ayatoilet1
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Americans Have 9/11, Iranians have 9/22
09-Sep-2011
On September 22, 1980, the Iraqi Army invaded Iran. Iraqi military aircrafts bombed Iran's major airports. In days, Iraqi soldiers had occupied and conquered many major Iranian cities. Iraq targeted oil tankers, oil platforms, and Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf with weaponry supplied by France, the same country who had funded Khomeini's flight back to Tehran a year or so before. Iran's oil exports were effectively shut down.
Said K. Arburish, biographer and author of Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, said Hussein met with CIA agents in Amman approximately one year before the invasion. Kenneth R. Timmerman, a political journalist and executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, backed up the claim, proposed the sessions were Brzezinski's idea.
Timmerman quoted National Security Council member Gary Sick as saying “Brzezinski was letting Saddam assume there was a U.S. green light for his invasion of Iran.”
Beside US 'encouragement, there are now allegations that key members of Iran’s opposition, consisting of former Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar, former senior Iranian military officers, and Prince Reza Pahlavi also held meetings with Iraqi officials. They provided intelligence and guidance for the Iranian invasion. One of Reza Pahlavi’s aids (Shahbazi) later alleged his involvement in identifying integral Iranian military targets. Bakhtiar's associates have also confirmed that he had travelled to Baghdad many times prior to the invasion.
It is also now established that in August of 1980, Saddam Hussein met with Saudi princes who encouraged the war for their own reasons.
Suddenly, Iraq and its army percieved an opportunity and had also become a tool for enemies of the regime in Iran.
Hussein quickly planned the invasion of Iran. He hoped to seize a substantial portion of Iranian territory early on, which would destabilize the Islamic Republic and allow him to overthrow Khomeini's regime.
Iran, for all intents and purposes, was defenseless against Hussein's forces. With the Iranian government against the wall, Reagan's staff and Iranian officials held a final, secret meeting in Paris during the month of October in 1980. This meeting was led by America's Vice President Elect George Bush and William Casey (later Reagan's Director of CIA) and Iran's Speaker of the Majlis Mehdi Karroubi.
Bush and Casey delivered $40 million to the Iranians. This, along with $5 billion in illegal arms deals and an agreement not to interfere with the Islamic Republic, was a bribe offered in exchange for the 52 American hostages held in Tehran to not be released until after the 1980 election. This would guarantee Carter's defeat and Reagan's victory.
The agreement not to challenge the new Iranian regime allowed the Islamic Republic to take full control of Iran.
On January 20, 1981, the very day of President Reagan's inauguration, America released nearly $8 billion in Iranian assets. Iran finally freed the hostages more than a whole year after their initial capture.
Israel agreed to ship American weaponry to Iran. The Washington Post claimed Haig authorized the shipment, and that it was worth between $10 million and $15 million. Other reports said the weapons were worth up to $246 million.
Haig denied his involvement, but said, “I have a sneaking suspicion that someone in the White House winked.”
An aircraft carrying American weaponry from Israel to Iran crashed in Turkey in July of 1981. Banisadr said it was the third arms shipment from Israel during Reagan’s presidency. Israeli Housing Minister and former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon said the American government sanctioned all Israeli arms shipments to Iran during the war. The Israeli ambassador to America, Moshe Arens, said Israel’s arms shipments were supported by the government at “almost the highest of levels.”
The arms shipments ceased on October 28, 1988. Over 2,000 American missiles and parts had been shipped to Iran by that point.
America sustained the war beyond simply supplying Iran. Haig told the Senate’s foreign relations committee he anticipated better relations with Iraq. The government removed Iraq from the American government’s list of terrorist countries and gave a $400 million credit guarantee for American exports to Iraq. By 1984, America and Iraq held full diplomatic relations for the first time since 1967.
The process continued until the end of the war as Iraqi and Iranian forces alike died in the line of fire. Waves of soldiers and civilians fell to bombs and chemical agents, a tragedy beyond the comprehension of the beltway strategists who sat in their comfortable homes and planned the deaths of thousands. America, an advocator of world peace, supplied both countries and sustained the war for their own gain.
