What's new

Are liberals (reformists & moderates) with the help of the US planning to provoke major instability after the presidential election?

Lehrasap

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 1, 2020
38
-1
33
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Germany
You have quite a rosy picture of "Western Secularists" I must say. How are you so sure of their collective intentions that those "secularists" will rise above race, greed and ethnocentrism to be absolutely impartial?
Humans are not perfect.

Thus they are not judged for being perfect. No, but they are judged who is better and who is lesser evil.

And for sure, no one could beat the religious fanatics of Iran for being the biggest Satan against the will of the majority of the Iranian people.

But they are at least as worthless as the "the resistance" are not they?
Even if we assume that Secularists are worthless as resistance, still that does not make them WRONG as the fanatics Mullahs of the resistance, who want to impose their religious system by dictatorship, once they get succeed.

The fight of the secularists is for the humanity and Justice, while the fight of the religious fanatics is for the worst dictatorship than the present Israeli state.




Treason is treason.
Treason is not treason.
Treason against the blood thirsty dictatorship and mad fanatics is not not treason, but a favour to the Humanity.
Iraqi Shias did the same treason against Sadam Hussain, and now they are living in freedom.

As I previously said, religious fanaticism is bigger Satan than any other foreign power.

Religious fanatics got 40 years to stop it's dictatorship. Reformists didn't do any treason during this whole 40 years. But still at the end mad mullahs were blaming them to be traitors without even committing this crime, and wants to kill them in name of this false accusations.

After 40 years, time has come to start full power rebellion against this bigger Satan.

Rest I don't have enough time to reply to your long posts.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
690
2
1,459
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Treason is not treason.
Treason against the blood thirsty dictatorship and mad fanatics is not not treason, but a favour to the Humanity.
Iraqi Shias did the same treason against Sadam Hussain, and now they are living in freedom.
Those Shia Iraqi groups did not collaborate with the US, they are pro-Iranian. Iran never had any sinister designs against the Iraqi nation, but Washington did.

More Shia Iraqis were killed as a result of US actions than at the hands of Saddam's regime. Today Iraq is a destroyed nation.

When it comes to Iran, there is no bloodshed taking place. Today Iranians enjoy peace, stability and security in a region full of devastaring conflicts. If the Islamic Republic were to collapse, then Iranians would become familiar the actual meaning of bloodshed, chaos and destruction.

Any Iranian citizen actively collaborating with a hostile power to bring about such an outcome would therefore be committing treason.

As I previously said, religious fanaticism is bigger Satan than any other foreign power.
1) Religious fanaticism is a vague catchphrase.

2) Syria and Iraq arn't better off than Iran is today under the Islamic Republic. Much to the contrary. If the Islamic Republic were to fall, then Iran's situation would get more dreadful than Syria's and Iraq's combined, due to the destructive interference of hostile foreign powers.

In other terms, it would get infinitely worse than today in every aspect (territorial integrity, everyday security of citizens, development, living standards etc). Moroever, Iran would cease to exist as a unified nation, society and civilization, with no way back. So there is absolutely no comparison between the present situation of Iranians and the horrors they would experience if the Islamic Republic was no more.

Religious fanatics got 40 years to stop it's dictatorship. Reformists didn't do any treason during this whole 40 years. But still at the end mad mullahs were blaming them to be traitors without even committing this crime, and wants to kill them in name of this false accusations.
There's no dictatorship in Iran, and no reformist is being killed. However, I certainly hope that they'll get politically neutered and sidelined for good.

After 40 years, time has come to start full power rebellion against this bigger Satan.
This would actually provide an opportunity for the state to get rid of the infiltrated pro-western fifth column once and for all.
 

Goritoes

FULL MEMBER
Jan 20, 2021
1,443
-1
2,239
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Khooni Liberals and Bombastic Mullahs :pakistan:future is bright as Room without lights and no windows :D
 

Lehrasap

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 1, 2020
38
-1
33
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Germany
Those Shia Iraqi groups did not collaborate with the US, they are pro-Iranian.
Your claim is illogical.

Those Iraqi Shia groups were facing death from the dictatorship of Saddam and neither they nor Iran was able to liberate them.

Thus when US attacked, then Iraqi Shias didn't support the Iraqi State under Saddam, which is in itself a treason according to your present Iranian Standard.

