Sagg-e Zard

There are strong feelings ingrained that I often have to harness when a former supporter of Khomeini or a "communist" (Tudehi) insists that the current situation in Iran is not only better, it is much better than before the Islamic repulsive revolution. Logic seems to defy what the former revolutionaries so strongly believe, they seem to want to justify their actions by making the Islamic Repulsive Regime the lesser of the evil compared to the Shah's regime. Or perhaps they do not want to let go of the past.



I do not want to become a defender of the previous regime, because I was very young when it was toppled, but it seems very clear that economically, socially, legally, morally, politically, internationally Iran has been in a constant decline since 1979. In addition there have been over a million and a half (perhaps two million) killed in war, by execution and death squads, the Islamic regimes brutal force has violated every Iranian family. Drug addiction is past epidemic and a tool by the Ayatollahs to pacify and tranquilize the masses. Draconian laws and arbitrary rules regulate every part of the peoples’ daily lives.

Is there any comparison? As a friend reminded me of the expression: "Looti be in sadegi nemibazeh" (translation: Wise-guys are incapable of accepting to have lost the game). I have pity but do not hate for the former revolutionaries who were so miserably fooled and mistaken. I will never agree with them on the notion that the revolution was hijacked, that its purpose was different than its results. Their legacy and that of the Islamic revolution is clear. Their irresponsible actions and slogans were made deliriously because of shortcomings in circumstances. A few I have engaged in discussions with have one ultimate answer: their actions in the late Seventies and early days of the revolution were "the biggest mistakes" they made in their lives. But some bitterly and militantly hold on to their dark past that it is impossible for them to utter a word coherently. And of course there is the ones who are just using the situation to their advantage for money or power, the morally questionable, those who turned and would turn in their brothers and sisters to the executioners. I wonder why some of these Tudehis or devout Mohammedans have chosen Western countries as their homes living and thriving for the ultimate Western lifestyles.



I want to know who is the antagonist if one ends up living and acting so contradictory to ones dearest beliefs?

Today on the radio (NPR) the news announcer said in regards to the arrest of a Cuban terrorist in the USA: "A controversial anti-Castro activist is now in custody in Miami"
It was referring to Luis Posada Carilles who blew up a Cuban passenger plane with around seventy civilians, and was also involved in bombing several hotels in Cuba which killed tourists. I agree, Fidel Castro is an oppressor and a dictator but the fellow who blew up an airliner should be referred to and treated like a terrorist rather than a controversial anti-Castro activist. If a Middle Eastern man sneezes he is called a terrorist.

What is the difference between belief and conviction? There are too many people who believe in smooth operator charlatans: Khomeini, Hitler, Mohammad, Jesus..... it takes a lot of skills to turn a lot of people into believers. If you continue brainstorming one person over and over with certain lies then you make a believer. When you fool a lot of people into believing you then the believers have a conviction. I think conviction requires a support group of like-minded people.

If everything has a beginning and an end then nothing is random.
What I know has a limit therefore everything I know has an order.