From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: To Agha Javd ( Re: recent brainlessness on sci )
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:00:02 GMT
Organization: LabaniyyAtee-e-Sar-e-Koocheh

In article <BxoFp0.Jwn@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ebrahim@ee.umanitoba.ca (Mohamad Ebrahimi) writes:
>
>In article: <1992Nov13.184956.18043@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad) writes: 
>
>
>>Recently we have been noticing a sharp increase in the number of offensive
>>and foul mouthed postings ons sci which lack any character whatsoever.  
>
> To me, who have been reading this news group for more than two years now, the
> emergence of YOU in this group has been the most effective phenomenon toward
> the current situation, whatsoever.

Thanks for your kind words. I guess I created Ali Baba and Satan. Did I
provoke racist remarks about jews and genocide, and did I ever threaten
anyone on this net?  And who started throwing around sexual slurs when they
couldn't find a better answer?  Sure, if I and the likes of me shut up, I'm
sure we'll have a nice peaceful sci with no opposition, just like in Iran.


>
> Look at the numerous articles you have written in the short period of your
> activity in s.c.i., and you'll see (of course, you know it very well) how 
> many lies and misrepresentations you have imposed on the readers. I didn't
> save your articles, and I didn't bother to answer the lies, because some of
> them were so ridiculous and obvious that even the diehard opponents of Islamic
> Revolution won't believe them. Here are some examples from your last few
> articles ( which I remember), and by an extrapolation, everybody can find
> the amount of lies during past couple of months.

I write my opinions based on the knowledge I have as well as my experience
living there.  One man's truth is another man's lie, especially in a country
like ours.  So rather than getting in a ping-pong game of calling each other
liars or unpatriotic,etc., I'd rather try to answer your concerns about 
my postings.

> 
>
> 1- You attributed the story of " Enhelal-e Artesh" ( Dissolving the army)
> after the revolution to IRI! while everybody remembers that it was one of
> the main objectives of those spy groups, which later became an integral 
> part of Iraqi army against Iranian people, and if it was not because of
> the strong standing of Late Imam Khomeini to support the army, nobody knows
> what would have happened when Iraqi army started its aggression against Iran.

Excuse me, but whoever was in the revolution vividly remembers that one of the
main criticisms of the shah's regime was that he was "nokar-e-Amrika" and kept
buying "AhanpAreh F16s" and throwing away our oil money. Of course, we all
know that there were people working for foreigners trying to weaken the 
country, etc., and I never said there wasn't. But the IRI certainly did not
do much to keep the military intact.  In the days of Bazargan, there were
numerous speeches about how we don't need an army, at least the one created
by the shah, and replacing the army with Pasdaran and Baseej and Artesh-e-
Beest-millionee.  Nonetheless, you cannot deny that the revolution leaders
were criticizing the shah for buying all those weapons, and now would love
to do the same if they had the chance.  Also, can you be more specific as to
which "spy groups" it was the work of to call for enhelal-e-artesh?  
Tell me something, do you really think that if there was no war with Iraq,
the regular armed forces would have been left alone, or even allowed to 
exist?  I doubt it.

>
> 2- You claim that after revolution the IRI started to execute the officers
> of the army " by thousands"(!!!) even those junior officers who didn't 
> have any power. It is a well-known trick. The bigger the lie, the more
> likely it is to be believed by those not familiar. But how about Iranian 
> nation? Do they believe that " thousands of army officers" were executed?
> Do they forget the role of some parts of Shah's army in killings from 
> 19 Dey of 1356 in Qom until the very day of 22 bahman? Do they forget the
> role of those Generals in maintaining 25 years dictatorship of Shah after
> 28 Mordad?

Could you explain to us in truthful terms, what was the process of determining
whether or not an officer on trial was guilty of treason?  Are you saying that
all officers in the Iranian armed forces were guilty of maintaining a 
dictatorship, and installing the shah in 1953?  A lot of air force pilots 
who were just flying cargo planes were executed.  What was their crime?  They
flew relief supplies to disaster stricken areas during earthquakes and so
on.  Now yes, there were the Khosrodads and the Rahimis and the Nassiris
who beared direct responsibility for shah's atrocities, but are you saying
all of the executed officers were that way? In 1982, 8 junior air force officers
were executed just because they were suspected of helping BaniSadr escape.
They wern't planning a coup, or threatening anyone, they just allowed their
recently overthrown commander in chief to fly out on a 707.  This is the extent
of the IRI's mercy.  They could have fired them, imprisoned them, or anything,
but no, they executed them.  Are you saying that these people would have let the
innocent members of the armed forces get a fair trial and go free so they can
serve where they were needed?

>
> 3- You introduced Late Imam Khomeini as a political refuge to the west!!!
> Was it really the case? Was he a refuge, or an exile who were under pressure
> by Iraqi government to choose between silence-indifference and leaving Iraq?
> Did he have any other place to go for his short stay when Kuwait didn't let
> him in? 
>

Ok, he was an exile, what's the difference?
France still gave him a place to stay, and I never said it was bad.  If I
were his supporter, I would be thankful to France.


> 4- In numerous occasions you misrepresented the brave volunteers who fought
> against almost the whole world by saying that they were sent to fronts
> forcedly or were used to walk on mine fields(!!!) or didn't have any
> training, etc. Was it really the case? Was the strong and well equipped Iraqi
> army scattered by such a people?