In fact Iraqi Shia supported the attack upon Saddam Hussain in one way or the other. Not only they didn't support State forces, actually they didn't resist against US occupation, but they supported US by giving hands to them to stabilise the country in post Saddam era. Seestani asked Iraqi Shias to join Iraqi forces and Police who all worked under US forces.


More Shia Iraqis were killed as a result of US actions than at the hands of Saddam's regime.
False.
And even if true, still Iraqi Shias were supporting the US occupation and not supporting the dictatorship of Saddam Hussain, as I have mentioned above.


Khomeini's Iran itself used Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) against State of Iraq

What else, Khomeini was itself using the Iraqi Shias for a revolt against the dictatorship of Saddam Hussain. And it was Halal when Khomeini does it, but becomes Haram when the Reformists want to do it against the dictatorship of Iranian Religious Fanatics.

Double Standards.

When it comes to Iran, there is no bloodshed taking place. Today Iranians enjoy peace, stability and security in a region full of devastaring conflicts. If the Islamic Republic were to collapse, then Iranians would become familiar the actual meaning of bloodshed, chaos and destruction.
There is also no bloodshed taking place under Israeli occupation, but still Israel is usurping the rights of Palestinian people and that is why there is rebellion against Israel.

Iranian religious fanatics are also usurping the rights of the Iranian people and they have imposed their ideology by force. And whenever Iranian people want to get their human rights, then Khamenei's dictatorship start killing them and bloodbath indeed takes place.

It is simple, if Iranian Mullahs claim that they are right, then they have to prove it in the arena of elections and show that they have got the support of Iranian people.

Why is it that Iranian Mullahs make long long claims, but never show the courage to prove it in the election arena?


Syria and Iraq arn't better off than Iran is today under the Islamic Republic. Much to the contrary. If the Islamic Republic were to fall, then Iran's situation would get more dreadful than Syria's and Iraq's combined, due to the destructive interference of hostile foreign powers.
Nothing will happen if Iranian Mullahs prove it fairly in the elections that they have the support of the majority of Iranian people.

All these things are happening only while Iranian Mullahs has formed a dictatorship and not ready to give away the government if they loose in the elections.


Moroever, Iran would cease to exist as a unified nation, society and civilization, with no way back.
False.
Iran will emerge as much more powerful and unified nation and society and civilization than before if real democratic government is formed in result of fair elections.

There's no dictatorship in Iran, and no reformist is being killed. However, I certainly hope that they'll get politically neutered and sidelined for good.
Defeat them then in fair elections, and they will be automatically get neutralised.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
690
2
1,459
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Your claim is illogical.

Those Iraqi Shia groups were facing death from the dictatorship of Saddam and neither they nor Iran was able to liberate them.

Thus when US attacked, then Iraqi Shias didn't support the Iraqi State under Saddam, which is in itself a treason according to your present Iranian Standard.
I never defined lack of support for a ruling system as treason. I clearly stated however that collaborating with existential foreign enemies in support of the latters' "regime change agenda", constitutes an act of treason. So my claim is logical.

In fact Iraqi Shia supported the attack upon Saddam Hussain in one way or the other. Not only they didn't support State forces, actually they didn't resist against US occupation, but they supported US by giving hands to them to stabilise the country in post Saddam era. Seestani asked Iraqi Shias to join Iraqi forces and Police who all worked under US forces.
Inaction isn't of concern to me. What I define as treason, are concrete acts of collaboration with an existential foreign enemy.

Also, we're talking about political organizations, not ordinary civilians.

Furthermore, since the illegal US invasion in 2003, Iraqi state institutions have never reached a state of stability. They are indeed split into two portions: a US-subservient, neocolonial one, as well as an independent, Iran-friendly one. This insurmountable rift exists between competing parallel institutions but also inside many given institutions. So much for investing state institutions - this wasn't done in order to collaborate with Washington's designs, but on the contrary to keep in check the US and to challenge its hegemony from within the state apparatus.

Last but not least, Shia Muslim Iraqis put up armed Resistance against American and other occupation forces. IED's supplied by Iran to these Shia Resistance groups caused more than 600 casualties among occupiers.

Not so.

Half a million (500.000) Iraqi babies and children alone, most of them Shia Muslims, died as a result of the illegally imposed US sanctions regime during the 1990's, which then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright infamously qualified as "worth it" in an interview given to CNN. That's just the number of children massacred by the US embargo. The total number of deaths surpassed a million, more than half a million of which had to be Shia Muslims.

