![[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index](http://www.activistchat.com/images/ActivistChatStandsLogo.jpg) |
[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well folks, I just managed to con my old dinosaur of a computer into actually playing video off windows media player...no small feat this...
But I'm happy to report that the first streeming video I watched was of the AEI conference all this hubbub is about....and I have to say folks should probably go to AEI's site and watch the video feed for themselves.
You should be able to find it here:
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.foreign/eventvideo_list.asp
A rather sad affair that almost ended in a riot....as Ledeen was ill prepared to deal with his audience's animosity for some of the panalists....my impression was the only one's that really had their act together was the lady from the Lor tribe, and the fellow representing the Kurds..as well as the old fellow from the Baluch tribe, who was really the only one that truly spoke from his heart, without a prepared script..otherwise it was pure venting of dogma and spin.
Even from the audience....
The common denominator was no one outright claimed themselves to be separist....and a lot was made of the regime's efforts to make them out to be such. As well as the Azerbajian self proclaimed representitive accusing expat. Iranian opposition groups of supporting the regime by calling them separatists.
I've seen better arguments in my highschool debate class decades ago.
No solutions were offered, though the lady from the Lor tribe did emphasise that unity was essential. And the old Baluch did make a good case for an inclusive future free Iran.
I think if unity was Ledeen's intent....he utterly failed to acheive it, nor did it serve to really educate anyone except to show concrete evidence that unity was a very distant prospect.
That's why security was getting involved towards the end of the Q&A period.
One big finger-pointing excercise was all this was about as it unfolded. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
espandyar
![](http://marzeporgohar.org/images/mpgarm.gif)
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 Posts: 236
|
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I think if unity was Ledeen's intent....he utterly failed to acheive it, nor did it serve to really educate anyone except to show concrete evidence that unity was a very distant prospect | .
Wrong, If his intentions were unity he would have stopped once facing the strong opposition! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
I think if unity was Ledeen's intent....he utterly failed to acheive it, nor did it serve to really educate anyone except to show concrete evidence that unity was a very distant prospect
.
espandyar; You replied:
"Wrong, If his intentions were unity he would have stopped once facing the strong opposition!"
A question:
Did you watch the video transcript?
Bowing to pressure and cancelling the discussion panel would have not created unity, but simply prevented people from speaking their mind.
I still believe in freedom of speech, and regardless if these people anger you...they do have that right to express themselves.
Just as you have the right to protest, so do they have the right to have their 10 minutes to describe their situation, as they see it.
The problem as I see it with this conference is that there really was no discussion, folks dwelled on the past rather than offering solutions toward the future.
And as well, if you watch the video, you'll totally understand why I've been banging away at the issue of "inclusiveness".
The opposition is stuck on personalities rather than process.
I would agree with folks that objected to the lack of inclusiveness, and the divisive comments of one of the panelists...there was valid reason to do so.
But at the same time one has to allow folks to make their mistakes and learn from them....Ledeen included.
To deny folks the opportunity to speak is not a valid premis for protest however....and this is what you seem to have implied in saying I was "wrong", and that this discussion should have been cancelled.
So if the panelists were expressing wrong thinking from various opposition group's point of view, it is all well and good to express this, and illuminate what is correct thinking, without denying them the opportunity to speak....or trying to.
So now that they have....you are free to pick that thinking apart if you believe they have "hung themselves with their own words".
My thought at this point is that in some ways no one in the opposition opposed to this discussion and those controversial panelists has approached this with a correct principalled attitude, as manifest in an attempt to deny others the opportunity to speak.
Nor did anyone take my sound advice on the matter...not AEI, nor those groups protesting. To deal with what is said, rather than to pre-empt what might be said on the part of those opposed to this, and to (on AEI's part) to be more inclusive in the discussion, if it to be regarded as a balanced panel.
Makes me really wonder if my efforts to create a broad-based discussion among opposition groups and the US gov would simply result in another finger-pointing excercise in futility.
But, I strive to remain an optimist, that this will not be the case. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
espandyar
![](http://marzeporgohar.org/images/mpgarm.gif)
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 Posts: 236
|
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oppenheimer wrote: | Quote:
I think if unity was Ledeen's intent....he utterly failed to acheive it, nor did it serve to really educate anyone except to show concrete evidence that unity was a very distant prospect
.
espandyar; You replied:
"Wrong, If his intentions were unity he would have stopped once facing the strong opposition!"
