BLOOD THIRSTY HYENAS OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

A Better World Is Possible
By Punkerslut


It regards reality as the sole enemy and as the source of all suffering, with which it is impossible to live, so that one must break off all relations with it if one is to be in any way happy. The hermit turns his back on the world and will have no truck with it. But one can do more than that; one can try to recreate the world, to build up in its stead another world in which its most unbearable features are eliminated and replaced by others that are in conformity with one's own wishes.
-- Sigmund Freud"Civilization and Its Discontents," by Sigmund Freud, chapter 2
If a generation that cherished love and affectionately adored honesty were to create two gods, they would be pessimism and optimism. The first gave them the sight and vision to realize what is wrong, without holding steadfast to prejudice and bigotry. The second gave them the strength and endurance to create a better world, even if it started and ended with one changed soul. The bible of this generation, the religious text and scripture which they would refer to in their daily lives, would consist of dialogue between these two gods. Pessimism always seemed to represent apathy, a sense of deadness accompanied by lost dreams. But, then again, it was the agitator, the creator, the mover. Optimism would always seem to represent activity and growth, a sense of life and a desire to do something about it, as well as ecstacy and pleasure. This generation of lovers and thinkers would worship these gods through acts of kindness, mercy, and love. The names they would give their children would have hidden meanings, like "romantic poet" .
If a good person were to try to live up to the expectation of change and growth with the bold honesty to look forward, he ould be a cynic as much as an optimist. His sacred scripture would simply be: "A Better World Is Possible."
When we look upon our own society, examine its ways and its manners, we discover a great deal that we wish to change. We see crime, we see poverty, we see drug addictions, murder, war, domestic abuse, child abuse, rape, theft, brutality, and abuse of every power. Those of the humane way have always believed that it was the goodness of men that brought them together for unity and strength. Today, we stand on the corpse of modern life. It may have been the social instinct which has brought us together and has formed our families, our towns, our cities, and our nations, but there is so much more to it than that. Cities have become the hives of vice and misery, the perfect strangers to loneliness. Our modern poets and romantics stand before this marvel of life, and are speechless.
When we think of pain and suffering, what do you think it is that is the most ominous source of suffering? There is no doubt that it is from some relationship within society, or at least within human civilization. Perhaps it is the unjust social relationship between men and women, resulting in sexism and domestic abuse? Perhaps it is the unjust relationship that exists between nations, resulting in economic embargos and wars? Maybe it is the relationship between citizens, involving crime and theft, or the relationship between employer and employee, resulting in poverty and misery? Whatever it is that is the greatest cause of suffering in the world, there are some things that must be considered. First, we are analyzing the relationships that exist between each other to discover the roots of this suffering. It is an internal problem. It is not a question of natural disasters and the fury that nature has wrought on mankind. No, it is a question of the way that we act among ourselves, the customs we forge and the rules we make. Second, as Freethinkers and those genuinely concerned with justice, when we analyze these relationships in society, we do so with the intent of creating a more free and more just system.
The essential difference today between an Anarchist and a Liberal is this: the Liberal wants to repair the damage done by the system, the Anarchist wants to repair the system. The first looks to poverty and creates welfare, completely leaving the economic system untouched. The latter wants to completely abolish any economic system that will lead to homelessness, poverty, or misery.
It was not uncommon or rare in our past for these social relationships to change, become altered, or become completely abolished. It was once tradition that men treat women like property, that wars between nations were glorious events, that poverty was god's naturally awarded condition for a certain class of people, that crime was simply second nature to each human, and therefore indefeatable. All of this was believed by the people, they took it in as unquestionable truths. Well, it was the liberating experience of any honest individual, to realize that every conscious organism simply wants to be free. From such a humble start, the progression of humane thought has come a long way. Citizens have collectively allocated women's rights, worker's rights, children's rights, citizen's rights, etc., etc., protecting the freedom, security, and happiness of those who have been oppressed for so long.
Do you think the happiness of the average person, from these prehistoric times to our current situation, has increased? I imagine that few would disagree with me. It was by altering and changing these relationships between the different groups that a better, more peaceful terms of living came about. So, when we decide to examine the social mores and relationships of our own era, and discover such large amounts of suffering, the only reasonable response to these situations is this: we must reorganize society, change the relationships, repair (or revolutionize) the system itself, before we will stop seeing the damage that it causes. What we would be doing would be a revolutionary activity, in that we would be altering our own world to attain our own ends, in the most radical way possible. It would also be the tradition of spirited independence to overthrow oppressors and cast off any chains or bondage they have given to the innocent.