As for the illegal US occupation of Iraq, in perhaps slightly more than a decade, it caused no less than 1.5 million deaths in direct and indirect ways, according to a study published by the respected medical journal The Lancet. This means close to another million Shia Muslims losing their lives.

Saddam's massacres, however atrocious, never reached these unimaginable levels.

And even if true, still Iraqi Shias were supporting the US occupation and not supporting the dictatorship of Saddam Hussain, as I have mentioned above.
Not really, see above.

Also, this is not a valid argument: if something has devastating consequences for a nation, then whether or not a short-sighted, misled constituency advocates it is no longer relevant. It is the end result which counts.

Khomeini's Iran itself used Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) against State of Iraq
What else, Khomeini was itself using the Iraqi Shias for a revolt against the dictatorship of Saddam Hussain. And it was Halal when Khomeini does it, but becomes Haram when the Reformists want to do it against the dictatorship of Iranian Religious Fanatics.

Double Standards.
I addressed this already, what's the point of repeating the same contention? Iran's agenda was not to plunge the Iraqi nation into chaos and sustained instability, nor to ultimately dismantle it irregardless of the enormous, disproportionate human suffering such an endeavor would cause.

The US regime however was precisely pursuing this goal, and achieved it to a large extent, bringing unprecedented levels of oppression, death and destruction upon Iraq. The unleashing of barbaric ISIS terrorists on the Iraqi population was only one tragic episode in this methodical operation.

American neocon extremists are on the record for advocating this sort of a treatment for countries of West Asia, including Iraq but also Iran.

Hence, comparing Iraqis who cooperated with Iran on the one hand, with Iraqis who collaborated with the US regime on the other, is like comparing apples and oranges.

There is also no bloodshed taking place under Israeli occupation, but still Israel is usurping the rights of Palestinian people and that is why there is rebellion against Israel.
Except that Resistance against Isra"el" will not result in the elimination of the Palestinian nation from the pages of history, nor in the type of apocalyptic destruction brought upon Syria or Iraq.

An overthrow of the Islamic Republic however, will inevitably lead to exactly that sort of a wholesale destruction of the Iranian nation, society and civilization.

This is due to the respective geopolitical contexts, which as highlighted before are case-specific.

Iranian religious fanatics are also usurping the rights of the Iranian people and they have imposed their ideology by force. And whenever Iranian people want to get their human rights, then Khamenei's dictatorship start killing them and bloodbath indeed takes place.
"Human rights" is another fictive device of liberal domination on societies and people. A hollow concept and a substitute-religion imposed on the world by liberal extremists.

No "bloodbath" was committed in Islamic Iran against simple unarmed citizens making political demands.

Actual bloodbath, Syrian-style and even worse (think millions of dead, ISIS type terrorists creating mountains out of cut off heads, and Iranian women sold on slave markets for a pack of cigarettes), is however what awaits the Iranian people if the Islamic Republic is overthrown and Iran's "human rights"-chanting existential enemies get to execute their criminal agenda. In addition, Iran will get dismembered along linguistic lines, split up into at least four or five separate state entities, and will therefore cease to exist in effect.

One must be insane to even envisage comparing any acts of violence committed by state authorities of the Islamic Republic, with the levels of violence which tore Syria and Iraq apart. No amount of state repression comes close to high intensity war, which is exactly what would befall Iran should "regime change" occur

It is simple, if Iranian Mullahs claim that they are right, then they have to prove it in the arena of elections and show that they have got the support of Iranian people.

Why is it that Iranian Mullahs make long long claims, but never show the courage to prove it in the election arena?
Not sure if you read what it is you were replying to.

So let me copy-paste from previous posts, as it will be quicker:

Two reformist candidates, Mehralizadeh and Hemmati, are running in the upcoming presidential election. In every election held by the Islamic Republic, candidates from various political groupings were allowed to run.

Furthermore, as explained already, political pluralism is far more pronounced in Islamic Iran than in western so-called "democracies", because governing parties in Iran are far more removed from each other in terms of ideology and policies.


All these things are happening only while Iranian Mullahs has formed a dictatorship and not ready to give away the government if they loose in the elections.
The Islamic Republic is a religious democracy, not a dictatorship. And Iran's religious democracy is significantly more democratic, in reality, than western liberal and secular so-called democracy. See above as to why.