America, the United Kingdom, and Germany provided technology to Iraq which allowed them to expand their missile program and radar defenses. According to a leaked, uncensored copy of Iraq’s declaration to the United Nations, they obtained the knowledge and materials required for developing unconventional weapons from 150 foreign companies. These companies came from countries including America, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and China.
The Russians remained neutral until 1982. Scared that the ideology behind the Islamic Revolution could spread to neighboring regions they controlled, the Soviets supplied weapons to Iraq. With Russia presenting itself as an enemy once again, Iran's mullahs expelled 13 Soviet diplomats and commenced a mass execution of Tudeh Party members. Iran began supporting Afghanistan’s battle against the Russians as well.
In response, the Soviets established a working relationship with Kuwait. They agreed to sell arms and protect Kuwaiti ships in the Persian Gulf. This move threatened America's control and strategy in the Persian Gulf and led to an American-influenced Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, several years after Kuwait's mistake.
Russian arms shipments to Iraq are estimated to have been $10 billion, including over 2,000 tanks, 300 aircraft, 300 surface-to-air missiles, and thousands of artillery and armored vehicles.
North Korea was also a major supplier to Iran. They produced and sold their own arms, and also served as a deniable intermediary to Iran for Russia and China. North Korea first sold and shipped Russian weaponry to Iran in October of 1980, not long after the war began. A billion-dollar sale of Chinese equipment followed. Iran paid for the supplies with cash and crude oil, and North Korea became Iran’s leading arms and munitions supplier in 1982.
The deals between North Korea and Iran were no laughing matter. The details of an SA-7 missile sale conducted in 1987 show the extent of international involvement in the war. As the North Korean purchases continued, Russia, who publicly sold weapons to Iran's enemies, benefited as well. In fact, the SA-7 missile shipment came from a Polish, Soviet-controlled firm known as Perenosny Zenitiny Raketny Kompleks.
European companies prospered from the deals. The London branch of Commerzbank A.G., a West German bank, posted a $100,000 performance bond. Swiss firm Wuppesahl A.G. insured the shipment and the Union Bank of Switzerland issued a letter of credit to Iran for $18,640,000. Funds transferred through London's Commerzbank, which received commission for its services, to Russia's account with the West German bank, Deutchebank A.G.
The whole world seemed to benefit from the war. America, Europe, and Russia all supplied arms to Iraq. In turn, neighboring Arab states financially supported Iraq. America, and indirectly Russia and China, supplied weaponry to Iran as well. Global superpowers maintained the war's stalemate and reaped the financial rewards at the cost of innocent lives.
The tides turned on October 5, 1986, when an American cargo plane crashed in southern Nicaragua. Two crew members died, but one, Eugene Hasenfus, lived. The Sandinista army captured him and escorted him from the crash site at gunpoint.
Hasenfus’ capture set in motion a chain of events which ultimately led to the embarrassment of Reagan’s administration. The truth of one of the biggest political scandals in American history was blown wide open. The true nature of the October Surprise, including America's arms deals with Iran, was finally exposed to the American people.
Over the course of several Congressional hearings, members of Reagan’s administration were convicted. However, none of the sentences reflected the nature of their crimes. The harshest ruling was two years of probation and a $20,000 fine. None of the politicians were imprisoned.
These events came to be known as the Iran-Contra Affair.
American involvement in the war was contradictory. Despite privately supporting Iran, they publicly opposed the Islamic Republic.
President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selected Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in December of 1983 and March of 1984. American ambassador Peter W. Galbraith said, “The Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."
Howard Teicher, the Director of Political-Military Affairs for the National Security Council, accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. According to his affidavit, the CIA secretly directed armaments and technology to Iraq through third parties in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait. They encouraged private suppliers and military companies to do the same.
Two of every seven approved licenses for the export of “dual use” technology were American. This technology was sent to Iraqi forces, weapons producers, or enterprises suspected of diverting technology to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by Chairman Henry B. Gonzales of the House Banking Committee.
In the last five years of the Iran-Iraq War, 771 export licenses were given to Iraq for items relating to weapons. Iraq purchased ingredients for chemical weapons, biological agents including anthrax, cluster bombs, and calibration devices for mustard gas production. Recently declassified Congressional and NSA documents show America's government was aware and supportive of these sales.