Our questions must be twofold. 1) What are the relationships that are causing so much stress, misery, pain, and suffering on others? 2) What can we do to change them?
Crime. What causes it? Any educated person will give the same answer: the desire or need of material objects. If the wages offered by employers do not satisfy the needs of the workers, that is to say, the people who have no property, then criminal activity becomes the result. Psychologists and psychiatrists might try to classify criminal behavior, trying to put boundaries and lines through it so that they can understand it. The one thing that they do not understand about criminal behavior is that it is not unique, that it is not special, that it is perhaps the most natural part of animal life. If a mother bear is interested in obtaining food for its young, does it ever consider the fact that it is violating trespassing laws in doing so, or does it ever consider the opinion of other bears? Maybe only insomuch as it concerns her and her cub's welfare, but beyond that, not at all. The creature is simply committing an act that is required for life. So, too, is the human who commits crime to survive, when no legitimate means of income will suffice.
The psychologist might be right that the brain changes somewhat with criminal behavior. New instincts, behaviors, reflexes, and understandings are required in group behavior. All of the shoplifters that I know, including myself, have developed group senses -- we develop a subconscious that analyzes and understands where everyone in the room is and where they are looking. This allows us the capability of seeing if we are being watched, an invaluable skill for us lifters.
Without poverty, there is no crime. Crime is caused only by the poor conditions in which human beings live, and their dire attempts to escape those conditions. At least, this can be considered true with all those conditions in which property crime is involved. We want to develop a system, an order of society, in which crime is completely eliminated. That is our objective. What ways would we mend or forge the current system so as to complete our objective? Well, when we look at those who have been inflicted with the miserable profession of criminal, what class in specific are we examining? The working class. Their relationship that brings them to poverty and eventually crime is the their relationship with the Capitalist class, or the employer class.
The only way to mend this relationship, between the haves and the have nots, is to make it so the result of it is more wealth in the pockets of the have nots. This could be done with a policy so limited and conservative as minimum wage, minimum working hours, safe working conditions, lowering the work hours per week, etc., etc.. All of these laws, if they were be implemented into a government's laws, should be based on the collective's understanding that the working man must be protected -- not from other working men, but from those whom they work for. With these limited policies, the employer class would be viewed much like the government: a necessary evil, without which we would have tranquility and peace, at least for a little while.
In a more concerned effort, we might eliminate the employer class entirely, dissolve it into the working body of citizens. It has been said that to establish Democracy, every citizen must be treated like a king. If we apply the same reasoning to economics, in an effort to eliminate the poverty that comes from Free Trade, then every citizen must be treated like a Capitalist. Using this system, the entire conflict that would arrise in a Capitalist system -- with workers fighting for living wages and the employer class fighting for worsened sweat shop conditions -- this entire conflict would be removed, and something called Communism or Socialism would take effect. The relationship that causes poverty, misery, and so much abuse of the spirit is the relationship that exists between those without property, who must sell their labor to survive, and those with property, who employ the masses to work for them. To eliminate this relationship, thus eliminating the conflict, we are establishing a better world. Among the most important revolutions, Socialism and Communism are of the highest degree for any revolutionary.
There are so many origins of pain and so many other great reforms and alterations that could happen in our modern society to abolish the sources of misery. The animals of the world are slaughtered for the taste of their decomposing carcasses. Presidents and tyrants switch places constantly as I find more and more people confused at the political situation. Books are banned at the same moment courts rule guilt by association is "reason to convict."
I want to explode when I see the walls of chain convenience stores and rip apart the monotony of a "brick after brick" architecture. In my dreams, I am taking enormous buckets of paint to make child-like paintings of clouds on the side of every Walmart. I want to place a paper-mache rose on the doorstep of every girl who feels alone, give a confident speech to every boy who feels alone. I want to scream for every rape. I want to die for every resurfaced memory. I want people to worry less about death, and think more about their life as a unique and beautiful experience. I want people to stress less about life, and concentrate on the parts of living that give a feeling of ease. Everywhere that I turn, every voice of the strangers I talk to, they are based on so many petty things. I want swing my arms and lose understanding of my consciousness, and... let go... I want to let go... And maybe find a little peace, a little understanding, a little "the beautiful part of life is that society can be called the collective experience of every living and breathing creature.