Elections in Iran are an expression of political pluralism, not of monopolization of power.

False.
Iran will emerge as much more powerful and unified nation and society and civilization than before if real democratic government is formed in result of fair elections.
In case of a collapse of the Islamic Republic, due to the explosive geopolitical circumstances that prevail both regionally and globally, and in particular the rabid existential hostility of the world's major power bloc (i. e. the zio-American empire), Iran will assuredly cease to exist as a unified nation, society and civilization in a matter of months, with no way back, in addition to suffering war and destruction on a scale larger than Syria and Iraq.

With the government of the Islamic Republic out of the way, Iran's existential enemies this time around are not going to miss the opportunity to lay waste to the Iranian nation for all eternity.
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
690
2
1,459
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
we know from past experience that the liberals have shown themselves to be extremely sore losers at previous elections they failed to succeed in (be it parliamentary or presidential ones). Under such circumstances, liberals have quasi systematically started pointing fingers and crying "fraud". This culminated in the 2009 "Green movement" fitna set in motion by reformist leaders (Mousavi, Khatami, Karoubi) with the backing of Hashemi Rafsanjani

At the 6th Majles (Parliament) election in the year 2000, Hashemi Rafsanjani was heading a list which also included Hassan Rohani, Mohsen Rezai, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani assembled this list to defeat the reformist one, supported by then president Mohammad Khatami (at that time, moderates and reformists used to be at loggerheads, before joining forces in 2009, when Rafsanjani put his weight behind Mousavi). Rafsanjani's list was resoundingly defeated, he himself came out thirtieth (which led reformists to deride him by calling him "Āghā si" or "Mister Thirty"). Rafsanjani claimed there was fraud, meaning that he accused the Ministry of the Interior of the reformist Khatami administration, which was organizing the election, of having cheated.

Rafsanjani himself then participated in the 2005 presidential election, where he and Ahmadinejad made it to the second round. Reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi cried foul, labeled the election fraudulent and addressed a letter of protest to the Supreme Leader. Again, it was Khatami's Ministry of the Interior which was organizing the vote. In the second round, Ahmadinejad won... according to Rafsanjani fraud had taken place.

In 2009, Rafsanjani supported Mir-Hossein Mousavi's reformist candidacy at the presidential election. Mousavi received 13 million votes vs Ahmadinejad's 24 million. Rafsanjani declared that the vote was rigged.

In 2013, Rafsanjani's candidate of choice for the presidency, Rohani, is directly elected in the first round. Rafsanjani: Iran just held its "healthiest" election ever!

Motto of the liberals: either our way or the highway!

 
Last edited:

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
12,410
3
12,731
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
At the 6th Majles (Parliament) election in the year 2000, Hashemi Rafsanjani was heading a list which also included Hassan Rohani, Mohsen Rezai, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani assembled this list to defeat the reformist one, supported by then president Mohammad Khatami (at that time, moderates and reformists used to be at loggerheads, before joining forces in 2009, when Rafsanjani put his weight behind Mousavi). Rafsanjani's list was resoundingly defeated, he himself came out thirtieth (which led reformists to deride him by calling him "Āghā si" or "Mister Thirty"). Rafsanjani claimed there was fraud, meaning that he accused the Ministry of the Interior of the reformist Khatami administration, which was organizing the election, of having cheated.

Rafsanjani himself then participated in the 2005 presidential election, where he and Ahmadinejad made it to the second round. Reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi cried foul, labeled the election fraudulent and addressed a letter of protest to the Supreme Leader. Again, it was Khatami's Ministry of the Interior which was organizing the vote. In the second round, Ahmadinejad won... according to Rafsanjani fraud had taken place.

In 2009, Rafsanjani supported Mir-Hossein Mousavi's reformist candidacy at the presidential election. Mousavi received 13 million votes vs Ahmadinejad's 24 million. Rafsanjani declared that the vote was rigged.

In 2013, Rafsanjani's candidate of choice for the presidency, Rohani, is directly elected in the first round. Rafsanjani: Iran just held its "healthiest" election ever!

Motto of the liberals: either our way or the highway!

wonder how you categorize somebody like Khatami
 

zartosht

FULL MEMBER
Jun 4, 2017
1,212
-1
3,242
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
I just hope that liberals succeed in it, even if it is done with the help of West.