Americans mourn the events of 9/11, which led to the deaths of over 3,000 innocents and resulted in 4,000 more military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iranians should mourn 9/22, the date of Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980, which resulted in the deaths of half a million Iranian and Iraqi people.
Ironically, Jimmy Carter, who played a large part in encouraging one of the bloodiest wars in modern history, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.
| Recently by ayatoilet1 | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Keep Boycotting BP | 14 | Dec 01, 2012 |
| The War on Oil – Part 2 | 3 | Nov 30, 2012 |
| The War on Oil – Part 1 | 1 | Nov 30, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
VPK - Stop Defending the Indefensible -- PLEASE!
by ayatoilet1 on Wed Sep 14, 2011 07:58 AM PDTLook VPK, I think this article (provided by Fair) about Bakhtiar is the tip of the iceberg. There is absolutely no question Bakhtiar cooperated heavily with both the U.S. and Iraq, in the planning and execution of the Iran Invasion by Iraq.
One of the benefits of writing this blog has been that more information keeps surfacing (even as I write this) that lead me to believe that Bakhtiar provided daily briefing meetings with US military attache in Paris - that is now documented and provide on the ground intelligence on the state of affairs in Iran, and he gave detailed intelligence from former Iranian military on Iran's military capability. There is even some information that he "misled" Iranian air-force officers to undertake a coup called the Nojeh coup ... and then made sure to inform the Khomeini regime of the participants in the coup ...so that Iranian airforce officers would be killed and effectively make Iran impotent with air power so that the Iraqis could undertake their invasion unhindered by Iranian air power. 37 senior, first rate, world class air force piltots (trained in the US) were executed...so Saddam would succeed in his invasion. Shame on those that betrayed these poor souls and their memories and the nation of Iran. For what? For Power? So someone could call Bakhtiar "Honorable President"? Or Call RPII - the Shah'n Shah? How was this a service to Iran or Iranians? So the Mullahs would be defeated? Did they really believe that a nation of 10 Million could defeat a nation of 40 Million? That in the final analysis Iranians would set their patriotism aside ...and not fight (regardless of who was in power) for Iran's sovereignty and integrity? All that happened was the Mullahs reinforced their power - and the situation became much worse. Shame on them.
As for RPII's offer to fly a jet for the Mullahs...please do not insult my intelligence. What are we naive? Or stupid? One of the benefits of being Iranian in this day and age is we are all pretty savvy to hollow and stupid political moves.
There is also no question that RPII was working with Bakhtiar in the background and financing Bakhtiar's moves...it would be childish to say otherwise. We all know better.
The U.S. not only promoted the invasion; but eventually worked directly with the Mullahs in Iran (actually Rafsanjani - who acted as the Commander in Chief) to prolong the war...and Rafsanjani personally is responsible for orders that now, in retrospect, are very questionable - and could only have come from "outside" Iran. Remember the Reagan "bible" incident with McFarlane travelling to Tehran to personally connect with Rafsanjani?
Now you say Dr. Bahar's recipe for justice (hanging) is too harsh a punishment, but as this information plays out ...and I think more information will be forthcoming and we will collect more data. More facts. What would you do with someone that misled air force officers to their deaths? If you were a son or daughter of one of those air force officers what would you do?
What about the human waves ordered into Battle by Rafsanjani and the order to stop the capture of Basra...so that the war would result in an extended muliti-year stalemate? What should be done with Rafsanjani and his treachery?
For God's sake - stop throwing red herrings out. Lets call a spade a spade. Lets honor the dead and fallen. Lets for once, be honest and decent as Iranians. Lets stop all the nonsense. Lets for once openly and candidly mourn the 500,000 or so ...and recognize the evil of this war, and the consequences to Iran, to Iraq, to the U.S. ...to the world.
We can forgive - but NOT forget. And by the way, I just decided I should add some new titles for myself, so let me sign off ... as
"The New King Shit'n Shit of Iran, The Supreme Leader of all Shiits, The Famous Dr. Ayatoilet Kh Kh Kh"
Fair
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Sep 14, 2011 03:39 AM PDTDr Bakhtiyar is dead and not here to defend himself. Nor is it possible to hang him as Dr. Bahar demanded. So not much to do on that front. But RP is very much alive. Did any of your sources implicate him.
