50 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-858 Mousavi, Rezaei and other denied the coup story, even they never mentioned this story, also never in their written complaints to guardian council and interior ministry. Rezaei even called Makhmalbaf as liar. Apart from that how can interior ministry counts sufficient votes to declare mousavi as the winner? Was not one of the complaint, that the results are too fast!?! Mousavi strongly denied that Makhmalbaf is his speaker, Mousavi want the implementation of the constitution and Makhmalbaf is against the constitution and even against Iranian Uranium, something which no reformer agree! How can the regime pressure Musavi for denying his sporkeman but not to stop the protests, very strange story. Someone in the west claims to be spokesman of person XY without an official appointment, witness or letter. XY denies it, and the representative (spokesman) denies the denying ha ha ha, a clear evidence. Mousavi, Rezaei and other denied the coup story, even they never mentioned this story, also never in their written complaints to guardian council and interior ministry. Rezaei even called Makhmalbaf as liar. Apart from that how can interior ministry counts sufficient votes to declare mousavi as the winner? Was not one of the complaint, that the results are too fast!?!
Mousavi strongly denied that Makhmalbaf is his speaker, Mousavi want the implementation of the constitution and Makhmalbaf is against the constitution and even against Iranian Uranium, something which no reformer agree! How can the regime pressure Musavi for denying his sporkeman but not to stop the protests, very strange story.

Someone in the west claims to be spokesman of person XY without an official appointment, witness or letter. XY denies it, and the representative (spokesman) denies the denying ha ha ha, a clear evidence.

]]> By: Bobzee http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-786 Bobzee Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:48:04 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-786 Leverett's claim: "there was no level of state coercion or any amount of tea, cake, or free transportation that could bring significant numbers of people into the street to rally for the Pahlavi regime. " January 1979: http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jul/Shah-supporters-Amjadieh-1979.jpg Leverett’s claim:

“there was no level of state coercion or any amount of tea, cake, or free transportation that could bring significant numbers of people into the street to rally for the Pahlavi regime. ”

January 1979:

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jul/Shah-supporters-Amjadieh-1979.jpg

]]> By: Bobzee http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-783 Bobzee Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:26:08 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-783 Well said Bill. These are legitimate questions and scenarios that pro-regime cheerleaders are afraid to tread because they refuse to see the true face of the regime. I was a supporter of Khameini, Ahmadinejad, velayat-e faqih, until June 12th 2009. I vigorously defended the IRI and its actions and made excuses for them to no end, until that day. And I still do defend them in an uncontrollable knee-jerk fashion once in a while. But like many, i've awoken from this terrible nightmare. So I understand the mentality and desperation of pro-regime supporters. It's all about lies and deception. Fear and oppression. That's the life blood of the regime, and people like the Leveretts give it legitimacy. I just want to add a few things in regards to the poor and tie it with the '79 revolution. It wasn't the poor that started the revolution. Nor was it the clerics. It was the students. The young elites. The intellectuals. Regardless of class. They were the core of the movement. They formed political groups. Spread newspapers. Set up rallies. They were standing up to the Shah before Khomeini said a word. But Khomeini and the clerics helped unite the factions and gave them the social outreach of the mosques(and ultimately purged most of them right after they took power). Now look at who is leading the green movement. The same type of people, who have now faced an oppression far worse than the Shahs opposition. So poverty was a factor during the revolution, but not a major one. And it won't be a major one now either. As long as there is food on the table, they could care less who is in power. And unfortunately, the regime plays the poor like a fiddle. Instead of giving them a helping hand to bring them out of poverty, they throw some money in their face to keep them compliant. But, I may be underestimating the intelligence and importance of the poor. The leveretts are right about one difference between now and 79. Now there is no clear leader. IMO, this is a positive thing. But for sure there are many leaders that you will not hear about, and they have purpose. Well said Bill. These are legitimate questions and scenarios that pro-regime cheerleaders are afraid to tread because they refuse to see the true face of the regime. I was a supporter of Khameini, Ahmadinejad, velayat-e faqih, until June 12th 2009. I vigorously defended the IRI and its actions and made excuses for them to no end, until that day. And I still do defend them in an uncontrollable knee-jerk fashion once in a while. But like many, i’ve awoken from this terrible nightmare. So I understand the mentality and desperation of pro-regime supporters. It’s all about lies and deception. Fear and oppression. That’s the life blood of the regime, and people like the Leveretts give it legitimacy.

