Two sides of violence coin

"The explosion of the office of Islamic Republic Party on June 28th, 1980 and self immolations on June 17th, 2003"

Mohammad Hussein Sobhani( in persion)

June 25th, 2006

Last week was coincident with special days for Iranians, accompanying bitter experiences of which, the most notable is June 20th 1980, the day that reminds the initials of violence and terror in Iran current era in which the MKO played a key role confronting the Iranians social political challenges that were processing peacefully and politically, with a substantial trouble, delaying the process of democracy in Iran for decades of which the effects are still tangible.

Therefore, this week I want to discuss the issue of hidden and visible violence which is pertinent to these days.

In the first view you may not find any strong relation between the violence committed in the office of Islamic Republic Party and the self-immolations of metamorphosed people but I put these two terror actions near each other intentionally since they are the two sides of violence coin. One side shows committing terrorism to face the enemy, the other shows using terrorism to save Violence captured in cul-de-sac.

The result of both sides is the same. Violence is violence. One who kills another, can burn oneself too. "violence and Terror" in any form or cover ,with any motivation, with plenty of sincerity has no result except strengthening violence and dictatorship .you may be able to change a dictator regime by terror and violence weapon but you would definitely replace a more completed and complicated dictatorship. The one who burns himself, will burn his rival doubtlessly, without hesitating.

During the three past years, MKO, due to international considerations, hesitated to support the self–immolations and Rajavis tried to consider the event as non-organizational, but now they are supporting this act for different reasons, sanctifying it openly. They write on their websites:

"The first human torch throws the snare of fire around the head and neck and the second one wears the clothes of fire, and the third one becomes a flowing torch to declare a message, you can not change a direction without paying the price and the voice of protest needs a strong method of declaration. The flames of protest spread in Bern, Rome, London, Athens and Nicosia too and …"

I may view a thought as "terrorist or aggressive" while another one views it as "proclaimer of freedom"? But what is our criterion to recognize the freedom proclaimer from terrorist?

Should we consider the honesty and devotion of the think tanks as our standards of judgment?

In my opinion, honesty and devotion do not include the necessary criteria for legality of an action? Therefore at the first stage one should consider the means used by the activists. Considering their means, one can understand which one is a freedom fighter and which one is a terrorist? Although the declared objective is important or seems holy, the means used to reach the objective has the substantial importance and grants legality to the movement.

The thought that provides its metamorphosed supporters with bombs, weapons, cyanide and fire for self-immolation instead of heart, logic and language, kills its members and its dissidents on the pretext of "strong protest". This thought is not a messenger of freedom but a terrorist and when ever it achieves the power, it would bring a new tyranny.

Using means of violence to reach any objective, an apparently or really holy objective, accustoms the users to violence. Thus the violence becomes structured in their spirit so that they use it in any case ,along with their objectives.

This violent means can terrorize American military personnel one day and the other day it can assassinate the critic and dissident Magid Sharif Vaqefi, one day it can explode the office of Iraqi Intelligence service and the other day it can order the members to set themselves on fire in the streets.

You may find differences in the form or direction of each of these violent activities, but they are all the same, in substance.

When a group, a party or an organization command its members to set themselves ablaze, it is denounced that the so-called group has crossed an identified limit of spreading terrorism and violence since, naturally using violence against the enemy such as bombing at Islamic Republic Party Office is easier than using violence against its own members like self-immolations in June 2003. The difference shows that the basis of "hidden and visible violence" in MKO has become more profound and complex. Therefore all the freedom-lovers should be warned.

The more important issue to worry about is that they pretend suicide, self-immolation and violence as devotion and honesty and a few people are paid to cry for it, this threat should be considered as serious.

Mohammad Hussein Sobhani( in persion)

June 25th, 2006

 

Tags

Recommanded

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button
Close