From: ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Re: What is MKO position on the Islands?
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:00:03 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <BvppGu.FHu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> yaser@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Ala) writes:

> ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani) writes:

> >Let's put people before land.  Then call ourselves true patriots.

> Which people?

Off course, I mean ALL people (and in this, I follow Sa`di's "bani
aadam a`zaa-ye yekdigarand ...").  But in this particular respect, we
are talking about the Iranian people.

> Does Iranian mean anything without Iran?
> How is what you are saying different than what QAAJAAR did to Iran?
> According to what you say we should quickly submit any peice of land claimed
> by others in order to make peace.  Imagine Iran without Azarbaijaan,
> Baluchestaan, Turkaman sahraa and Kurdestaan.
> I never said that we should go to war with different countries over land.
> In this case Arab states are too weak to count for anyhting.  In fact this
> is Americans that claim the Islands not the Arabs.
> Should we submit to them to make peace?
> What should we submit after Persian Gulf?
> You just seem to be so peacefully submiting to the will of superpowers.

You know very well that we are talking not about an invading army
ravaging Iran but a claim on a disputed island.  And kicking out a
group of defenceless fisherpeople from their home (yes, they are
"people" too) is no act of "anti-imperialism".  The Americans are not
going to leave the Persian Gulf just because Iran managed to accupy
this island.  Quite the contrary, these actions make them more
detremine to stay, and the "weak" Arab states more eager to seek their
support.  Isn't your argument somehow similar to what Saddam Hossein
used in invading Kuwait (no matter how his claim or the Iranian
regime's in this respect were/are valid)?  And we all know the result
of that, don't we?

By the way, what would your position be if (in fact, what was, when)
the Shah occupied the same island -- noting that then Iran would be
(was) the American stooge in the area?  Indeed, the following could
have been written then with *not a single word changed*! ( It is a
rhetorical question -- no answer is demanded.)

> Iran has NEVER had a democracy.  Imagine if Iranains did not defend
> this land because there were not democracy, justice, and freedom.
> Then there would not be an IRAN.  The land of Iran is a sacred land
> and defending it is no different than performing a religious duty.

> Democracy, justice, freedom, and better living is an internal matter
> that should be settled internally.  When IRAN is confronted with the 
> enemy of IRAN (Saddam is a clear example) then

>  ALL IRANIANS SHOULD BE UNITED IN DEFENDING THE LAND.

> This is our duty as an Iranian.  Iran is alive because of the sacrifices
> of men and women who gave their lives to defend this land so that we 
> enjoy its beauty and utilize its resources.

> ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THIS SHOULD REEVALUATE HIS/HER ATTACHMENT TO IRAN

And if you are old enough to remember, the Shah also used a similar
anti-western rhetorics then to justify his action.  

Now, you are asking me:  "How is what you are saying different than
what QAAJAAR did to Iran?"                    ^^^^^^ 
             ^^^
I am dumbfounded, and can say nothing but repeat:

Let's put people before land.  Then call ourselves true patriots.

-hossein