I just want to add a few things in regards to the poor and tie it with the ‘79 revolution. It wasn’t the poor that started the revolution. Nor was it the clerics. It was the students. The young elites. The intellectuals. Regardless of class. They were the core of the movement. They formed political groups. Spread newspapers. Set up rallies. They were standing up to the Shah before Khomeini said a word. But Khomeini and the clerics helped unite the factions and gave them the social outreach of the mosques(and ultimately purged most of them right after they took power). Now look at who is leading the green movement. The same type of people, who have now faced an oppression far worse than the Shahs opposition.

So poverty was a factor during the revolution, but not a major one. And it won’t be a major one now either. As long as there is food on the table, they could care less who is in power. And unfortunately, the regime plays the poor like a fiddle. Instead of giving them a helping hand to bring them out of poverty, they throw some money in their face to keep them compliant. But, I may be underestimating the intelligence and importance of the poor.

The leveretts are right about one difference between now and 79. Now there is no clear leader. IMO, this is a positive thing. But for sure there are many leaders that you will not hear about, and they have purpose.

]]> By: Bill http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-752 Bill Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:19:32 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-752 News Flash: Your missing the central point comparing the protests!!! One was manufactured and one was largely spontaneous. Just imagine if the people of Iran were given the right to freely protest how many would show up! My friends mother in Tehran told her the day of the pro regime protest she saw the streets lined with buses letting people off, people in offices being invited only to find out their boss was told they must attend, and it was all highly organized with banners handed out and loud speakers telling the people what to say. Wonder how many would have shown up faced with beatings, shootings, killings, and the possibilty of rape? Hello--they put on a show that you bought hook line and sinker into!! The fact remains the Green Movement has been able to gather larger and more fequent protests despite the oppression of the government. How can you fail to notice this? It speaks volumes of the weakness of the regime that they have to go to so much work to pull of one succesful rally. Did you forget they tried this a couple weeks before and only a couple thousand showed up? "We have seen, literally, no evidence that those who protested the results of the June 12, 2009 presidential election—much less those who are now calling for the Islamic Republic’s replacement by a (presumably secular) “Iranian Republic”—represent anything close to a majority of Iranians. On this point, even the dissident journalist Akbar Ganji warns Iranian oppositionists that “it should not be forgotten that most of Iran’s people are still religious…Activists from the Green Movement should be very careful not to say anything that would result in a deeper divide based on religion." Gee now why would that be? How can you reasonably make that claim when the reform movement is literally not allowed to communicate with the outside world. Are you aware that all Iranian media literally has a black out regarding Moussavi, Karoubi, and any rallies/protests. For god's sake the regime aired a cooking show when millions marched in Iran right after the elections. Your also missing the significance of the clergy in Iran. The majority of the clercy sided with the Green movement. Not one Grand Ayatollah came out in support of the regime yet six did for the green movement. The regime has lost it's religion and it why the majority of the people are against it. Your statement should have said we just don't know either way because we have no way to substantiate the information other than what the regime provides. Finally we all need stop buying into the canard the religious poor make up the majority of the people. The majority of Iranians are urban and over 70% are under the age of 30. Notice this movement for what it is. It is a spontaneous movement that arose from over 30 years of theocractic oppression. It wasn't a CIA or some foreign government pulling the strings but simply the people saying they had enough. The election was the match that started the torch burning and the significance of the movement is that they have persisted despited the violence and threats. Cheer them on because they want the freedom and democarcy we often take for granted hear in the states. Thx Bill News Flash: Your missing the central point comparing the protests!!! One was manufactured and one was largely spontaneous. Just imagine if the people of Iran were given the right to freely protest how many would show up! My friends mother in Tehran told her the day of the pro regime protest she saw the streets lined with buses letting people off, people in offices being invited only to find out their boss was told they must attend, and it was all highly organized with banners handed out and loud speakers telling the people what to say. Wonder how many would have shown up faced with beatings, shootings, killings, and the possibilty of rape? Hello–they put on a show that you bought hook line and sinker into!! The fact remains the Green Movement has been able to gather larger and more fequent protests despite the oppression of the government. How can you fail to notice this? It speaks volumes of the weakness of the regime that they have to go to so much work to pull of one succesful rally. Did you forget they tried this a couple weeks before and only a couple thousand showed up?