What bothers me is not the truth. I would condemn anyone who cooperated with Saddam. Although as you say they may not have known he planned to invade Iran. Having a meeting with an Iraqi official is not the same as joining forces during war like MEK did. So we do need to distinguish between levels of "cooperation". There are also degrees of proof. The involvement of MEK is 100% proven. But a single or maybe several meeting do not prove involvement. Means they spoke.
In fact IRI had many meeting with Israel to buy weapons. Did IRI support Israel; I doubt it! As for history I am afraid it will not be the judge. These events happened over 30 years ago. Day by day fewer people with first hand knowledge remain. Those who do have their credibility questioned. I think it will all remain a controversy. Just like who killed Kennedy. The real truth may never come out. People will chose to believe what they want themselves.
Fair-Jan, Thank You
by ayatoilet1 on Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:42 AM PDTThis is excellent, I had not come accross this account. Again its very detailed and compelling. I wonder how many more of these sorts of accounts are out there?
Let history be the judge, not our biases
by Fair on Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:45 PM PDTGentlemen, I have researched this a bit more, and while I am a supporter of Dr. Bakhtiar and what he stood for, I am a stronger supporter of the truth and free flow of information. For what it is worth, I have found the following eyewitness account of an IIAF pilot Major Nassirkhani who met Dr. Bakhtiar early on, and then one day walked into a meeting with Dr. Bakhtiar not knowing that there were senior Iraqi officials present and offerring to support Bakhtiar's plot for overthrowing the new government, and walked out of the meeting refusing to cooperate. All this was before the war started, and unfortunately Dr. Bakhtiar thought that the Iraqis can provide a launching pad for overthrowing the new mullah government. Major Nassirkhani's interview is here:
//www.khodnevis.org/index.php?news=14180
As far as I know Bakhtiar did not know at this time that Iraq would be next invading Iran. I also have found no evidence that Reza Pahlavi II, who was only 20 at the time, ever met or considered collaborating with Iraqi officials on anything. And of course he was a trained F-5 pilot and offered to fly in the war against Iraq, but like many other such pilots willing to help, was refused by the anti Iranian Khomeini.
All I can say is that our history especially during this period was a painful one, and that it is very important that all we Iranians take a step back and a deep breath, and remember 9/22, and do everything in our power to never see such a calamity in Iran again (although we have a pretty bad calamity in power right now, I know).
Thank you Ayatoilet (and Bavafa Jan and others) once again for remembering and reminding us. I miss all our fallen brothers and sisters.Payandeh Iran.
Clean slate Agreed & defined, has to be based on the truth
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:27 AM PDTDoesn't mean get rid of all the past to have a clean slate.
We can't just invent things. There has to be a basis in truth. Pahlavi haters or haters of any group who along with an agenda are working on machievelian style projects & based on history can from time to time win, so we need to be alert that a khomenei like team that uses lies to come to power does not get the chance again. That would be the worst thing for Iran.
Ayatoilet
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Sep 13, 2011 08:48 AM PDTI agree that no leader should have a connection with Saddam. But allegetions do not cut it. There is only one group with proven linkage with Saddam: MEK. I do not accept the accusations against others not even Mullahs.
If we go down that road anyone may accuse a candidate of being linked to Saddam. Then disqualify them pending an investigation. Who is left? What is there to prevent me from coking up some BS charge against someone. We cannot go out there and make these accusation seriously. You will end up with endless investigations; libel suites and counter suites. It will paralyze the whole nation. I say unless there is absolute proof like MEK don't bother with it.
I am not at all convinced Mr. or Dr. Bahar has good intentions. It sounds to me that he is out for revenge. Regarding the qualifications we saw how qualified Bazargan was. Having served in government is no qualification to me. Before this blog I knew nothing of Dr. Bahar. My impression is 100% based on his own posts here. What I see ia an angry bitter man who is attacking anyone who opposes him. Not to mention his utter disrespect for privacy of other people.