I never said they were sent by force.  Of course, there were those who were
drafted, some of which I'm sure would rather not go, but they were not the
majority.  As far as walking on minefields, it is a well known fact that
young boys were sent to walk on minefileds, and even Seyyed said that this
is true, and that it is even something for the IRI to be proud of.  As far
as training, it is also well known that the baseej volunteers did not have 
adequate training, and they constituted a large number of the soldiers, 
as well as a large number of the casualties.  The strong and well equipped
Iraqi army was not scattered, and I am sad to say, as you should be too, that
it won the war by imposing a peace which was unfavorable to Iran.

As far as the brave volunteers my friend, I challenge you to come up with
one post of mine which challenges their bravery.  Those men sacrificed 
everything for their homeland, and all my criticism has been and continues
to be aimed at the IRI leaders who used their bravery for their own survival,
and betrayed them.

>
> 5- You cry very laudly for peace between Iran and Iraq after 1982, and at
> the same time accuse Iranian authorities of being traitor because they shacked
> hands with Tariq Aziz. Are people really so dumb to think that it is possible
> for two countries to make peace, without any meeting even between their
> foreign ministers? Or are you complaining about Iran's efforts to convince
> Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait before its country and its people were completely
> destroyed by allied forces? Do you think you can simply change the facts
> about Iran's stand in Persian Gulf war and its huge efforts to save the Iraqi
> nation, by some hollow accusations?

I criticize IRI gov't for their hypocrisy in firing up all the young men
to go and fight to the end, and vowing to never abandon the fight to liberate
Ghods and Karbala, a fight which they KNEW they couldn't win in the end, and 
finally making peace.  If peace is acceptable, why didn't they make it earlier 
when they should have? And if it is unacceptable under any circumstances, as 
they had preached to our nation, then why did they make it and not fight to the
very end?  This is a double standard.  When IRI accepted UN resolution 598,
Rafsanjani told the people in Friday prayers to not ask why peace has been
accepted, and that the explanation will come in due time.  That was over 4
years ago, and we are still waiting.  If anyone has heard anything form the IRI
leaders as to why peace was accepted (not theories, but official explanations),
I would be very interested.

Yes, by all means, the IRI had a sensible policy in the Persian Gulf War, by 
working for peace and to prevent war.  When it had the same oppurtunity in 1982,
it took the opposite stance, and guess who paid the price.

>
> 6- You blame IRI for hostile attitudes of other governments toward Islamic
> Revolution. Do you think the oppressed people of the world give a damn about
> those attitudes? Just look at the real world. Which country is being favored
> by western powers, without kissing their feet? Look at the Bosnia, for example,
> they have tied the hands of a nation( for being Muslim) and have left the
> Serbian army to slaughter them. But they are smart enough. They actively
> help Serbs to fulfill the ethnic cleansing by removing people from Bosnia,
> instead of letting them take arms and defend their existence, their honor.
> Do you think after the ouster of Shah any western power can be kind with
> Islamic revolution, no matter how nice or though IRI is,?

Tell me, do you truly think that the way to salvation of the oppressed peoples
of the world is to become like IRI?  How has IRI helped the poor?  A karmand
or kargar was much better off before the revolution.  The rich got richer, the
poor got poorer, there was a population explosion and there aren't enough 
jobs and schools for the new generation. And there is less freedom in all 
aspects of life, except when it comes to following the government's line.
How many countries have followed IRI's example?  And why do you focus so much 
on western powers?  Other governments had hostile attitudes towards Iran partly 
because of anti Iran propaganda, but also partly because of IRI's action itself.
IRI took hostages and supported violent groups around the world, and had openly 
taken an aggressive stance in the region by announcing its intention to export 
the revolution.  Did the west make them do that?  The hostages situation could 
have been resolved by just expelling the Americans if they were all truly spies,
and Iran would have been much more liked throughout the world (notice I didn't 
say west!)

Instead of asking which country is being favored by western powers, I ask
which country is developing itself, educating its people, developing its
economy, improving living conditions, industry, agriculture, promoting 
peace with its neighbors without kissing up the west?  There are many 
examples: Costa Rica, India, Brazil, Venezuela, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea,
etc. etc. Yes, many of these countries have fiendly relations with the
west as well as with other countries, and that is because they realize that
they live in a world where not everyone is the same as they are and they in
fact need each other, a fact that IRI is just beginning to realize after 13
years. Regarding your question about western powers being nice with IRI
no matter what, all of the west now except for the US has extensive business
with Iran, and recently even US business in Iran is starting to see real
possibilities.  Now, is Iran "kissing up to the west"?  Or have they just
begun to realize the necessity of interacting with others in a peaceful way?

>
> 7- and list goes on.
>

>  Of course, I don't have any objection to your presence in s.c.i., in
> contrary, I think you help many people realize how "Mazloum" were and
> are our people how fought for their survival and are now being accused
> by some people, who at least bear Iranian names. To me you make a good 
> couple with Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani, the guy who is sitting in UK
> ( and you know what it means) and is responsible to blame Iran for the war,
> to side with Arab countries of Persian Gulf in disputes against Iran's
> territorial integrity, to attribute his own mentality to Islam and 
> Rohaniat, etc. But if you are smart enough, and there is no job obligations
> involved, then Amoo's advice would be the most useful for you, when he
> said:
>
>         " Those who talk more and lauder, would be forgotten sooner."
>
>
>          [ stuff deleted ]
>
>>May the free exchange of ideas continue, and may freedom of speech be utilized
>>in a constructive way.
>
> Its impossible, until we stop spreading fabrications and lies in the public.

I know what you mean.

>
>
>
>Mohammad

Agha Javad