“We have seen, literally, no evidence that those who protested the results of the June 12, 2009 presidential election—much less those who are now calling for the Islamic Republic’s replacement by a (presumably secular) “Iranian Republic”—represent anything close to a majority of Iranians. On this point, even the dissident journalist Akbar Ganji warns Iranian oppositionists that “it should not be forgotten that most of Iran’s people are still religious…Activists from the Green Movement should be very careful not to say anything that would result in a deeper divide based on religion.” Gee now why would that be? How can you reasonably make that claim when the reform movement is literally not allowed to communicate with the outside world. Are you aware that all Iranian media literally has a black out regarding Moussavi, Karoubi, and any rallies/protests. For god’s sake the regime aired a cooking show when millions marched in Iran right after the elections. Your also missing the significance of the clergy in Iran. The majority of the clercy sided with the Green movement. Not one Grand Ayatollah came out in support of the regime yet six did for the green movement. The regime has lost it’s religion and it why the majority of the people are against it. Your statement should have said we just don’t know either way because we have no way to substantiate the information other than what the regime provides.

Finally we all need stop buying into the canard the religious poor make up the majority of the people. The majority of Iranians are urban and over 70% are under the age of 30. Notice this movement for what it is. It is a spontaneous movement that arose from over 30 years of theocractic oppression. It wasn’t a CIA or some foreign government pulling the strings but simply the people saying they had enough. The election was the match that started the torch burning and the significance of the movement is that they have persisted despited the violence and threats. Cheer them on because they want the freedom and democarcy we often take for granted hear in the states.

Thx
Bill

]]> By: Lysander http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-682 Lysander Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:20:16 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-682 Mehdi, "Thus suggesting that in fact Iran had reported those facilities to IAEA prior to the 2002 revelation? How about their revelation in 2007 about Quds force involvement in Iraq was a lie!? Are you suggesting that since Iraq invasion Quds force has not been meddling inside Iran?" Mehdi, I'm not Iranian so I will try to venture carefully. First let us assume that Iran has covertly and overtly involved itself in post invasion Iraq. I can see how Americans would be angered by that but as an Iranian, why should that bother you? Look at it this way. The United States, a super power hostile to Iran, had just invaded a neighboring country. It had expressed clearly its intent to use Iraq as a means to destabilize or even invade neighboring countries. "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, but Real men want to go to Tehran." Do you recall that? In the US I heard it all the time 2002-03. Recall that Mohammed "dialog of civilizations" Khatami was president. Now, Iran had two choices. 1) do everything it possibly can to appease the US in hopes it will not invade it. Or 2) gain as much leverage as possible over the US to make any invasion too expensive to be profitable. Iraq had already tried the former and it resulted in invasion. Iran quite wisely decided to try the second option. Now an American strategic planner would clearly be annoyed at this choice and I understand why. But why would any Iranian, Musavi or Ahmadinejad supporter, be troubled? Especially since Iran seems to have been successful in preventing any US (overt) attack. Which is why I've come to be suspicious of the green movement. If it demands freedom, great. If it demands free speech, great. If it demands restrictions on police power, an end to torture and indefinite imprisonment without charges, great. But when it demands Iran conduct policy to suite US interests rather than its own, I begin to wonder if the Greens are addressing an Iranian audience, or a western one. Again, my apologies. As a non Iranian I have no business at all questioning the patriotism of Iranians. Still, I do wonder. Mehdi,

“Thus suggesting that in fact Iran had reported those facilities to IAEA prior to the 2002 revelation? How about their revelation in 2007 about Quds force involvement in Iraq was a lie!? Are you suggesting that since Iraq invasion Quds force has not been meddling inside Iran?”

Mehdi, I’m not Iranian so I will try to venture carefully. First let us assume that Iran has covertly and overtly involved itself in post invasion Iraq. I can see how Americans would be angered by that but as an Iranian, why should that bother you?

Look at it this way. The United States, a super power hostile to Iran, had just invaded a neighboring country. It had expressed clearly its intent to use Iraq as a means to destabilize or even invade neighboring countries. “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, but Real men want to go to Tehran.” Do you recall that? In the US I heard it all the time 2002-03. Recall that Mohammed “dialog of civilizations” Khatami was president.

Now, Iran had two choices. 1) do everything it possibly can to appease the US in hopes it will not invade it. Or 2) gain as much leverage as possible over the US to make any invasion too expensive to be profitable.