No Hangings, but we need a clean slate in the future
by ayatoilet1 on Tue Sep 13, 2011 08:27 AM PDTLook the only thing everyone wants is the facts to come out and for some sort of investigation to be done. I certainly am not talking about hanging anyone, and there is a need for forgiveness...we must all reconcile with all this and learn from it and move forward.
As for Dr. Bahar, he did serve the public by providing a form for bringing all this out. And I personally find him to be very honest, very credible, and the core detail of all these accounts I think makes it hard to discount. And at his age, I think he is unlikely to be part of any future government. People do get old and impatient...I am sure VPK you will too...be generous with your remarks, and make some allowance for someone with his background and integrity. I think he only wants to serve the interest of the people of Iran - his homeland. He has a right to do that. Please talk to him directly on facebook, and let move on from this subject.
As for the 4M's - I think that is a good way to categorize the traitor list; but obviously we need to further break down the groups into specific individuals. Obviously NOT all merchants, monarchists, or mullahs participated in decisions that led to 500,000 Iranian casualties. But, I do not think a new government or leader can come to power or position of influence in Iran with any "linkage" or "connection" to working with Saddam or the massive scale of deaths during the war.
We need a clean slate going forward. (I think). We should forgive - but not forget. Its the only decent thing to do. No hangings, but we need a clean slate...a whole new approach in our "opposition" to the regime. A new force. A new team.
The 4 M's
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Sep 13, 2011 08:09 AM PDTMojaheds, Mullahs, Merchants and Monarchists!! Yes, here's the 4M list of traitors. Khaens!
MEK proved to be traitors by fighting against Iran. What did "Merchants" do? Is the baggal down the street or carpet seller to be hanged? What did the Monarchists do? Most Mullahs did not do much. Yes; Khomeini did extend the war. Khamenei is a murderer but some Mullah in a village. Should he be hanged too? Why don't we just hang everyone and be done with it then let God sort them out. With your approach pretty much everyone is a traitor. Who is not a traitor just Mossadegi.
You guys scare me more than the IRI. If Mr. Bahar got his way there will be ten times as much hangings as IRI does. Before long Iran will be depopulated. That isn't "forgiveness". Would oath of loyalty to Mossadegh be required. No thank you.
Ayatoilet Jan
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Sep 13, 2011 07:59 AM PDTThank you for your kind words.
I am not out to attack Mr. Bahar but I will tell you why I have a problem with him:
I am in support of forgiving. But Mr. Bahar seems to have a lot of axes to grind. He wants to deliberately get people in trouble. I see no forgiveness in him just vindictiveness. You appear to have a lot of respect for him. That is your business. I do not. Why: because of the way he acts. I find him arrogant and disrespectful of others. Just because he served as a diplomat does not make him better than me. It is shameful that people like him get the air time. While sane people with cool heads do not. Because the rest of us did not serve as diplomats.
VPK - I know you are a good man, so why not just
by ayatoilet1 on Tue Sep 13, 2011 07:26 AM PDTAgree to disagree on this. I made a few word changes which I was hoping would make everyone happy. A better response would have been some alternative sentence or language to refer to Shabazi and Bahar's statements.
Attacking Bahar or Shahbazi OR even defending RP will not cut it. The information is out there, and we Iranians need to get to the bottom of it.
I have been shouting out against the Mojaheds (MEK/MKO/PMOI) for years because I believe them to be traitors. Iran's greatest traitors. But the list of traitors that hurt Iran and Iranians during over this War probably included Mullahs (who provoked him, and sent human waves of children into mine fields, consolidated their power as a result of the war), certain Iranian Merchants (who made a fortune from arms dealing and helped extend the war, and among them I include the Hashemi brothers that testified to Congress in the Iran-Contra hearings), and now I guess we need to add some monarchists. The 4 M's - Mojaheds, Mullahs, Merchants and Monarchists!! Yes, here's the 4M list of traitors. Khaens!
More than 500,000 Iranian casualties. We need to honor their death. We need to honor the veterans. We need to honor those permanently disabled by the chemical agents, who lost limbs, who became ensane in the process of the war. Those who lost everything. We need to hold all those who betrayed Iran and Iranians accountable!