Reason is simple, the conservatives are shameless religious Dictators.


If majority of Iranian people decide for liberal Iran, free of religious fanaticism, then these conservatives don't allow it and deem it Halal for them to use every illegal mean to usurp the right of Iranian people, and to impose their religious madness with power.
"religion is the only thing that prevents the poor from killing the rich" -Napolean

idiots like you are exactly what western propaganda relies on.

every state needs a strong religion/religous values if it wants to succeeed. even the most drunk/ and morally corrupt kings in history have always made sure to keep their people religious, and the clergy strong.

if you dont do this, then enemies will exploit that power against you .

even if you hate religion and believe in nothing. you would have to be a braindead idiot to want Iran to abandon such a powerful element that plays such a huge role in national security and preserving Iran. modern day Iran was founded by a religious shia movement that gave Iran a seperate identity and finally distinguished it from its neighbours post islam.

you really want cancerous western liberalism to infect Iran? you want half of iranians born to single moms? no dads? radical feminism and all the other trash??? you want Iran to become at best a globalist province answering to their king of kings in washington? at worse an absolute torn apart failed state never able to threaten western/zionist interests? this is exactly what your western 'saviours' want for Iran.

and i guarantee you, your coward traitor kind will not succeed. Iranians have way too much pride and self respect to become slaves for the american/zionist world order.
 

Lehrasap

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Oct 1, 2020
38
-1
33
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Germany
every state needs a strong religion/religous values if it wants to succeeed. even the most drunk/ and morally corrupt kings in history have always made sure to keep their people religious, and the clergy strong.
I strongly disagree with this claim.
Western societies believe in humanity and democracy and secularism, and they made such a huge progress upon these values that millions of Muslims want to leaver their Islamic countries and migrate to the western countries.


if you dont do this, then enemies will exploit that power against you .
None was able to exploit it in case of Western Democracies, while their democratic and humanity based secular system made them so much stronger from "inside", that no outside power was able to exploit them.
But the vice-versa is not true, and all the dictatorships (either they are religious dictatorships or communist dictatorships) they are not strong enough from inside, and thus always at risk that outsiders will exploit it against them.

even if you hate religion and believe in nothing. you would have to be a braindead idiot to want Iran to abandon such a powerful element that plays such a huge role in national security and preserving Iran. modern day Iran was founded by a religious shia movement that gave Iran a seperate identity and finally distinguished it from its neighbours post islam.

The most powerful element of religion is it's destruction. Thus, all religions bring destruction along with them. Some less, some more.

Religion works on the bases of ALL or NONE. It needs Dictatorship in order to work. It is a polarizing force only.

While only Secular values are the one, who have the ability to "unite" all the people.

you really want cancerous western liberalism to infect Iran? you want half of iranians born to single moms? no dads? radical feminism and all the other trash???
Wrong allegations.

Western judicial system ensures it that father and mother take part in upbringing of the child, even if they have been divorced. Even if father does not want to take part in the upbringing, still he has to pay for the child expenses.

And psychologists agree that single parent is completely able to do proper upbringing of a child and to make him/her a useful member of the society.

It is better to have divorce as compared to the one sided Islamic system where woman had to constantly live under the black-mailing of the husbands, while Islamic society made women helpless that they could not even support themselves at their own.

Whenever woman will become financially stronger even in Islamic countries, the rate of Divorce will go up. Like we have above 60% divorce rate in Kuwait and UAE while women are rich and able to support themselves without their husbands.

As compared to these rich islamic countries, we have Vietnam (an atheist countries) who had the least divorce rate in whole world, while people were poor their and they needed families in order to survive.


you want Iran to become at best a globalist province answering to their king of kings in washington? at worse an absolute torn apart failed state never able to threaten western/zionist interests? this is exactly what your western 'saviours' want for Iran.
False.
True democracy and secularism will make Iran only stronger.
We could look at Japan and Germany, who both made a lot of success (even without oil) after becoming true democracies and after introducing true secular system. They fear no one from outside to exploit their system.
 

Naram_Sin

FULL MEMBER
Jan 4, 2020
153
0
309
Country
Iraq
Location
Iraq
I see that the secularism disease has already infected some in Iran.

Western secularism is one of the many social disorders propagated by western outlets, mainly as a soft power weapon, often touted as superior form of society, one of it's most claimed benefits is 'unifying people'.