Iraq had already tried the former and it resulted in invasion. Iran quite wisely decided to try the second option. Now an American strategic planner would clearly be annoyed at this choice and I understand why. But why would any Iranian, Musavi or Ahmadinejad supporter, be troubled? Especially since Iran seems to have been successful in preventing any US (overt) attack.

Which is why I’ve come to be suspicious of the green movement. If it demands freedom, great. If it demands free speech, great. If it demands restrictions on police power, an end to torture and indefinite imprisonment without charges, great.

But when it demands Iran conduct policy to suite US interests rather than its own, I begin to wonder if the Greens are addressing an Iranian audience, or a western one.

Again, my apologies. As a non Iranian I have no business at all questioning the patriotism of Iranians. Still, I do wonder.

]]> By: Reza http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-679 Reza Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:45:17 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-679 "And please stop quoting the clown Makhmalbaf. He lost every credibility after his coup d’etat story which even Musavi strongly denied (by the way the interior ministry could never count all votes on the very same night of the election!!!). Musavi even denied that this guy is his spokesman." Mousavi never denied the coup story, never! Mousavi never denied Makhmalbaf as unofficial spoksman of the green movement. They are actually in contact. Mousavi has boon under pressure to distance himself from Sazegara and Makhmalbaf, but he never did that. “And please stop quoting the clown Makhmalbaf. He lost every credibility after his coup d’etat story which even Musavi strongly denied (by the way the interior ministry could never count all votes on the very same night of the election!!!). Musavi even denied that this guy is his spokesman.”

Mousavi never denied the coup story, never!
Mousavi never denied Makhmalbaf as unofficial spoksman of the green movement. They are actually in contact. Mousavi has boon under pressure to distance himself from Sazegara and Makhmalbaf, but he never did that.

]]> By: Mehdi http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-670 Mehdi Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:09:17 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-670 No I honestly cannot see the fault with the Tiger analogy. How about if you use the knowledge you’ve gained on Wikipedia to educate me ;-) … just remember I didn’t say that one needs to have proof on ‘that’ particular affair to see if he had actually done the affair with her rather to conclude if: “he has been having a difficult time controlling his urges”. Another word after all the revelations we've seen for advertisers or more importantly his wife the actual validity of this new claims is not necessary to make a conclusion about his loyalty to his wife! But that is neither here or there. You said: “I’m sorry but I have “forgotten” those valuable information already. Oh, you mean the flood of lies regarding the Iranian nuclear programming? Yeah, I do remember that.” Here - and as much as I hate to be defending the MKO aka cult of Rajavi’s who in my opinion are no different than the cult of Khamenei … I have to ask that by this comment above are you then suggesting that MKO’s revelation back in 2002 about the Natanz and Arak facilities was a lie!? Thus suggesting that in fact Iran had reported those facilities to IAEA prior to the 2002 revelation? How about their revelation in 2007 about Quds force involvement in Iraq was a lie!? Are you suggesting that since Iraq invasion Quds force has not been meddling inside Iran? As I mentioned in my last comment here the information about Khamenei that has been fed to Makhmalbaf may and probably does include some misinformation and disinformation; however for many Iranians inside Iran who are tired of having an absolute ruler, tired of having some of their basic human rights taken away from them they will not go through the type of ‘Wikipedia critical thinking’ that supposed Iran experts like you go through. At this stage it is all about 'perception' – it doesn’t matter if 5 people were raped in Kahrizak or 10 – it doesn’t matter if 1000 people came out on Ashura chanting Death to Khamenei or 10,000 – it doesn’t matter if they have rounded up 500 protestors since June or 5000 etc … it is all about perception … and if you don’t get that then you are a stubborn fool. Best of luck with all your opinions, position papers and prognostications. In my opinion in max two years you will be proven that you've been on the wrong side of history. Last comment here as I need to troll around to other side with less critical thinking ;-) No I honestly cannot see the fault with the Tiger analogy. How about if you use the knowledge you’ve gained on Wikipedia to educate me ;-) … just remember I didn’t say that one needs to have proof on ‘that’ particular affair to see if he had actually done the affair with her rather to conclude if: “he has been having a difficult time controlling his urges”. Another word after all the revelations we’ve seen for advertisers or more importantly his wife the actual validity of this new claims is not necessary to make a conclusion about his loyalty to his wife! But that is neither here or there.

You said: “I’m sorry but I have “forgotten” those valuable information already. Oh, you mean the flood of lies regarding the Iranian nuclear programming? Yeah, I do remember that.”