For Life,Punkerslut

EXECUTION and TORTURE of Shwan Qaaderi and Two underage youngsters IN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

shwane qaderi

KHAMNEHE`S CHILDHOOD PICTURE

Why don`t we want to believe the truth?!!!

ali ebn Abitaleb
Ali was involved in war against Iranian

We have been hearing statements like, Ali loved Iranian, Ali helped Iranian, Iranian Loved Ali and other similar statements forever. There two kinds of Islamists, the charlatans ones like Dr. Shariati and the ignorant ones like any ordinary people, who believe and repeat these baseless statements. They go even further and say there have NEVER been any killing, massacre of Iranian women and man in hands of Tazis. They claim that Iranian embraced the invading savages with love and accepted Islam freely. The charlatans Islamist are the educated ones so they know the truth but because they are charlatans, they intentionally lie to deceive people. Those ignorant Islamist are simply ignorant, they don't know any better but nevertheless do not try to find out the truth. The overlap of an ignorant person to become a charlatan happens when they face these facts and still blindly deny them.
We have many articles posted on our site regarding this issue but now we try to have them in one place to give a better perspective. We will try to show that Ali himself WAS involved in the war against Iranian and advised Umar in making important decisions. There have been many Islamist in power during our history and they have meticulously changed, deleted books in order to paint a false picture about Ali and his family for Iranian. For instance there are bits and pieces of information left to suggest that Ali himself was presence in invading Iran and destroying Tysfon. You have to read between the lines. EVEN if some argue that the evidence is not enough for that, the help and the aid he gave to Umar is enough to put him in the same category as Umar, since Ali was Umar's number one adviser.
Now why is this important? Only for the sake of the truth. Letting people of Iran know who these people were and what they have done. Who were their children and they have done. Maybe then we stop using "ya Ali madad" less then we use today, maybe we stop worshiping the killers of our ancestors and treat them accordingly, as any other killer, Hitler, Stalin,...... And then maybe we can get on with our lives and start being Iranian.
I hope you can read Farsi because books that we refer to are in Farsi. Please take you time.

This is the first evidence of deception! Why lie about Ali's appearance?




Tarikh-e Iran ِگ¤‏گ °‏¤'- , by Dr. Zarinkoob 'ّîِ‏¤¥ ¤-î¢

This is taken from Nahjoll-balagheh ùèٍ"َگڑْ÷.PLEASE notice Ali's emphasizes on Arab nationality. Islamists want Iranian to believe that Ali loved Iranian more then Arabs. WHY should he?? Is there any reason he would love Iranian more then Arabs? He killed any Arab who was against him and Mohammad, why would he HELP or SAVE Iranian???? We see here that he is wining and dining with Umar and when his turn comes to be caliph, he does the exact same thing Umar and Usman did to Iranian. One should ask this question that if Mohammad choose Ali as his successor, why was Ali working so closely with Umar and then later on with Usman? Didn't they take the caliphate from him? Why then he was working with them against Iranian?