A question:
Did you watch the video transcript?
Bowing to pressure and cancelling the discussion panel would have not created unity, but simply prevented people from speaking their mind.
I still believe in freedom of speech, and regardless if these people anger you...they do have that right to express themselves.
Just as you have the right to protest, so do they have the right to have their 10 minutes to describe their situation, as they see it.
The problem as I see it with this conference is that there really was no discussion, folks dwelled on the past rather than offering solutions toward the future.
And as well, if you watch the video, you'll totally understand why I've been banging away at the issue of "inclusiveness".
The opposition is stuck on personalities rather than process.
I would agree with folks that objected to the lack of inclusiveness, and the divisive comments of one of the panelists...there was valid reason to do so.
But at the same time one has to allow folks to make their mistakes and learn from them....Ledeen included.
To deny folks the opportunity to speak is not a valid premis for protest however....and this is what you seem to have implied in saying I was "wrong", and that this discussion should have been cancelled.
So if the panelists were expressing wrong thinking from various oppsition group's point of view, it is all well and good to express this, and illuminate that correct thinking, without denying them the opportunity to speak....or trying to.
So now that they have....you are free to pick that thinking apart if you believe they have "hung themselves with their own words".
My thought at this point is that in some ways no one in the opposition has approached this with a correct principalled attitude.
Nor did anyone take my sound advice on the matter...not AEI, nor those groups protesting.
Makes me really wonder if my efforts to create a broad-based discussion among opposition groups and the US gov would simply result in another finger-pointing excercise in futility.
But, I strive to remain an optimist, that this will not be the case. |
What you say would seem very logical and well put at the first glans.
However, What you seem to forget is that Iran is occupied by the Mullahs and Iranian need all their energy to fight the invadors.
By having Ledeen giving the seperatist a plattform is an event with a very high price. Where the attention is taken away from the IR at the same time that misstrust will appear among Iranian groups toward the active Amercians. Ledeen were seen as a friends among many groups until he slowly started to make u-turn which eventually resulted in a total misstrust.
In addition if Mr.Ledeen had good intention he would invite real representative of Iranians and he didnt have to cancel it but instead change the panelist.
My personal view is that if Ledeen decide to interfere with Iranian affair by promoting ( giving them the time) for their baseless demands he should be held responsible for such action.
Ledeen has been active for along time and he knows that neither the Iranians nor him has the time for a failure as there is no time for recovery!
I strongly doubt that his intetions were good and he paid the price! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
espandyar,
Before we continue this please answer my question....seems you may be incorrectly generalizing the intent of all the panelists, and Ledeen as well....and there's reason I would stand by my remarks you quoted.
A question:
Did you watch the video transcript?
"However, What you seem to forget is that Iran is occupied by the Mullahs and Iranian need all their energy to fight the invadors."
Another false assumption.....since this is a "given" regarding my banging away at "inclusiveness" , it is a totally false statement about me personally.
"By having Ledeen giving the seperatist a plattform is an event with a very high price."
He did not give "separatism" a platform.....watch the video.
Whether some panelists you have objected to are "closet separatists" or not....the fact remains that every one of them disavowed that concept...publicly.
"In addition if Mr.Ledeen had good intention he would invite real representative of Iranians and he didnt have to cancel it but instead change the panelist."
Right, and in doing so would he not have then been denying panelists the right to speak after having invited them to do so?
Think about it.... How would it be if you had been invited, and someone objected to your presence...then you were told you couldn't participate because some other groups objected?
Far better I think to let them have had their say....For AEI to have done otherwise would have put their credibility in total question.
Now whether having done so has damaged their credibility or not is a matter of opinion...
So watch the video, and then we can discuss this further...because at this point I don't think you have bothered to. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
blank
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 1672
|
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
“The Unknown Iran” Apparently Remains Elusive After AEI’s Much Touted Conference
Source: Marze Por Gohar Party
Date 27-10-2005
http://www.marzeporgohar.org/index.php?action=news&n_id=25926&l=1
Who was there?
Media: VOA, RangarangTV, Taghi Mokhtar, USI News, RTVI Russian TV, LeaderTV Azrbaijani TV, Eli Lake from the NY Sun among others.
Usual suspects: Dr. Ganji, Mr. Beigi, Mr. Batmanghlich, Trita Parsi (who cordially shook hands with Eli Lake).