Here – and as much as I hate to be defending the MKO aka cult of Rajavi’s who in my opinion are no different than the cult of Khamenei … I have to ask that by this comment above are you then suggesting that MKO’s revelation back in 2002 about the Natanz and Arak facilities was a lie!? Thus suggesting that in fact Iran had reported those facilities to IAEA prior to the 2002 revelation? How about their revelation in 2007 about Quds force involvement in Iraq was a lie!? Are you suggesting that since Iraq invasion Quds force has not been meddling inside Iran?

As I mentioned in my last comment here the information about Khamenei that has been fed to Makhmalbaf may and probably does include some misinformation and disinformation; however for many Iranians inside Iran who are tired of having an absolute ruler, tired of having some of their basic human rights taken away from them they will not go through the type of ‘Wikipedia critical thinking’ that supposed Iran experts like you go through.

At this stage it is all about ‘perception’ – it doesn’t matter if 5 people were raped in Kahrizak or 10 – it doesn’t matter if 1000 people came out on Ashura chanting Death to Khamenei or 10,000 – it doesn’t matter if they have rounded up 500 protestors since June or 5000 etc … it is all about perception … and if you don’t get that then you are a stubborn fool.

Best of luck with all your opinions, position papers and prognostications. In my opinion in max two years you will be proven that you’ve been on the wrong side of history.

Last comment here as I need to troll around to other side with less critical thinking ;-)

]]> By: @Mehdi http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-669 @Mehdi Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:55:10 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-669 You wrote : "In a country that had had the likes of other supposed clergymen like Reyshahri who were awarded a whole city." This is nonsense. You surely know many family names in Iran are according of their hometown. Like Khomeini from Khomein or Shirazi from Shiraz and so one. And please stop quoting the clown Makhmalbaf. He lost every credibility after his coup d'etat story which even Musavi strongly denied (by the way the interior ministry could never count all votes on the very same night of the election!!!). Musavi even denied that this guy is his spokesman. He is absolutely not serious if he for example tell militia from Hizbollah was engaged to quell the protests. Or Ahmadinejad want to access the atomic bomb in order to bomb Arabic countries. Please stop, this site is serious, we do not need Fox New spokesmen. You wrote : “In a country that had had the likes of other supposed clergymen like Reyshahri who were awarded a whole city.”

This is nonsense. You surely know many family names in Iran are according of their hometown. Like Khomeini from Khomein or Shirazi from Shiraz and so one.

And please stop quoting the clown Makhmalbaf. He lost every credibility after his coup d’etat story which even Musavi strongly denied (by the way the interior ministry could never count all votes on the very same night of the election!!!). Musavi even denied that this guy is his spokesman. He is absolutely not serious if he for example tell militia from Hizbollah was engaged to quell the protests. Or Ahmadinejad want to access the atomic bomb in order to bomb Arabic countries. Please stop, this site is serious, we do not need Fox New spokesmen.

]]> By: Alfred http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-667 Alfred Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:42:53 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-667 @ Mehdi Sorry guy, but the believe in the assembly of experts give the religious people confidence that the leader is just. By the way do you remember the story of Jazayeri Arab, the young million business man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahram_Jazayeri-Arab Since them there is no doubt about his justness in the eyes of the religious opponents. @ Mehdi

Sorry guy, but the believe in the assembly of experts give the religious people confidence that the leader is just.
By the way do you remember the story of Jazayeri Arab, the young million business man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahram_Jazayeri-Arab Since them there is no doubt about his justness in the eyes of the religious opponents.

]]> By: Alfred http://www.raceforiran.com/leveretts-respond-to-critics#comment-666 Alfred Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:26:08 +0000 http://www.raceforiran.com/?p=1522#comment-666 Dear Flynt let me tell you that the accusation the regime bring the masses by paying them in give them sandwiches is very old. May be this accusation is 30 years old. I didn't see any Youtube Video of giving one million people sandwishes and so one. And the western journalists were free to report about the pro government rally and as far as I know nobody claimed such stupid accusation which reflect just the exile Iranian wishful thinking. Dear Flynt

let me tell you that the accusation the regime bring the masses by paying them in give them sandwiches is very old. May be this accusation is 30 years old. I didn’t see any Youtube Video of giving one million people sandwishes and so one. And the western journalists were free to report about the pro government rally and as far as I know nobody claimed such stupid accusation which reflect just the exile Iranian wishful thinking.

]]>