We might forgive, but we will never forget. Never forget. VPK, trust me, we will and should never forget. I will not let it happen. As long as there is a shred of life in my body, I will NOT let it happen. If there is a grain of patriotism, a grain of decency in those that read this comment and/or this article, my dear Iranian brothers and sisters - we must never forget. Forgive Yes, Forget No. We must honor those who died or became injured...
Ayatoilet
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Sep 13, 2011 06:52 AM PDTDr Mossadegh unknowingly did more to hurt Iran than any Iranian in modern history. Because his legacy poisoned atmosphere of Iranian politics. The result was to make a paranoid Shah who mistrusted every Iranian. Not to mention MEK and JM whose crowning achievement was the Islamic Republic. I am sorry but no matter what his motives Mossadegh ruined Iran. His oil nationalization put Iran head to head against Britain. His choice of adviser like Bazargan brought Khomeini.
allegation
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Sep 13, 2011 05:36 AM PDTIs fair and I am willing to live with it. But why all of this hatred towards RP? What did he really do to merit it.
The real problem with RP is his lack of energy. That while unfortunate is not a crime. It just means he needs more coffee! But his heart was and is always with Iran. I would love to see him either restored as King or at least the leader of a party.
How do you want it changed?
by ayatoilet1 on Tue Sep 13, 2011 04:34 AM PDTThe consensus from the comments was to call it an allegation.... Now what do you want to call it? A lie? A lie would imply that I have bad faith, and I do not. It can be an untrue fact, but it is not a lie, and I am not a liar. I believe the allegation, and I have sound reasons to believe it because of the detailed accounts from both Shahbazi but also Dr. Bahar's accounts. You may not believe it ..after all that is your perogative. I do not have bad faith towards the crown prince or bakhtiar; but I think this is an issue Iranians should know about and discuss, and maybe resolve when the regime changes. Have a truth commision to get to the bottom of this, we should maybe also assign a special investigator to talk to senior Iraqis (air force officers etc.). It should be noted for future historians...sake.
But give me a text, a sentence that works for you and I will see if I can include it. Lets be "positive" with each other, lets work together to discover the truth. We need this type of information to find out what really went on.
The rascal never changes his spot ! ...........
by Bahramerad on Tue Sep 13, 2011 04:06 AM PDTinvolvement in identifying integral Iranian military targets." ...... What a
bloody lie ! --- and what a mean ,despicable dastardly deed of yours to repeat
such untruth nonsense ! .......... " Toilet " has more dignity as a word
than having you choose it as a nick name for yourself. Please change it !
Mr Bahar
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Sep 13, 2011 04:39 AM PDTDo you understand you are not allowed to "give away" people's identity. I flagged you again. I hope you get the idea. I assume your allegation of the identity of the person are false but you could still endanger him/her. In my opinion you need to stop doing this.
In addition posting a private communication without the permission of sender is not right. Did you get permission from the sender to post his mail to you {if in fact this is a real mail}. There are privacy laws in USA which prohibit release of private mails without explicit consent of both parties. Do you have the persons explicit written consent?
Made the changes
by ayatoilet1 on Tue Sep 13, 2011 03:46 AM PDTplease read the article or not
Finally.....
by Bahramerad on Tue Sep 13, 2011 01:44 AM PDTAs you say ...
......" I can edit the article to say something like "......
...... " There are allegations by Mr. Shahbazi, the Crown Prince's --
CHOUFFERE - aid,
that ...",
......and maybe that would be better...
Oh yes ....
MUCH BETTER ......
از آقای فریدون
Jalil BaharTue Sep 13, 2011 01:36 AM PDT
از آقای فریدون عبداللهیان که همانند یک انسان بافرهنگ و فرهیخته شرح زیر را مرقوم داشته اند و مرا شرمنده فرموده اند بی نهایت سپاسگزارم ودیگر گله ای ندارم و مثل همیشه دوستشان دارم و همچنان دوست هستیم. امیدوارم که همه ما مانند ایشان درمواردی که اشتباه ولو هرچقدر مختصر هم میکنیم شهامت و صداقت رفع سوء تفاهم را داشته باشیم....بامهرو احترام....جلیل بهار
درود به شوما دکتر بهار
از این که سوِ تواهومی روی داده و شوما دل رنجیده شودید متأسفم.
