|To show what they meant by this position, we quote the exact words of Sa'id Manbari who was in charge of the student body at a high level «Our aim by this position was to make ourselves the axis and assume the initiative for action».|
THE HYPOCRITES AND THE SPY DEN'S OCCUPATION
The Revolution in its continuity, reaches one of its significant chapters with the important occupation of the den of spies. Here again the hypocrites cunningly entered the field. In spite of their private analysis that the occupation of the den of spies by the undergraduates following the line of the Imam was a reactionary move in which they had no faith, they decided to support it.
What was the reason behind this decision? Firstly, to prevent their supporters from bringing up the issue and from learning about the actual facts concerning the situation. Indeed, the supporters continued to ask: « You claimed that the regime is in the hands of petty bourgeois and that they are weak, that they rely on imperialism and beg America for help. How is it then, that these petty bourgeois suddenly strike a deadly blow to America?» This question troubled the forces and served as a valid reason for the hypocrites' support of the occupation of the spy den.
Secondly, and more significant still, was their preoccupation to remain in tune with the political conditions of society (in view of the fact that they claimed to be pioneers in the struggle against imperialism) so that they would be able, as before, to promote their hidden political goals and propaganda.
THE MILITIA AS COMPARED TO THE 20-MILLION ARMY
Following the order of the Imam concerning the formation of the 20-million strong army to confront America and probable invasions, the hypocrites followed suit by forming a militia. Let us go deeper into this question: What was the purpose behind forming this militia? Was it to fight America? Was it to support the Revolution? Was it to reinforce the people's fight against imperialism?
Was it to support the order of the Imam? To clarify matters again, we refer to the words of Sa'id Manban who was in charge of the students' body: «Our aims in supporting the seizure of the den of spies were to use this propagative move to introduce ourselves and avoid lagging behind the political conditions of the time, to push the conditions one step farther from a military point of view and to provide a greater readiness for the forces.
You see then, what the hypocrites were aiming at. What necessity was there for them to force the conditions (which they called the 'Political Phase') one step ahead and attain a higher military phase in connection to the Islamic Republic? Now we realize that their claim such as, 'The government cornered us June 20th, or 'It seized all freedom and imposed on us an armed combat' were nothing but mere pretensions.
Look at the directive given to schools in this connection. From the very beginning of their activities in the schools, they were, as we said before, engaged in creating discord, in isolating the forces following the line of the Imam, causing clashes segregation and polarization. But with the occupation of the den of spies, they suddenly started inviting their supporters in the schools to preserve unity. But what kind of unity? To show what they meant by this position, we quote the exact words of Sa'id Manbari who was in charge of the student body at a high level «Our aim by this position was to make ourselves the axis and assume the initiative for action». This meant, in fact, the isolation of the members of the Islamic society through such tactics.
Is there no one to ask these so-called revolutionary gentlemen: «What type of rightful procedure is it to choose nothing but deceit, cunningness and slyness against people to attain one's goal? Can one call this dynamism? If so, then the Shah (and other anti-revolutionary elements) who sought the destruction of agriculture and fed the people's mind with pseudo agrarian reforms and similar propaganda, were certainly more rightful and dynamic than you. Can we claim to be rightful and public-spirited and then assume the ways, tactics and acts of an evil nature? Then, in what way will they show their recognition of the difference between right and wrong other than through their nature? Do not methods and tactics show one's true visage?