This is the English translation of Ali's advice to Umar. There was apparently two questions for Umar to consider: 1. should Umar himself lead the army or should he stay behind; 2. Should Umar invade Iran? Umar was hesitant to invade because Iran possessed larger army.
Ali's advice to Umar was that Umar should invade Iran. That because Allah is with Umar's side and He is not with Iranians, then Umar's smaller army would win. Finally, Imam Ali advises Umar to stay behind in Mecca, because of he was leading the war himself, then the Iranians would target him and kill him in the battle and it would be bad for the invading Arab side. All this is in Imam Ali's Nahjolbalagheh and the footnote giving the historical context.
Here is sermon 145 of Imam Ali, Nahjol-balagheh:
SERMON 145
Spoken when `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu'minin about taking part in the battle of Persia. (1) In this matter, victory of defeat is not dependent on the smallness or greatness of forces. It is Allah's religion, which He has raised above all faiths, and His army which He has mobilized and extended, till it has reached the point where it stands now, and has arrived its present positions. We hold a promise from Allah, and He will fulfill His promise and support His army.
The position of the head of government is that of the thread for beads, as it connects them and keeps them together. If the thread is broken, they will disperse and be lost, and will never come together again. The Arabs today, even though small in number are big because of Islam and strong because of unity. You should remain like the axis for them, and rotate the mill (of government) with (the help of) the Arabs, and be their root. Avoid battle, because if you leave this place the Arabs will attack you from all sides and directions till the unguarded places left behind by you will become more important than those before you.
If the Persians see you tomorrow they will say, "He is the root (chief) of Arabia. If we do away with him we will be in peace." In this way this will heighten their eagerness against you and their keenness to aim at you. You say that they have set out to fight against the Muslims. Well, Allah detests their setting out more than you do, and He is more capable of preventing what He detests. As regards your idea about their (large) number, in the past we did not fight on the strength of large numbers but we fought on the basis of Allah's support and assistance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1). When some people advised Caliph `Umar to partake in the battle of al-Qadisiyyah or Nahawand, he finding it against his personal inclination, thought it necessary to consult Amir al-mu'minin, so that if he advised against it he would plead before others that he had stayed back on Amir al-mu'minin's advice, but also if he advised partaking in the battle some other excuse would be found. However, unlike others, Amir al-mu'minin advised him to stay back. The other people had advised him to join in fighting, because the Holy Prophet did not send only others to fight but took part in it himself as well, keeping his close relations also with him. What Amir al-mu'minin had in view? was that `Umar's presence in the battle could not be beneficial to Islam, but rather his staying back would save the Muslims from dispersion. Amir al-mu'minin's view that "the position of the head of government is that of the axis around which the system of the government rotates" is a point of principle and does not concern any particular personality. Whether the ruler is a Muslim or an unbeliever, just or despotic, virtuous or vicious, for the administration of the state his presence is a necessity, as Amir al-mu'minin has explained elsewhere at greater length:
The fact is that there is no escape for men from a ruler good or bad. Faithful persons perform (good) acts in his rule while the unfaithful enjoys (worldly) benefits in it. During the rule, Allah will carry everything to its end. Through the ruler tax is collected, the enemy is fought, roads are protected and the right of the weak is taken from the strong till the virtuous enjoy peace and are allowed protection from (the oppression of) the wicked. (Sermon 40) The words, which Amir al-mu'minin uttered in his advice, are not indicative of any quality of Caliph `Umar except his being the ruler. There is no doubt that he held worldly authority, irrespective of the question of whether it was secured in the right way or wrong way. And where there is authority there is centring of people's affairs. That is why Amir al-mu'minin said that if `Umar would go out the Arabs would follow him in large numbers towards the battlefield, because when the ruler is on the march the people will not like to stay behind. The result of their going would be that city after city would become vacant, while the enemy will infer from their reaching the battlefield that the Islamic cities are lying vacant, and that if these people were repulsed no assistance would reach the Muslims from the centre. Again, if the ruler were killed the army would disperse automatically, because the ruler is as its foundation. When the foundation is shaken the walls cannot remain standing. The word "aslu'l-`Arab" (the root chief) of Arabia has not been used by Amir al-mu'minin as his own but he has taken it from the Persians. Obviously in his capacity as the head of the State, Caliph `Umar was, in their view, the chief of Arabia. Besides, the reference is to the country, not to Islam or Muslims, so that there is no suggestion of any importance for him from the Islamic point of view.
When Amir al-mu'minin pointed out to Caliph `Umar that on his reaching there the Persians would aim at him, and that if he fell into their hands they would not spare him without killing, although such words would have touched the brave to the quick and would have heightened their spirits, `Umar liked the advice to stay back and thought it better to keep himself away from the flames of battle. If this advice had not been in accord with his personal inclination he would not have received it so heartily and would have tried to argue that the administration of the country could be maintained by leaving a deputy. Again when other people had already advised him to go out, what was the need for consulting Amir al-mu'minin except to get an excuse to stay back.