خطابه من - نویسنده این مقاله بود که در اون به اشتباه یک مطلبی را به اشتباه نقل کرده بود - میبود و نه شخص شوما.
بر عکس ، من از اینکه حتا از نقله قول کردن نوشته شوما - بارِ دیگر در اون ضمیمه هم دروغ گفته بود - از شوما طرفداری کردم.
آمیدوارم که این ضمیمه جریان را برای شوما روشنتر کرده باشد.
فریدون عبداللهیان
AP:
by G. Rahmanian on Mon Sep 12, 2011 07:41 PM PDTAll you need to do is use any search engine and type in, "true facts" or "untrue facts," and you'll get the answer. BTW, a common "mistake" used by a community is accepted as correct, by almost all linguists. And we are not even talking about a common "mistake," here!
accusations is better for me from webster,
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Mon Sep 12, 2011 04:12 PM PDTOn wednesday I'm going to see the husband of a friend who is the editor of a major paper in the uk, the telegraph, to get input from him, the english language throws me off completely, because it has one dictionary general, one for law, another for science, another for medicine and you know what I can't see myself making sense of the contradictions, Because the examples given are different in different cases for 1 language, i see cases where you are right, I see cases where webster is right. WTF!!!!!!!
We don't have this in farsi. I think.
Amir-Jan, A Fact Can be true and untrue at the very same time!!
by ayatoilet1 on Mon Sep 12, 2011 03:56 PM PDTIts all about searching for truth, and in doing so one has to compile facts (that may or may not be true). The truth can change, the truth can shift, the truth can be a matter of perspective, the truth can be a matter of context, the truth is a very different issue to a fact.
To bring this concept home, think of this situation (in lay man terms): You and me are driving and we see a women driver in the car next to us at a traffic light. I turn arround and say to you - man she's gorgeous. Beautiful!! Wow! (But all I can see is her face and shoulders and beautiful hair). Its the truth and it is a fact.
Then she pulls out from the light, stops in front of the Kentucky Fried Chcken - and she steps out of the car - and suddenly we both discover she has a massive, I mean huge - butt (arse in Uk - English) - and thighs the size of tug boats. Now, you turn arround and you say - dear Supreme Dr. Ayatoilet Kh Kh Kh, you can have her! (which would imply you think she is not gorgeous, beautiful etc.). To you the truth is she is ugly, and that is a fact to you. Could she still be gorgeous to me? Can I still appreciate the beauty? What is the truth? (Now, my suspicion is from all your writing that you actually like fat bottom women, and in fact your view might actually be the same as my original view!!) Is that possible?
Now what is she, Beautiful or Ugly? What is the truth? Do we have multiple facts here? Did the facts change? What created the change? Time? Perspective?
All joking aside, we need to jointly (all of us Iranians) be searching for truth - and realize that the truth may shift, truth may change ....that its a dynamic reality - but one has to start with a set of facts that in fact may or may not be true. Facts are facts and they must be presented - in the search for truth its all we have. We need to seek out facts.
And, by the way, I love MM's idea of trying to ferret all this out of the archives in Iraq. Or even better, if we could interview former Air Force officers in Iraq to find out how they collaborated with the Crown Prince? What they did with the MEK/PMOI/MKO? It would be an excellent research effort ...for some one very brave.
Finally, if it makes you feel better, I can edit the article to say something like "there are allegations by Mr. Shahbazi, the Crown Prince's aid, that ..." and maybe that would be better...and get every one to move forward, and allow us all to focus on trying to find out more facts about 9/22 and this horrible war.
G Rahmanan go to the webster dictionary
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Mon Sep 12, 2011 02:15 PM PDTyour point is not correct, it has to be a done thing, until it is done it is not indeed a fact.
a wrong fact isn't a fact at all by that definition the only fact that exists is one that is done a true fact
When people by phrase say your facts are wrong, that is a mistake technically they should say your accusations are wrong. To be fact proof necesary.
go to link below.
