They most certainly are communists, furthermore, they were supporters of Saddam. They would be worse than even the Ayaytollahs.
Posted on 09/19/2005 7:46:51 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
I don't defend terrorists and I don't make false accusations. I'd appreciate it if you didn't either. Thanks. Mine are opinions based in corroborative evidence and FR is a great place to express them. Is the inherent freedom of FREE republic difficult for you? Maybe you can start your own forum under the title oppressed republic? His majesty F14 presiding… lol.
NEW YORK - Iranian Americans opposed to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday denounced his upcoming visit to the United Nations, citing the new leader's alleged ties to terrorist activities abroad and repressive policies at home.
"He's a terrorist and should not be allowed in this country. What kind of message is that giving for him to come here right after the September 11 anniversary," Shirin Nariman, spokeswoman for the NY Committee against Ahmadinejad (NYCA), said at a press briefing Tuesday...
You'll get my commentary whether I approve of your opinions or not. If you don't want my commentary, don't post your opinions. That's how this process works.
Shirin Nariman
Yup, that's her
Ditto
Funny how the media trys to de-value this demostration by mentioning they were paid. However, I have never seen the media mention JESSI JACKSON's PAID RENT-A-MOB, who seem to to show up en mass.
MEK = Methyl Ethyl Keytone
Strong stuff.
They most certainly are communists, furthermore, they were supporters of Saddam. They would be worse than even the Ayaytollahs.
reminds me of soviet union!
bad bad bad
Just damn
Another oft-repeated slur, the “Islamic-Marxist” label, invokes two among the worst bêtes noirs of Western liberal democracies: jihadis on a rampage and totalitarian communism from the Cold War. Iranian scholar, Afshin Matin- Asgari describes the term “Islamic Marxism’ as an “ingenious polemical label” used by the regime in the 1970s to describe its most ardent enemies, e.g., Islamist and Marxist guerrillas and student activists, as well as a minority of clerics and seminarians.37
In pointed contrast to this characterization stands a work of philosophical thought, developed by the MEK’s foremost leader in the post-Revolutionary period, Massoud Rajavi. He developed an ideological framework for the MEK. An Iranian scholar, Syracuse University professor Mehrzad Boroujerdi, points to Rajavi’s work as “perhaps the best example of the Mojahedin’s ideological contemporaneity,” which can be found in the pages of Tabiyn-e Jahan (“Comprehending the World”), the organization’s foremost work on ideology.
This book consists of a long series of lectures delivered in 1979 by Massoud Rajavi. Organized as a set of pedagogical lectures, Tabyin-e Jahan was intended to present the Mojahedin’s beliefs on the nature of human existence, history, and epistemology (Rajavi 1979, 1:11). The bulk of this three-volume book, however, is devoted to epistemology, as Rajavi presents a critique of the limitations of August Comte’s, Max Planck’s, and Kant’s positivism; William James’s pragmatism; Freudian psychoanalysis; Darwinian evolutionism; along with a host of other Western “isms” such as scholasticism, scientism, empiricism, and rationalism.
Rajavi saves his most extensive critical commentary for Marxist materialistic epistemology. The book’s chief target is the Russian biochemist Aleksander Ivanovich Oparin (1894-1980), whose materialistic theory on the origin of life, was first formulated in 1922. By subjecting the materialistic doctrines of Oparin and those of a host of other orthodox Marxist thinkers to a religious critique, the Mojahedin hoped to challenge the vigorous presence of Marxism within Iranian intellectual circles.
The Mojahedin remained skeptical of Marxism’s philosophical postulates and rejected the latter’s cardinal doctrine of historical materialism. They held firm to their beliefs in the existence of God, revelation, the afterlife, the spirit, expectation of the return of the 12th Imam, salvation, destiny, and the people’s commitment to these intangible principles.38
In short, the Mojahedin not only challenged the materialistic philosophy of Marxism but also distanced themselves from the traditional interpretation of religion by the Islamist clergy.
They also fought against the Shah for the KGB. They have American blood on their hands.
Central to assigning blame for the killing of American military and contractor personnel in Iran in the 1970s is an understanding of the many groups that formed in opposition to the Shah, their ideological platforms, and varying fortunes in the face of savage repression by the Shah’s notorious secret police, SAVAK.
Among the various groups sometimes identified by the U.S. and international press as “Islamic-Marxist guerrillas” or “anti-government terrorists” or simply “leftists” were the Fedayeen-e Khalq, the Tudeh, and the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK). These groups (not to mention their splinter factions) were distinct and different in their ideology, membership, and modus operandi. But neither the Shah’s state-run media nor American reporters, nor even U.S. government officials, seemed able to distinguish among them when reporting on events such as the killing of the Americans, or the takeover of the American Embassy.
We should have supported the "savage" Shah and helped him crush these jihadists. Instead the fool Jimmy Carter insured the rise of Islamofascism.
Thank you for the flag pic!
The only group in this list [Fedayeen-e Khalq, the Tudeh, Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK)] that subscribes to religion/Islam is the MEK. The Tudeh and the Fedayeen are/were communist groups. The MEK’s take on Islam was and is diametrically opposed to contemporary groups typically referred to as "Jihadists". If you’re interested, there is a significant amount of work done by a professor by the name of Ali Shariati who was critical of Marxism/Monarchy/The West/Imams and many of the MEK's original flock subscribed to his progressive views. In an effort to rid his kingdom of dissenting rhetoric, the Shah imprisoned Shariati on several occasions. The Shah wasn’t fighting “jihadists” back then, in fact he was working closely with some of the more main stream clerics. Khomeini was basically a nobody until the Shah banished him for some of his anti-progressive dissenting views. The last Shah of Iran brought the revolution on himself…
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.