Iranian Fury in the SWP Meeting - 1st Mar 2006
Potkin Azarmehr | 08.03.2006 13:47
Yesterday, the Stop the War Coalition, and the Socialist Workers Party organised a meeting about Iran. Amongst the speakers were a couple of Trade Unionists, Iraqi author, Haifa Zangana, a mother from Military Families Against War, and the SOAS lecturer Elaheh Rostami.
We went along with leaflets which basically said "Oppose any Attack on Iran but Oppose the Tyranny of the Islamic Republic Too". We started handing out some leaflets outside and had a few discussions with the SWP members. It was amazing to find out how ignorant these so-called Socialist Workers activists were about what was happening in Iran. I asked a few of them what they knew about the 1300 jailed Iranian bus drivers and how the families of the Iranian bus drivers were beaten up, simply for demanding an independent trade union and better wages. None of them knew. So much for international workers solidarity they keep on about.
The meeting started with speeches by two Trade Unionists. They didnt say much about Iran but more about the plight of London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, claiming that the mayor was victimised because he was anti-war.
Then a mother who had lost her soldier son in Iraq spoke. I felt for her and passed her one of our leaflets with a note saying, "by supporting the democratic opposition in Iran we can avoid war and more suffering by families like you. My condolences to you. Your son did not die in vain". She read the leaflet and my note, and with tears visible in her eyes, whispered "Thank You" to me.
Then the chair of the panel stood up to speak. I can only describe her as a frustrated looking feminist who was craving for a little authority and attention. She was wearing the type of head band worn by domestic workers in hotels but it just looked completely out of place, making her look even more of a weirdo. Perhaps she thought she looked more working class by wearing the head band, but when she started speaking, her accent soon revealed she was some upper class drop out.
She started speaking some nonsense about Islamophobia in UK, and how she was on the side of the Muslims who felt insulted by the cartoons row. Amazingly she then went on about the erosion of freedom of speech by the UK government. She continued by going on about the horrors of the Guantanamo Bay prisons. Her nonsense was just too much for another Iranian in the room, who had suffered in Islamic Republic prisons.
"Why just Guantanamo? What about when I was in Islamic prisons and was beaten and raped with a bottle? Where were you lot then? You can have these meetings in UK but we dont have this privilege in Iran".
The SWP activists then surrounded the Iranian guy and told him to be quiet, showing no sympathy to what he had endured. This reminded me of how the old age pensioner was man handled by the security guards in the Labour Party conference for heckling Tony Blair. To these lot that old age pensioner was a hero for heckling, but when they get heckled themselves, it is a different story.
Next speaker was Elaheh Rostami. She continued and amplified the previous nonsense. First she talked about Afghanistan. She claimed nothing, not even one road was built for the Afghans since the Taliban overthrow but the Afghans had internet coffee shops where they watched porn on the internet.
I thought to myself "But at least girls can now go to school and women can work and wont have to die of basic illnesses for not being able to see male doctors" but I bit my lips and thought I will say all this in the question time.
Rostami then claimed that the majority of Iranians inside and outside Iran are in favour of having nuclear power. Again I thought to myself "What free poll did she use to come to that conclusion?"
When Rostami claimed that the Iranian women had more rights and family protection after the revolution than before, it was just too much for the Iranians in the room. There was an uproar of protest at her nonsense, especially from the Iranian women.
Another Iranian walked up to the panel and placed pictures of Islamic Republic crimes before each panel speaker. The chairperson with the headband, showed no sympathy and turned the pictures over, but another Iranian in the audience walked up to the panel, turned over the page and showed her the pictures again. The chairperson of the panel then tried to look away from the pictures of human rights abuse in Iran. I sort of sensed she felt if Americans were not responsible for human rights abuses, she was not interested.
I was innocently writing down my questions, thinking soon we will be given time to question the panel. I was perusing which questions I should ask. Some of which were:
"
- You have the privilege of protesting and marching against nuclear power in this country, do the Iranian people have this right too?
- You mentioned you are siding with the Muslims who felt offended by the cartoons, what about the Sufis in Iran who had their shrine completely raised to the ground recently and their members, including women and children who were beaten and maimed. Do you not think they were insulted too?
- You say you value your freedom of speech, are you not worried about Muslim extremists taking that freedom away?