When someone says that is a scientific fact, it had to be proven. That is the process of science, hypothesis, with proof be comes fact, with out proof its nothing not a fact.
historical fact
by MM on Mon Sep 12, 2011 01:53 PM PDTThe following "historical method" is recommended by wiki to double-check the authenticity of a source before it is written up by historians //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method and also compiled by AHA publication guide: Statement on Standards
- Download a free printable PDF
The Iraqi archives would be a great source to confirm/deny these alleged collaborations amongst Saddam/RPII/Bakhtiar.
G Rahmanian
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Sep 12, 2011 09:08 AM PDTNo! You are telling me an untrue fact :-)
VPK:
by G. Rahmanian on Mon Sep 12, 2011 09:06 AM PDTThat suggestion was to the writer of the blog.
G Rahmanian
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Sep 12, 2011 08:48 AM PDTNo problem write the blog but remember what Mehrdad said. If we go by that rule pretty much USA and many other nations are "at fault". In fact you could say USA was to blame for Pearl Harbor.
After all they did put Japan in a very tough position. Made life miserable for them so they would attack USA. But in America we don't blame the USA we blame Japan. Because they actually took the action.
But I do blame Khomeini for not ending it sooner on better terms. Therefore we agree on that. Nevertheless the war was the fault of Saddam not IRI and the blame for starting it is on him and only him and his supporters.
True Or Utrue Facts!
by G. Rahmanian on Mon Sep 12, 2011 08:51 AM PDTSuch usage of the word, "fact" is common in English. That is you can talk about true or untrue facts. Demanding proof is a different issue.
Ayatoilet Jan
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Sep 12, 2011 08:29 AM PDTsomething that may or may not be a "true fact"
That sounds funny. What is not a true fact? It is either true or not. If true it is a fact and you need to prove it. For example. I am writing this post. It is a fact. The proof is that it will be posted! The Earth is here and that is a fact. The proof is that we touch it and all feel it. We may get into discussion of whether we all suffer a mass hallucination. But that is out there a bit. Anyone could make a charge; that is not a fact in my book sorry! I don't really see a point to this.
If we go with this approach I could say you are a Martian. That is not a "true fact" but who cares! The whole "fact" becomes meaningless. Let us stick to reality where facts exist and require proof. Without proof they are not facts: alright.
Suggestion For Future Blogs!
by G. Rahmanian on Mon Sep 12, 2011 06:39 AM PDT"Now in retrospect I think there were a few incidents like that (including the downing of the Iran Air plane) that should have been mentioned...AND, the role of the MEK/MKO/PMOI should have been there ..."
How about something with regards to IR's provocations in Iraq? Or regime's lack of interest in ending the war? And how the regime in Tehran tried to liberate Jerusalem?
The official source.
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Mon Sep 12, 2011 06:02 AM PDT//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Definition of FACT 1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action 2 archaic : performance, doing 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality — in fact : in truth Examples of FACT- Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
- The book is filled with interesting facts and figures.
So example the Iraq war occuring in the 1980's was indeed a fact. To be a fact it has to be provable it was done. Until It is proved that it was done it remains an accusation. Has it been proven it was done, if so by whom other tha the accuser? //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accusation ac·cu·sa·tionnoun \ˌa-kyə-ˈzā-shən, -(ˌ)kyü-\ Definition of ACCUSATION 1 : the act of accusing : the state or fact of being accused 2 : a charge of wrongdoing See accusation defined for English-language learners » See accusation defined for kids » Examples of ACCUSATION
So The Aid made accusations of xyz against Reza Pahalvi. It didn't become a fact until it was proven. How was it proven, When was it proven and by whom was it proven specifically for it to be a fact? If it is still questionable that it was proven then it can't be a fact. I can accuse you of stealing $100 from me and take you to court and if you don't show up I can win the case. And on that basis I have made it a fact that you stole $100 from me based on my testimony and my witness ad even though you did not appear to defend yourself. I would say based on court xyz it is a fact you stole $100 from me. However what yoou call a fact is still disputable for me and I call it a accusation and say I do not accept the ruling or your proof. How was it proven is key... was it with scientific certainty? 1+1 =2 fact or was the proof and evidence weak? A weakly proven fact, is no good. How exactly did they prove this all happened? I have serious doubts about how it was proven, because of the credibility of Mr Khomeini's behavior. Can he indeed show us the proof?