Here is another letter of Ali to his head of army in Persia. As you see, he is only concern about the money, "kharraj".



[ The following is a letter from Imam Ali (a) to Ziyad who was appointed as the Commissioner of Basra by Abdullah bin Abbas, the Governor of the provinces of Ahwaz, Basra, Kirman and Fars. Ziyad was from the very beginning dishonest and corrupt, a man who would not stop short at any vice or sin to gain his end. He had come from a very low family so much so that nobody knew his father's name; his mother was a harlot. Ummul Mu'minin Aisha had nicknamed him as "His father's son" and he was known all over Arabia by this insulting name. But he was a self-made man, a great conspirator. Ibn Abbas had found him a useful officer as he could suppress any voice raised against his government. He appointed him as a commissioner and had recommended him to Imam Ali (a). Imam Ali (a) also gave him a chance and wanted to see whether he could give up his bad ways. But he did not change his behaviour, so Imam Ali (a) dismissed him.
Later on Mu'awiya in his court declared him to be his father's (Abu Sufyaan's) illegitimate son. Ziyad was glad that atleast he could name some big man - though thirty years after the death of that man - to be his father, and thus became a staunch friend of Mu'awiya - his so-called half brother. Imam Ali (a) wrote this letter to Ziyad when he was still the Commissioner of Basra. ]
I swear by Allah that if I find you misappropriating the wealth of Muslims I will punish you in such a way that you will be left poor. Besides this poverty there will be the burden of sins on your shoulders, you will be disgraced and humiliated, losing your position and prestige.


According to Tabari Ali was the one who suggested to cut the Baharestan carpet into pieces and NOT Umar as we have been told. Umar wanted to keep the carpet but when Ali pointed out that people might "talk", Umar changed his mind and ordered the carpet to be cut in pieces. Ali then sold his piece of the magnificent Baharestan carpet for twenty thousands derahm.
From what we know from Nahjol-balaghe, Ali's consultation with Umar took place right before Ghadesieh, so we can assume that Ali was present at MadAeen, since he was one of Arabs best soldiers, furthermore according to Quran(al-Hashr 59:5, 6), no one get any share of any booty if he dose not engages in the battle himself. That was the norm back then.




From Fotoh-al-baldAn ِگ¢َ"َگ‍ّ-ê (the part about Iran) by BalAzari ü¤£ٍ"
This is again evidence of Ali's control over his governors. It seems that Ali appoint, Yazid Ibn AkkAbe to be governor of Ray and Dastbi. Yazid steals money and Ali puts him in jail. Well that seem to be the pattern here, Ali is taking care of business, Money.
Again, this proves that Ali sent troops to Daylaman to fight people.

From Fotoh-al-baldAn ِگ¢َ"َگ‍ّ-ê (the part about Iran) by BalAzari ü¤£ٍ"
These are again evidence of killing the innocent people by Ali's governors. Ash-at is Ali's governor in Azerbaijan and when people revolt, he asks for more troops from Koofe and with the help of the troops, he manages to crush the revolt. This is not war between two armies, this is crushing a revolt. I don't think its necessarily to explain the meaning of a revolt.
These events have occurred during Ali's leadership. What is the difference between what Umar and Usman did and what Ali did to Iranian? Why do we still worship this guy and his family???


Again, same thing happens in Estakhr in Fars region. People revolt against the rule of Arabs during Ali's leadership and AGAIN they get crushed, massacred by Ali's governors. Please notice that it says, "az nu fath kard", "conquered again", it means that people have had revolted before and this was not the first time. You should ask yourself when people of Iran started to like this guy, Ali? For what reason?




It is so horrifying when you read the history and find out more about what our ancestors endured after Iran was invaded by Tazis. You certainly can feel their pain and anguish. Here you have another example of Ali's atrocity towards our ancestors. As you read and discover here, Iranian were not only subject to violence from the Tazi caliphs but they were also brutalized by the lawless gangs of Tazis.
Here you have an example of such atrocity, please notice that we DO NOT include the abuse from other caliphs and other Tazis here in this article, these are ONLY Ali's crimes.
This time people of Sisstan are subject to Tazi violence or shall we say "sublime teaching of Islam", first this two criminals, Hasake Habati and Ibn Fasil attack the city of ZAlegh and steal everything and then they attack the city of Zerang and force people to surrender. At the end Ali sends 4000 troops to Sisstan and take care of both the lawless Tazi gang and the rebellious Iranian.