Though this claim is so easily debunked, it remains a fairly common rhetoric, truth of the matter is, most of humanity aren't rational in their judgment, always preferring the 'taste' of what is being said rather than whether it is actually correct or useful.

The fact is, you cannot mix oil and water under normal circumstances, just like how a lamp-light cannot be 'on' and 'off' in the same instance, it's a binary value, either one or zero it can't be one and zero.

You cannot have a street with a mosque, while at the same time have that same street without a mosque, it's either one or the other, you cannot have hijab wearing muslim women in your society while having laws that forbid hijab in schools and the work place... You simply can't.

But foreign propagandists and their useful local fools would have you believe otherwise, that somehow you can ban polygamy, hijab, promote homosexuality, adultery in a 'secular' society and still call it a 'unifying', 'free' society that brings people together.

You can't live a Muslim life in France, hijab and polygamy are illegal as are many of the rules and laws of the koran, same goes for the US or indeed any other western style society.

An Iranian faithful cannot live as a Muslim in a western style secular state, why should he be forced to give up his way of life so that another can have his ?

From the point of view of an Iranian dedicated muslim, secularism is poison, and from a purely objective point of view, religion binds the different ethnicities of Iran together in a common identity, should the glue be removed with no proper alternative, the structure will fall...

As it happened in Iraq.

As it happened in Lebanon.

As it happened in Syria.

Iran is no different.
 

Malik Alashter

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 17, 2012
4,362
-1
4,690
Country
Iraq
Location
United States
The most powerful element of religion is it's destruction. Thus, all religions bring destruction along with them. Some less, some more.
Good, so do you think western society religious or not?
Whenever woman will become financially stronger even in Islamic countries, the rate of Divorce will go up. Like we have above 60% divorce rate in Kuwait and UAE while women are rich and able to support themselves without their husbands.
And you think thats good having 60% divorce rate?
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
690
2
1,459
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
I see that the secularism disease has already infected some in Iran.
It's far from representing a new phenomenon though - nor is it characteristic of Iran in particular, as you correctly observed. The difference is that Iran got rid of the secularist and liberal poison, as opposed to other nations affected. Modern western-inspired secularist ideology in Iran is at least as old as the infiltration of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution by British-linked freemasons, followed by the heavily influential masonic presence within the regimes of Reza Khan Pahlavi and Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi. The monarchy was finally overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution, after which Imam Khomeini ordered a complete ban on freemasonry and their lodges, while secularism was abolished for good.

In other words, like everywhere in the developing world, there's a tradition of westernization among certain segments of Iranian society. These segments view the west as their role model and have little belief in their own nation's traditions, culture and civilization. Some of them would even invite western imperialist aggressors to bomb their homeland in order to overthrow an independent, traditionalist government such as the Islamic Republic.

A caricatural example being the Reza Shah-era politician Hassan Taghizadeh, an adept of western so-called "Enlightenment", who openly and explicitly advocated a full fledged cultural westernization of Iranians, including and especially in their outer appearance (clothing etc), as well as an abandonment of national traditions as the only way to achieve so-called "progress" and "modernization".

Numerous activists and authors however reacted to and denounced this line of thought, from Jalal Ale Ahmad (whose publication by the name of "Westoxification" / "Gharbzadegi" is considered as an influential classic, even if some historians point to Ale Ahmad's paradoxical early sympathies for zionism) to Ali Shariati, shahid Morteza Motahari, Imam Ruhollah Khomeini or more recently the late ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi.

Thank God the Islamic Republic removed from power these adepts of alien western modernity.

From the point of view of an Iranian dedicated muslim, secularism is poison, and from a purely objective point of view, religion binds the different ethnicities of Iran together in a common identity, should the glue be removed with no proper alternative, the structure will fall...

As it happened in Iraq.

As it happened in Lebanon.

As it happened in Syria.

Iran is no different.
Indeed, and it is quite ironic how westernized Iranian proponents of secularism, who wish to see the Islamic Republic overthrown, are oblivious to plain historic reality, which decisively conflicts with their claims about secularism making a government immune to outside influence...