"
But as I was ponderig over these questions, Elaheh Rostami finished and the chair declared the meeting was over. What? No time to question all this nonsense that was spluttered out at this poor English public? The Iranians were furious. Even I, normally a placid person, couldn't stop myself from going to the panel and shouting
"You talk about freedom of speech. You have a meeting about Iran and yet you don't let the Iranians in this room speak?" I roared at the panel.
By this time SWP activists were calling for more reinforcement on their mobiles. Elaheh Rostami finally had to be escorted out of the room surrounded by a ring of SWP activists, while Iranians were shouting "Shame on You, Shame on You" at her.
It is amazing that a party - SWP - based on teachings of Karl Marx, who said "religion is the opium of the people", is now siding with Islamic Fascists in Iran and worrying about cartoons offending the sensitivities of some religious people.
But I had to remind myself that the Left in Iran also made a similar mistake and helped the Islamists take control of power, and soon they became the very first victims of Islamist Fascists.
We went along with leaflets which basically said "Oppose any Attack on Iran but Oppose the Tyranny of the Islamic Republic Too". We started handing out some leaflets outside and had a few discussions with the SWP members. It was amazing to find out how ignorant these so-called Socialist Workers activists were about what was happening in Iran. I asked a few of them what they knew about the 1300 jailed Iranian bus drivers and how the families of the Iranian bus drivers were beaten up, simply for demanding an independent trade union and better wages. None of them knew. So much for international workers solidarity they keep on about.
The meeting started with speeches by two Trade Unionists. They didnt say much about Iran but more about the plight of London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, claiming that the mayor was victimised because he was anti-war.
Then a mother who had lost her soldier son in Iraq spoke. I felt for her and passed her one of our leaflets with a note saying, "by supporting the democratic opposition in Iran we can avoid war and more suffering by families like you. My condolences to you. Your son did not die in vain". She read the leaflet and my note, and with tears visible in her eyes, whispered "Thank You" to me.
Then the chair of the panel stood up to speak. I can only describe her as a frustrated looking feminist who was craving for a little authority and attention. She was wearing the type of head band worn by domestic workers in hotels but it just looked completely out of place, making her look even more of a weirdo. Perhaps she thought she looked more working class by wearing the head band, but when she started speaking, her accent soon revealed she was some upper class drop out.
She started speaking some nonsense about Islamophobia in UK, and how she was on the side of the Muslims who felt insulted by the cartoons row. Amazingly she then went on about the erosion of freedom of speech by the UK government. She continued by going on about the horrors of the Guantanamo Bay prisons. Her nonsense was just too much for another Iranian in the room, who had suffered in Islamic Republic prisons.
"Why just Guantanamo? What about when I was in Islamic prisons and was beaten and raped with a bottle? Where were you lot then? You can have these meetings in UK but we dont have this privilege in Iran".
The SWP activists then surrounded the Iranian guy and told him to be quiet, showing no sympathy to what he had endured. This reminded me of how the old age pensioner was man handled by the security guards in the Labour Party conference for heckling Tony Blair. To these lot that old age pensioner was a hero for heckling, but when they get heckled themselves, it is a different story.
Next speaker was Elaheh Rostami. She continued and amplified the previous nonsense. First she talked about Afghanistan. She claimed nothing, not even one road was built for the Afghans since the Taliban overthrow but the Afghans had internet coffee shops where they watched porn on the internet.
I thought to myself "But at least girls can now go to school and women can work and wont have to die of basic illnesses for not being able to see male doctors" but I bit my lips and thought I will say all this in the question time.
Rostami then claimed that the majority of Iranians inside and outside Iran are in favour of having nuclear power. Again I thought to myself "What free poll did she use to come to that conclusion?"
When Rostami claimed that the Iranian women had more rights and family protection after the revolution than before, it was just too much for the Iranians in the room. There was an uproar of protest at her nonsense, especially from the Iranian women.
Another Iranian walked up to the panel and placed pictures of Islamic Republic crimes before each panel speaker. The chairperson with the headband, showed no sympathy and turned the pictures over, but another Iranian in the audience walked up to the panel, turned over the page and showed her the pictures again. The chairperson of the panel then tried to look away from the pictures of human rights abuse in Iran. I sort of sensed she felt if Americans were not responsible for human rights abuses, she was not interested.
I was innocently writing down my questions, thinking soon we will be given time to question the panel. I was perusing which questions I should ask. Some of which were:
"
- You have the privilege of protesting and marching against nuclear power in this country, do the Iranian people have this right too?