From Fotoh-al-baldAn ِگ¢َ"َگ‍ّ-ê (the part about Iran) by BalAzari ü¤£ٍ"



So far we have seen crimes and savagery committed by Ali in Azerbaijan, Sisstan, Fars, Estakhr, Daylaman, Ghazvin, Rey and Hamadan. Now its Khorasan, as you see here, he sent troops many times to Khorasan. Although he was not always successful but he tried like any other Tazi would try. The point to notice here is the fact that, during and after his leadership, there were upraising and revolt in Khorasan along with other parts of Iran. Even when he got killed, Khorasan was in middle of a big revolt.
These FACTS prove that, people of Iran did NOT have any special feeling towards Ali and Ali did not feel any special love for Iranian. When he was alive and in power, Iranian didn't like him, so what happened that made Iranian to fall in love with him, after his dead??? This is indeed what both ignorant and charlatan Islamist claim, that Ali loved Iranian and Iranian loved him. Where is it?????? In fact Iranian displayed the same disgust towards him as they showed towards Umar.

From Fotoh-al-baldAn ِگ¢َ"َگ‍ّ-ê (the part about Iran) by BalAzari ü¤£ٍ"


This, we've already seen and know about, the participation of Hassan and Hossien in massacre which took place in Tabarestan. Read more detail about that massacre, ..... ِ‏¨ں ّ ِ¨ں -¨¢" ِ'‏÷گ¤‏گ ¤'-ھî

Apparently that was not the first time Hassan was involved in attacks against Iranian people, becuase Hassan Bin Esfandiyar ¤‘‏¢÷ê¨گ ِ“ ِ¨ں in his book called Tarikhe Tabarestan ِ‘—¨¤“— °‏¤‘— written in 613 Hejri, talks about another attack by Tazis troop to Amol in Tabarestan. Hassan was accompanied by Abdullah Bin Umar al-Khatab ’‘¯،َگ¤ُن ِ“ ùََگ¢“ن, Hazife Al-Ymany ü÷‘ُ‏َگùê‏£ں, Ghosm Bin Abbas §‘“ن ِ“ ô™ى and Malek-e Ashtar ¤—ھگ يَ‘ُ. This book is one of the best source of information on Tabarestan history. Here is the actuall page of the book.


Umar consulting Ali again about the affairs of his leadership. As you see here, these Tazis stood close to each other and shared the decision-making and the wealth accumulated by their thievish activities.
From Fotoh-al-baldAn ِگ¢َ"َگ‍ّ-ê (the part about Iran) by BalAzari ü¤£ٍ"

These are conformation from other reliable sources on events already been mentioned.


Here again Zainolabedin Rahnama the Islamist scholar in his "zendegi-e emam hossien" conform the fact that Hossien was also involved in wars in Africa and Tabarestan.


Here we have yet another evidence of savagery commited by the fourth caliph, Ali, against people of Tabarestan. According to Hassan Bin Esfandiyar ¤‘‏¢÷ê¨گ ِ“ ِ¨ں the author of "Tarikhe Tabarestan" ِ‘—¨¤“— °‏¤‘—, Ali attacks and enslave women and children in Tabarestan to sell them as salves to moslems. What happens next is quite bizarre. As you can read below someone by the name of Al-Shaybani ü÷‘“‏ھَگù¤‏“û ِ“ùَى¬ُ, buys the slaves for hundred thousands Darham and set them free. Al-Shaybani pays thirty thousands cash but is not able to make the rest of the payment. Al-Shaybani then runs to Moaavie and seek protection since Ali was after him to collect the rest of the money. When Ali is not able to get to Al-Shaybani, he sends his people to destroy Al-Sheybani's house in Bassra!!!!


Its imperative to notice that, these FACTS are all only Ali's atrocities and NOT all what Tazis did. Books have been written to describe the horror and savagery Tazis inflicted upon Iranian.


Home Page

geovisit();

postamble();