It is enough to consider the ousted shah regime, which used to be a secularist one. Nonetheless, that regime was a textbook US vassal. Zionist, Haifan Bahai and freemason networks loyal to foreign entities and powers were exerting wide control over the state apparatus, over the economy, over the media, over culture and society. Iran had practically been deprived of her sovereignty. In no way was the secularist nature of the shah's rule shielding Iran from infiltration by outside powers, quite on the contrary.

Then, we have the examples which you cited: was Gaddafi's Libya not secular? Saddam's Iraq? Even president Assad's Syria? What happened to these countries, as compared to the Islamic Republic of Iran? Not only did the former prove much more vulnerable to the hostile machinations and interventions of imperial powers, but they have been de facto divided into separate "ethno"-confessional entities. Islamic Iran on the other hand, while being theocratic and non-secular, is still standing strong after 40+ years of staunch Resistance against these same imperialist powers.

Now advocates of western-type secular "democracy" will argue that Libya, Iraq and Syria might have been secular states but they were not democratic ones. Well, the example of Lebanon instantly annuls this objection. So does the case of the democratically elected administration of Dr. Mohammad Mosadegh in Iran: after few of months only, it was overthrown in August of 1953 by a CIA-sponsored military coup for daring to stand up to Anlo-Saxon imperial powers, given that it had nationalized the Iranian oil industry. It is with such ease that the US regime got rid of a government in Iran which was both secular and democratic in every sense of the term.

- - - - - - - - - -

Western societies believe in humanity and democracy and secularism, and they made such a huge progress upon these values that millions of Muslims want to leaver their Islamic countries and migrate to the western countries.
These emigrants are mainly motivated by economic rather than ideological considerations. And one of the main reasons why they migrate, is because the western-dominated global order is sucking dry the resources of their native countries. Imperialist exploitation of the global south, endless wars and millions of dead is what material wealth accumulation in the west has been based upon.

None was able to exploit it in case of Western Democracies, while their democratic and humanity based secular system made them so much stronger from "inside", that no outside power was able to exploit them.
Their conventional power and their material prosperity, which translate into more efficient security services and more stringent social control (be it through non-coercive means such as social engineering, propaganda, etc), are the causes behind the apparent resilience of western so-called "democracies". It has nothing much to do with their secularist or liberal nature.

On the contrary, a non-secular and non-liberal democracy such as the Islamic Republic of Iran has managed to fend off 42 years of uninterrupted imperial onslaught in spite of its comparatively extremely limited resources. It is therefore the popular and theocratic nature of Iran's current political system which acts as a key factor in ensuring the Iranian nation's safety from predatory outside influence.

Also, as indicated above, the examples of Lebanon, and of Iran in the early 1950's, when a US-orchestrated coup ended the secularist and democratic government of Dr. Mosadegh, provide ample evidence against the idea that secular liberalism strengthens a country against foreign intervention.

But even more significantly, western liberal and secularist regimes themselves are far from being exempt from influence and exploitation at the hands of the main hegemonic powers to be. As a matter of fact, US allies including western ones are vassal states to Washington and lack actual independence and national sovereignty. In a country such as Germany, the US regime's NSA intelligence agency is happily spying on chancellor Merkel's phone calls and there's nothing Berlin can do about it, even when the affair is made public.

Moreover, EU member states are subjected to the supranational authority of Brussels, another impediment to their sovereignty. Last but not least, all western nations governed by secular liberal systems, are being exploited by globalist oligarchs, by international zionism and by multinational corporations such as the agro-industrial and pharmaceutical industries (which, in complete impunity, are poisoning their populations with toxins).

So nothing could be further from the truth than the contention that secular liberal regimes provide increased guarantees against influence and profiteering schemes of foreign powers.

The most powerful element of religion is it's destruction. Thus, all religions bring destruction along with them. Some less, some more.
The greatest butchery in human history, WW2, was brought about by secular regimes.

Religion works on the bases of ALL or NONE. It needs Dictatorship in order to work. It is a polarizing force only.

While only Secular values are the one, who have the ability to "unite" all the people.
One of the biggest political scams of (post-)modernity is the hollow pretense by secular liberal regimes that western-style "democracy" is ideologically or axiologically neutral.

This is completely untrue, as these regimes are relentlessly pursuing ideologically-defined political goals, and even messianic, esoteric and metaphysical ones. Moreover, they are seeking to impose these designs on the entirety of mankind. Western so-called "democracies", in concert with powerful corporate mafias which nobody ever elected, are constantly and consistently acting to mold society in a targeted manner and according to precise long-term ideological agendas. These agendas are as far reaching as to include anthropological transformations of human nature (see transhumanism etc) - which is the very definition of totalitarianism.