- You mentioned you are siding with the Muslims who felt offended by the cartoons, what about the Sufis in Iran who had their shrine completely raised to the ground recently and their members, including women and children who were beaten and maimed. Do you not think they were insulted too?
- You say you value your freedom of speech, are you not worried about Muslim extremists taking that freedom away?
"
But as I was ponderig over these questions, Elaheh Rostami finished and the chair declared the meeting was over. What? No time to question all this nonsense that was spluttered out at this poor English public? The Iranians were furious. Even I, normally a placid person, couldn't stop myself from going to the panel and shouting
"You talk about freedom of speech. You have a meeting about Iran and yet you don't let the Iranians in this room speak?" I roared at the panel.
By this time SWP activists were calling for more reinforcement on their mobiles. Elaheh Rostami finally had to be escorted out of the room surrounded by a ring of SWP activists, while Iranians were shouting "Shame on You, Shame on You" at her.
It is amazing that a party - SWP - based on teachings of Karl Marx, who said "religion is the opium of the people", is now siding with Islamic Fascists in Iran and worrying about cartoons offending the sensitivities of some religious people.
But I had to remind myself that the Left in Iran also made a similar mistake and helped the Islamists take control of power, and soon they became the very first victims of Islamist Fascists.
Potkin Azarmehr
Comments
Hide the following 17 comments
siding with Islamic Fascists
08.03.2006 15:58
freddie
Nonsense
08.03.2006 16:56
Talking of ignorance, you seem to have no idea of the tyranny associated with islamophobia, being forced to live at the bottom of the pile, to have your headscarf ripped off you in the street, to be jeered and called a terrorist because of a religion that you decide to peacefully follow. You talk of extremism in a manner akin to fascists like Nick Griffin and your paranoia is lamentable. Your are similarly as ignorant towards the horrors of war, the bombing raids, the arbitrary arrest, in Afganistan, Iraq and soon to be Iran. Are you justifying them? Are happy to let US imperialism pick off and control any country is chooses? Because you are dangerously close to apologising for it, and by doing so insulting the people of Iran. It is more neccessary to expose the crimes of those that act in our name if our objective is to stop war. By distracting from those crimes (Guantanamo etc..) we let the warmongers in, and the bombs will fall before you know it.
*As a note, for future reference, Marx believed in taking the side of the oppressed within society and supported Jewish emancipation when racists were using arguments not unlike your own to justify continuing maltreatment*
Will
Iranian democracy
08.03.2006 17:42
Are you telling me that most Iranians don't want a civilian nuclear power programme because they think the Government will build a bomb to blow up Israel?
The reason activists were suspicious of you is because your agenda is similar to the Western neo-con agenda. It's regime change that you want. Granted, the neo-cons want to militarily grab Iranian oil fields and you're against military action but the neo-cons would be happy with regime change.
There are too many Iranians, Iraqi, Kurds around who either unthinkingly support the Western elite agenda or are paid by them. What is interesting about what you say is that you make no criticism whatsoever about the Western policy. Iran has done nothing to breach the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty - you say nothing about that. The Iranian government is being subjected to propaganda - you don't have to like the government but you say nothing about that. To suggest that there are no Iranian opposition activists with Western support is naive.
It would seem reasonable to have a speaker at the meeting to remind us about the abuses of the Iranian government. But the left doesn't need to be told this. You won't find many on the white left extoling the virtues of Islamic rule.
At the moment there are two sides: a) those who defend Iran b) those who want to nuke Iran. The world could be on the brink of a nuclear confrontation. It could engulf more than Iranian bus workers. There is no middle way or credible third way. If you have a means of regime change that doesn't depend on the West and Westerm military intervention, please say what it is. If you can't come up with one then stop wasting our time!!!
insidejob
insidejob
e-mail: s2005@boltblue.com
Will...
08.03.2006 17:43
You also trot out the classic Indymedia line of "you're just like the BNP, you" because someone dared to criticise something done by a muslim, even though the meeting in question was packed full of Iranian muslims doing just that.
This reminds me of the case a few months back where a man was violently bundled out of a Respect-run public meeting for heckling Galloway, minutes after he had said the treatment of that chap at the Labour conference showed that Labour was afraid of confronting its critics.
FTB
A Bit of History for Will!
08.03.2006 17:56
But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself. The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".
Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage" -- which is exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels collected here.
Anti- idealogue
Stop wasting our time
08.03.2006 18:29
Attacking the abuses of the Iranian Government and the Mullahs is all very well but right now, it’s not only a waste of time but suspicious. Who’s agenda are these Iranian protesters supporting? They clearly want regime change. Well, so does Rumsfeld. How else they going to get their regime change without US mini-nukes?
The US fears the oil market Iran is going to open. It fears that the world will want to buy oil in Euros rather than US dollars. No dollars mean its value plummets, which means its economy is in a mess, which means it loses its global economic superpower status. To stop this, what is it going to do? Well, spending billions on its military so that the combined spending of the rest of the world makes up half of what the US has is a clue. More of a clue is that the US has finished building a massive military base in Israel.
So, when these are the stakes, we have these angry ‘democractic’ Iranians attacking people who want to stop nuclear war and we’re meant to applaud them. Well, if you get you’re way you don’t have to worry too much about the government abusing Iranian people because after the US is finished, there won’t be a government and lots of people will be toast.
So, why don’t you do us all a favour, and either stop wasting our time or come up with a plan to democratise Iran without depending on US tomahawks.
insidejob
e-mail: s2005@boltblue.com
Siding with US fascists
08.03.2006 19:00
People on IM are generally libertarians who oppose all states and all political power structures equally - including opposing the SWP. There are some right-wing militaristic posters here but it is safe to assume they are agents of our state rather than genuine opinions. We oppose the brutal theocracy in Iran much like we oppose the Shahs brutal dictatorship, I hope you can agree with that too. I suspect from the note you passed to Rose Gentle ( the mother of the dead soldier) that you can.
We are troubled by the calls for military intervention in Iran because we heard similar calls fom some few Iraqi exiles before that invasion. You think the occupation of Afghanistan was a success - I'd argue the opposite but I find it telling that you don't mention Iraq, which is a closer analogy to the potential invasion of Iran. Do you really call for Falluja to be repeated in Tehran ? Is that an improvement ? Death isn't an improvement on subjectation unless it is chosen personally.
"- You have the privilege of protesting and marching against nuclear power in this country, do the Iranian people have this right too?"
No they don't. However the right to protest here is a rather imited right when our leaders have the right to ignore us. Witness the majority here against the Iraq invasion. Witness the new nuclear power stations and new nuclear weapons being developed here in defiance of public opinion.
"- You say you value your freedom of speech, are you not worried about Muslim extremists taking that freedom away? "
Our western freedom of speech is limited to agreeing with our government, just like in Iran. Even in Iran you have the freedom to agree with the state - it's the same here. You can be arrested or killed here for what you say just like in Iran. And so no, I don't fear Muslim extremists taking away my freedoms because those supposed freedoms are illusory. I admire you opposing your state but to call for support from our state is to replace a domestic tyranny with a foriegn tyranny.
"What? No time to question all this nonsense that was spluttered out at this poor English public?"
That is typical of the SWP and the other statist pseudo-revolutionaries that pretend to represent us. You are right to criticise them for that.
"But I had to remind myself that the Left in Iran also made a similar mistake and helped the Islamists take control of power, and soon they became the very first victims of Islamist Fascists."
That is true - sadly very true - but I for one am not on the left, I am an anarchist who would have opposed the mullahs, the leftists and the Shah. If I was Iranian (and more courageous) I would oppose the mullahs as I currently oppose the Capitalist robber-barons who run the UK, as I would oppose Castro if I were Cuban.
I think you are wrong to call the Islamic state fascist - fascism is a 20th century construct whereas the mullahs are trapped in the dark ages. It is demeaning enough to call their state a theocracy.
You think any change in Iran is for the better - please, think of the hundreds of thousands of innocent killed in Iraq.
I have close friends in Iran who hate their government but they are vehementally opposed to 'liberation' by carpet bombing. Of course, some Irai exiles have profitted from that invasion, they lied to help ensure it and they continue to profit from their fellow Iraqis suffering.
I hope you are better than that. Personally I would like to see Iran liberated by Iranians and see no other adequate solution. Choose freedom over safety only for yourself and don't request another change of tyrant but rather an end to tyranny, in your vicious state and in our vicious state. Only then I could support you.
Danny
Article from Socialist Worker supporting Iranian Bus Workers Strike
08.03.2006 21:15
Oh look, here is an article from the 18th Feb 2006 edition of Socialist Worker about the Iranian Bus Workers Strike. A simple google search will find you the truth! Doh!
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8313
"Iranian bus strike: for workers and against empire".
By by Naz Massoumi and Peyman Jafari
A courageous strike in Tehran has attracted the world’s attention
Trade unionists and activists across the world are calling for the immediate release of hundreds of bus workers being held in Iran’s capital Tehran.
Workers employed by the United Bus Company of Tehran (Sharekat-e Vahed) have been arrested and detained in Evin prison over the last week in an attempt to prevent a strike.
The workers are demanding a pay rise, collective bargaining, recognition of their union and the release of their union’s president.
On 22 December last year, 12 leading members of the Union of Workers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company were arrested following their fight for better pay and working conditions.
Three days later 3,000 bus workers staged a walkout in protest. Police responded by making further arrests.
On 27 December all those detained were released except for Mansour Ossanlou, the union’s president. Calls for his release continued into the new year, with almost 5,000 union members gathering outside the Azadi stadium complex on 2 January in protest.
Six members of the union executive were summoned to court on 26 January, following the union’s call for an all-out strike on 28 January to demand the release of Ossanlou.
They were interrogated then sent to Evin for their refusal to cancel the strike. On the eve of the strike, the state arrested hundreds of workers as a preventive measure.
Nevertheless many gathered the following day. They were attacked, rounded up and also sent to Evin. Family members, students and activists supporting the strike were also arrested.
With reports last week of a hunger strike against detention, the workers are courageously struggling on. Family members and supporters staged a protest outside the Iranian parliament on 1 February calling for the immediate release of all those imprisoned.
In the last week, this struggle has paid off – around 200 workers have now been released.
But hundreds are still in custody and two other union executive members have now been detained. And those released have been refused reinstatement by the bus company.
The bus driver’s union was formed in 1968 and played an important role in the 1979 revolution. In the early 1980s it was disbanded by the state in order to crush its militancy. In 2004 it was reactivated, but is still not legally recognised.
The strike is a sign of the new mood developing inside the Iranian working class, defying not only the bosses, but also government officials.
Last year thousands of Iranian workers rallied in Tehran on 1 May, international workers’ day, chanting “stop privatisation, stop temporary contracts”.
The struggle of Iranian workers has the potential to gather broader forces around it in the fight for democracy and social justice. Students and women’s rights activists have been at the forefront of the pro-democracy movement that developed from the mid-1990s.
This has seen the formation of grassroots NGOs and other civil society organisations. Their struggles, linked to those of workers, have a far greater potential to bring radical change than that of pro-Western “democracies” in the region such as Egypt.
But that potential is being strangled by the US’s sabre rattling against Iran. Regime hardliners have capitalised on this US intimidation to rally support and to quell any opposition.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election campaign was centred on his promise to redistribute the country’s oil wealth to the poor.
Unable to deliver on this, he increasingly relies on an anti-Western and anti-Israeli rhetoric to strengthen his hand against other factions of the regime.
Campaigners in Iran, such as Nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi, have already stated their opposition to any foreign intervention or sanctions against the country.
But there is an imminent danger that their struggle is hijacked by pro-war forces and derailed.
Something like this happened in Ukraine just over a year ago. Popular anger against one corrupt president was used to put in place Viktor Yushchenko, also corrupt, but pro-US.
This is why activists in Iran are facing two challenges. On the one hand they are fighting to enhance the lives of ordinary people.
On the other hand they have to stand up against the military threats from US and Europe. And in this they urgently need the support of the global anti-war movement.
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
Barry Kade
Zero in common
08.03.2006 23:13
A very reasonable post. Unfortunately most of the people who post here seem to think that Adolf Hitler is politically equivalent to Alex Salmond! (See "Hitler was a socialist" thread).
Maybe they feel oppressed by phallocentric occidental reason and must therefore throw it off so that they can embrace truly liberating insanity. At least they make me laugh. I hope you find some sensible people to listen to your points. Headbands - always a bad sign. Good luck to you and your brave comrades.
I notice that Indymedia censoredf my attempt to post the "Manifesto against Islamism". Not very 'Indy' at all.
Lord Snooty
What fine company you keep
09.03.2006 09:24
"You're either with us, or with the terrorists" — George W Bush
FTB
I agree with Bush
09.03.2006 12:02
Iranian democracy would be a good thing. But all these so-called 'angry Iranians' were doing was challenging the campaign to stop war on Iran. Why don't they do something useful and make their anti-war and pro-democracy protests in front of Parliament or Downing Street - we could all applaud them then.
insidejob
sign of weakness not strength
09.03.2006 17:10
Given half the chance, these people would not have had the million people march and would love to see the stop the war movement dead.
My guess, these people are sad AWL types or agents of the states.
red letter
To Anti- idealogue
09.03.2006 18:59
Generally, thinking people are more critical about themselves and their immediate peer-group, than throwing the blame about on other people. So, socialists say, lets try to address the hypocracies and evils in our own society, before trying to invade other people's countries and telling them how to live. Marx was jewish, and he was making a self-critical comment about the people in his peer-group, and the society in which he lived. Hitler was German, and blamed all the rest of the world for the problems of Germany, the jews, the gypsies, the communists. For him only the white 'Aryan' race was pure and right.
There is a world of difference between the self-critical attitude of Marx, and the attitude of Hitler who was unwilling to take any responsibility for his actions whatsoever. Even he took his own life rather than face the consequences. Now then, which of these two attitudes do our own glorious leaders possess? Bush and Blair, forever pointing the blame at everybody else, Iran, Muslims, China, Venezuela. 'But there is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever in our own policies...' bullshit nonsense.
Marx identified the fatal flaws within capitalist society, of which he was a part, and didn't rant on about how all the problems in Europe were the fault of the muslims, or immigrants, or lack of democracy in the rest of the world. This is the difference between socialists, who look to change their own society for the better, and fascists, who are constantly looking for someone else to blame.
The first lesson about changing the world, is to change yourself. Gandhi said 'Be the change you want to see in the world'. So, exactly in what ways are the US and Britain changing the world when they invade other peoples countries without provocation, torture, rape and steal. To then condemn Iran for it's own failings, which in fact are LESS than those of the US and Britain, well how can anyone take you seriously? How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 50 years? How many millions of people has it killed, directly or indirectly, in South-East Asia, in Latin America, in Africa? How many atomic weapons has it used on civilian targets? In fact, how many atomic weapons does it actually possess?
Tell me, if Muslims are so bloodthirsty and fanatical, tell me why the only worldwide wars in history, which killed millions and millions of people, were fought by nominally Christians?
Hermes
Nice Article
09.03.2006 19:04
Good article. So much truth.
FREE IRAN!
Gary24
Splitter!
09.03.2006 20:25
I salute your courage and indefatigability.
Nevermind
Attack on anti-war meeting
10.03.2006 15:18
'Attack on anti-war meeting
A group attempted to break up a Stop the War meeting in Hackney, east London, and later tried to do the same at an Imperial College meeting. Their disgraceful behaviour should be condemned.
They particularly targeted Elaheh Rostami Povey, for speaking against a US invasion of Iran and for saying that Iran was not the monolithic society that the US pretends.
The group concerned – whose leaflet did not even announce their own name – claim they are against the present regime in Iran and against an invasion of Iran.
Yet they were barracking Povey and Stop the War’s Lindsey German even when they made clear that they are not apologists for the present government.
One of their number accused Povey of being “a paid agent of the Mullahs”.
Who benefits from this thuggish behaviour?
The blog of the man who led this intervention recommends the website of the Iran Institute for Democracy – headquarters Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington. It says it was set up to support “human rights and a free market economy in Iran” and features articles by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger.
We should not be intimidated out of opposing imperialist threats to Iran.'.
.
Go back to dreamland Danny
27.04.2006 20:22
Well firstly congratulations on opposing the swizzers. Secondly, grow up, get real or get back to dream land. 'No government'? That benefits the ruling class and the neo cons nicely!! What are you going to do about the ruling class and its military industrial complex if you take away even the fig leaf of protection the poor (in the capitlaist west) currently receive from the state? Pogroms, gulags, abu graibs?! A revolution that sweeps away... (zzzzzz I could go on). This tired 'libertarianism' so close to that espoused by the very liberatarian righ think tanks who underpin Bush: this cold war marxist-leninist (sic) obsession with 'the state'/ 'state and society'. You've been on the losing end of every argument in history mate. The only and inevitable way forward is democratic socialism. And that is something that islam needs to address as well.
The truth