Dr. Bill Royce as well as several other distinguished figures were present as well.
Dr. Ledeen’s opening remarks described the idea behind this conference as “out of concern for my own ignorance” on the issue of ethnic minorities in Iran, stressed the strong sense of nationalism within the Iranian community and quipped that: “the AEI is not the US government” and that “separatism for Iran is not the policy of AEI or the US government towards Iran.” He then invited Mandana Zad-Ervin, founder and president of the Alliance of Iranian Women to speak.
She said in her opening remarks read from a prepared statement that she is representing the Zandieh tribe, one of the several nomadic tribes that are collectively called the Lurs, and that the Lurs were descendents of the Medes. She made historical references to Cyrus the great starting the first “nationhood” (an infrequently used term describing a federation or tribe and or the territory occupied by such federation), the Turk invaders, and Azerbaijan as the capital of the Saljugids dynasty. She went on to equate Khouzestan with Elam, Kurds as Indo-Europeans and Iran as the land of Indo-Europeans. She said the Mullahs had concocted the separatists and that Iran was indivisible sounding somewhat rehearsed and unsettled.
Mr. Ledeen as a segue to the Kurdish speaker stated: “the US is obliged to fight for the plight of Kurds” and introduced Dr. Morteza Esfandiary of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdestan. Mr. Esfandiary described his party as irreversibly attached to seeking peaceful and non-violent means to pursue dialogue. “PDKI was established in Mahabad in 1946 and since December 17 , 1946 the Kurds have been the victims of Iranian State terrorism,” he continued. He said the PDKI seeks to secure the Kurds’ “inalienable rights for self determination based on national ethnicity” and to “establish relations with other countries.” He continued stumbling as he read through his prepared statement, “Iran is a multi-national country” and Iranian unity has been “at the expense of other nationalities” and that “Kurdish demands for regional autonomy have in the past met with repression and continue to do so today.” He concluded his rather polished delivery by touching on the plight of younger Kurdish farmers and the lack of adequate system of distribution which ultimately leads to their inability to compete in the domestic markets and the Kurdish children’s struggle with language issues in schools.
Amanollah Khan Riggi, the chief of a Baluchi tribe took the podium next and opened his remarks by stating that he has been working closely with the Alliance for Democracy of Iran in an effort for unity after the fall of the I.R regime. He believes this diverse nation could not be called ethnic, but the people of Iran want nothing more than separation of church and state. The former mayor of Abadan, while occasionally referring to his notes, seemed to be speaking independent of previously arranged text. He talked about the patriotism of Khouzestani people and how the Kurds understand Balouchis and that their languages are 60% the same. He concluded his segment by stressing “the unity of Iran now and after the fall of the despotic regime.”
Next came Rahim Shahbazi, claiming to be representing the Azerbaijani Societies of North America. He opened his remarks by stating that he was “born in Tabriz, a city with over 7,000 years of history, capital of Turks since 5,000 B.C., now know as Iran. Today, Tabriz is the capital of South Azerbaijan” which prompted jeers. He continued to speak of traumas suffered by ethnic groups of Iran, trembling slightly. He used as a case in point the story of a six year old who was punished because he did not speak Farsi in school and labeled that: “systematic cultural genocide” and later as “ethnic cleansing.” He was visibly shaken after more jeers from the crowd which silenced a couple of his enthusiastic supporters, clapping loudly at twice as he stubbornly tried to finish his fragmented delivery of his prepared sermon and remorselessly continued his dogged pursuit of his particular brand of ethnic identity versus an Iranian national union.
Professor Ali AlTai of Shaw University took to the podium next with: “…in the name of Allah the merciful, praise be upon his...” etc. He started with a brief lecture of Arab history, extending 5,000 year and beyond and urged everyone to view his remarks as “intellectual discourse and not political challenge to anyone” after sharing his personal moment of clarity about nationalism and nationality with the audience. He disputed the CIA’s fact book’s figures on the percentage of Arabic speakers amongst Iranians. He continued to lecture the audience that they are all immigrants to the land they inherited from the Elamites. He claimed that the Shah’s SAVAK denied him his degree from the Tehran University, mocking “Iran was an Island of stability.” He continued by reviewing the British division of the region in 1924 and claimed the Arabs have been subjected to what he called “Persianization” since 1925. He also took a jab at VOA, claiming that Voice Of America had spun his words on an issue no one seemed to recognize. He concluded his segment by claiming to be “loyal to Iran and its integrity and unity of totality.” “Iran is a combination of multiple nationalities and pluralism or some kind of federalism is best for Iran.” He said that “the Ahwazi Arabs are not secessionist.”
Mr. Ledeen opened the Q and A session by joking about how everyone claims to be from the oldest families on the planet. But the Q and A session did not yield much worth mentioning other than Eli Lake’s repeated attempts at trying to get Morteza Esfandiari, the Kurdish representative to reveal any existing or planned attempts by the Irani Kurds to receive aid from the Iraqi Kurds in an attempt to start a revolt, to which Mr. Esfandiari answered: “we have good relations with the Iraqi Kurds, but our issues are separate from theirs.”
Someone asked Rahim Shahbazi if he could state the date and the time when the elections were held which led to his – Shahbazi’s – election as representative of Azaris in Iran? He replied: “No one elected me. All Azaris in Iran are in jail.”
Bearing in mind that the panel has been hand picked by Dr. Ledeen himself and having heard what specifically the Azarbaijani, the Kurd and the Arab panelists had to say, Michael Ledeen demonstrated beyond any doubt that he is right: indeed he was and continues to be ignorant of the issues regarding the diverse composite that is Iran.
On the eve of this conference, more than 900 people have signed an online petition urging the AEI, as a token of respect for Iranians and to help clarify its position that it does not seek to instigate or promote secession in Iran, by only having the Iran Lion and Sun flag on display as the only Iranian flag present at the conference cited above.
Ebi Zaman Washington DC. Reporter for MPG Party. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: Insulting Iranians |
|
|
Dear Mr. President
On July 20, 2006, a briefing on the future of democracy was held at the White House.
Among the distinguished panelists a despicable character by the name of Rahim Shahbazi was also in attendance.
This individual is not only an Azari (Iranian Turk) separatist but also a racist hate monger who addresses Persians by vulgar profanity.
Errors of this nature certainly damages the American good will and intentions as an individual who denies being an Iranian (and is insulting his compatriots) is invited as a participant on the future of democracy for our homeland.
For background information on Shahbazi please note the following links:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/browse_thread/thread/9a1e863e8f328a9c/73cffc274db93de6?lnk=st&q=Rahim+Shahbazi+****+persian&rnum=3
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/49f0e75d28ce0dc2
For the future please note that Inviting separatists to a round table discussion about the future of Iran, will only create division among Iranian opposition. The most important factor for a patriot is his/her
Iranian nationality that comes before ethnicity, religion, color or creed. Any discussions of jeopardizing Iranian territorial integrity will divide the Iranian opposition and cause the Iranians inside the country to rally behind the Mullahs.
Your attention and cooperation regarding this sensitive issue among Iranians is much appreciated.
Sincerely Yours,
Ramin Etebar, M.D.
_____________________________________________________
Letter to Mr. Burns and Mr. Abrams by Professor Manouchehr Ganji
former Iranian Minister of Education:
The Honorable Nicholas Burns
Under Secretary, Political Affairs
US Dept OF State
The Honorable Elliott Abrams
National Security Advisor
White House
Dear Sirs
I want to congratulate both of you for having invited a group of my compatriots to participate in a gathering of pro-democracy activity at the White House on July 20, 2006. The hope by both of you expressed at the meeting for the people of iran to achieve their goal of democratic Iran is heartwarming.
The only suggestion I wish to make for the success of your future endeavor in this respect is to better study. The background and credibility of those you are inviting. For instance Mr. Rahim Shahbazi, one of your participants, by looking at his background on the web, I really wonder whether he should have been invited.
How do you think Iranians are going to view such gestures by the White House and the U.S. Government to the people like him.
Do you really understand the meaning of “……”,”…….” and “…….” (Farsi profanities were deleted by RE) the language used by him which appears on the web under his name. Of course you did not. On the web he uses such profanity against the Persians as “Persian Aryan Punks” ,”Persian Jackass” , “Fu..ing Persian Language”.
Mr. Michael Ledeen knows all of this. I brought it to his attention eight months ago.
For the future I think both of you have to be more careful about who you are inviting to the White House meetings.
Remember, we Iranians have sensitivities too.
Please accept the assurances of my highest considerations.
Sincerely Yours,
Manouchehr Ganji |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|