The tools liberal so-called "democracies" resort to in this regard are massive propaganda, psy-ops and collective mental conditioning, as well as social engineering and systemic economic coercion.

As a matter of fact, every type of government seeks to channel its constituency into a given direction. The term "government" itself stems from the Old French "governement", which translates into "control, direction, administration". Significantly, the French word for rudder, i.e. "gouvernail", is of the same stem. Therefore liberal secular regimes of the west are no exception, in spite of their claims to the contrary. It's just that unlike other forms of governance, their goals are totalitarian in nature, and the means they employ to this effect are among the most perfidious, underhanded and deceitful ever witnessed in history.

Western judicial system ensures it that father and mother take part in upbringing of the child, even if they have been divorced. Even if father does not want to take part in the upbringing, still he has to pay for the child expenses.
Or two adoptive fathers / mothers... This is how crazy family law under western regimes has become.

Let's not forget the numerous children born out of wedlock in the west, whose fathers are actually unknown and therefore never meet their offspring.

And let's not even get into the cases of children de facto abducted from their homes by western regimes and placed under the custody of social institutions under the most flimsy pretexts. Institutions where sexual and other types of abuse against children aren't uncommon.

It's enough for parents to try and discourage their children from becoming homosexual, and the latter can forcibly be placed under the custody of state authorities. Or to protect one's children from the traumatizing effects of contemporary sexual education classes in public schools of the west, where kids as young as 10 are exposed to pornographic material among other things, as happened in Germany - the regime then threatened coercive administrative measures against parents who allowed their children not to partcipiate in these classes.

Here's Omid Dana interviewing Iranian mothers (and fathers) recounting nightmarish, kafkaesque experiences of how the Danish regime took away their chlidren:


And psychologists agree that single parent is completely able to do proper upbringing of a child and to make him/her a useful member of the society.

It is better to have divorce as compared to the one sided Islamic system where woman had to constantly live under the black-mailing of the husbands, while Islamic society made women helpless that they could not even support themselves at their own.

Whenever woman will become financially stronger even in Islamic countries, the rate of Divorce will go up. Like we have above 60% divorce rate in Kuwait and UAE while women are rich and able to support themselves without their husbands.
In fact, scientific findings show superior suicide rates in multiple European countries (France, Ireand, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and the whole of Eastern Europe), the US, as well as Japan, south Korea, India, Argentina and Chile (other secular and liberal so-called "democracies").



False.
True democracy and secularism will make Iran only stronger.
We could look at Japan and Germany, who both made a lot of success (even without oil) after becoming true democracies and after introducing true secular system. They fear no one from outside to exploit their system.
Neither Germany nor Japan are sovereign, independent nations. Both happen to be US vassals, and both regimes are at the service of overlords, namely international zionism and the global corporate-financial oligarchy.

Also, the historic and geopolitical contexts in which these two countries evolved, are very specific ones. In 1945 Washington decided to maintain Germany and Japan as relatively stable and economically prosperous vassals, in order to counter Soviet expansion, and because both Germany and Japan had had developed economies in the first place.

US policy towards nations of the south, and particularly West Asian and North African ones however is entirely different. For a glimpse of what the zio-American strategy towards these nations consists in, one only needs to look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia or Sudan: all countries and societies that have been wrecked, de facto balkanized, utterly destroyed at the hands of the US and its allies.
 
Last edited:

Jungibaaz

RETIRED MOD
Jul 4, 2010
7,846
101
16,138
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
This just in: “Western liberalism is a threat to Eastern society”, say expats living comfortably in the liberal West.
 

Iltutmish

FULL MEMBER
Dec 31, 2019
1,043
0
2,846
Country
Pakistan
Location
Germany
This just in: “Western liberalism is a threat to Eastern society”, say expats living comfortably in the liberal West.
Are you pro LGBTQ+ in the UK and against it when you are in Pakistan?

How many Western expats working in the Islamic world or in East Asia do you know adapting to the local culture? I know people working in Thailand for over a decade and not knowing the name of the current king of that country.

Values are not based on the location. As my daddy and granddaddy arrived in Europe many things normal today could be punished with prison time back in the 70ies and 80ies.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom