Persian Realm

It's good to be the king!

Or in this case, pretend to be one. While looking at the pictures of this gorgeous woman, I remembered an old movie by Mel Brooks.

It's indeed good to be the king!

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAgu6zI9v0

Another wife of a Shah:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcgSWLEyCVg&feature...

God help me

I agree with MKM or once. 

Lets drop the insults based on looks. It is people's actions that make people who they are. I oppose all censorship but would politely request we refrain from insults based on looks. Some great people in the world are overweight. So what? Some really nasty people are thin so what? 

Thanks VPK

and, irrelevant to our discussion.

period.

u thought all nite for another pointless manifesto?

looked over it.  Good luck w/ it.

Sorry Yasmine, but these are all useful discussions

Have u no shame to blame the victims for crimes of iri?

Not in this case. I really don't. Believe it or not, I became a lot more moderate in my position in this case over time. They deserve much worse than this.

The main reason that IRI survived is Toodé ideology. There was a time that IRI could be subdued, if the young generation was joining the force of secular movement. And I'm not talking about Bakhtiar, who came too late for almost everybody with that level of immaturity that we had in political thinking. I'm talking about the early stage of IRI, when akhoonds were capable of toppling a mighty regime, thanks to their vast organizational network of mosques, but they couldn't run the country. And there they came, the communists, with their 'death to liberals' slogan, effectively paralyzing all social base of secularism to withstand the islamic wave.

Prince Reza,

I think he is awesome and she is georges. He is Iranian, nationalist, educated, knows hell of a lot more about politics than you and I. Speaks several languages, dresses well, speaks with respect for all and frankly he has not commited any crimes. He dedicated his life to the issues surrunding Iran and Iranians. I think he cares about Iran more than anyone I've seen or heared. You do not like him as king, fine, I do not want him as aking either, do not dissrespect him, In my eyes he is a prince, and there is nothing wrong with a prince caring for his country. Is he rich? I sure hope so. I rather see him rich than the fat ugly, smelly, rapist Akhond with 30 billion. Love him to death, if he decides to run for presidency, I will vote for him. 

Dk, Nothing in this world changes the fact that he is the Prince.  

Stop Execution of Iranians in Islamic Prisions

You are welcome Anahid. But

You are welcome Anahid. But he was a victim of his ideology not IRI. An ideology that perished a lot of young Iranians of my generation. Rest assured I don't blame him. Everybody is responsible for his or her own act and belief.

Hojjati: that's perceisely it!

How is it that now it is accepted to support Moussavi when he was prime minister at the time of killings?

You think maybe most people on this board don't actually share the views of the millions of green Iranians on the streets yelling "Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein" holding up pictures of Mousavi and Karroubi? Has that possiblity occured to you?

Actually, the few blowhards who love to sound self-righteous and populist, -- including the well known stalker, Iraneh Azad, with his/her usual revenge fantasies -- jumping down my throat for stating undisputed facts that they happen to disagree with, are doing more "revealing" than I could ever do.

Yes, it is a fact that the 1988 murders had the support of much of the population because of MEK's bad reputation and the fact that they were a foreign-funded armed terrorist group. What's truly laughable, yet sadly typical, is how this issue is now more popular in the West than it ever was at the time of the executions themselves. There is no shortage of opportunists willing ot use any tragedy for their own purposes.

Yes, it is a fact that 99% of the behesht Zahra deaths attributed to Khomeini's actions (as Javid put it "behesht Zahra ro abad kard) are from war casualties, and this strengthens the moral position of the IRI with its supporters. In case anybody cares about the actual topic of discussion with Javid

I don't know why people are blind selectively. I explained this three times already: It is not a fact that lives would have been saved if Khomeini had accepted a cease fire in 1983. It is my opinion and that of many commentators that Saddam Hussein just wanted to stall for time because he was caught off-guard by the Iranian resistance. This has been analyzed to death but of course people just see what they want to see.

The key is this: Saddam (with the help of Reagan administration) refused to acknowledge that he was the aggressor, which was a reasonable condition of Iran's acceptance of a cease fire. Reagan blocked a UN motion that would have designated Iraq the aggressor and the Saudi financial offer was also conditional on stating the event was a "no fault" situation.

This is a big indication that Saddam was not ready to give up on his plans to invade Iran. I don't understand why a bunch of gullable Iranians residing in the West and wit the benefit of hindsight, all of a sudden consider Saddam's word as gospal truth. The whole premise that "lives would have been saved" depends on Saddam was telling the truth. It's beyond me why people are accepting this, when in reality, he was a crazy mofo that was hell bent on war and it was proven so only 2 years after the end of the Iran Iraq war.

So it is reasonable to assume it is at least possible that no "lives would have been saved" had Khomeini only accepted the cease fire at that particular time.

But it is far far more certain that only a minute handful of Iranian lives would have been taken had Khomeini just caved in and gave up Khuzestan to Saddam which he would have made into an Arab province.

It is almost certain that had Iran done this, there would have been no war and no lives lost. This was my question to Javid (asked twice but did not receive a reply).

It was intended to illustrate the point on morals: If you truly belive it is all about "number of deaths" then what you're saying is that Iran should have given up Khuzestan and accepted Saddam's aggression. Even under the now-popular view that Saddam was "honest", that act would have saved even more lives than Khomeini accepting cease fire in 1983.

The reason giving up Khuzestan was not acceptable is because your sense of justice. This sense of justice says it's OK to do something resulting in many deaths for a good cause. This is the same story with the French revolution where many lives were lost but the peopel feel the result was worth it. In fact almost every revolution, and numerous other historical situations that I desceibed in detail, has this same calculus. Many peopel in Iran, feel the same way about the 1988 executions.

This was the point I was trying to make.

Now, I will leave it to the clowns and character assassins (you know who you are) to completley ignore the point and come back with your latest blow-hard self-righteous set of accusations.

Go nuts!

Hey Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone!

Another Brick In The Wall (Hey Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone!)

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIP38eq-ywc

For you Anahid

//www.bbc.co.uk/persian/arts/2010/01/100110_u...

.

.

baleh Khaanome Hojjati!!!?

As we Esfahanis say: "shouma ras migoid"!!!

Since I am a marhoum, when I get a chance I'll talk to marhoum Kianouri, and see what he thinks about that!

Behesh Zahra

It has already been pointed out is not 99% soliders from the war. But I agree that there are many soldiers there. Most of them are there because of the IRR. 

1) Khomeini dismantled the whole Iranian military command structure. That so weakened Iran as to make her subject to Iraqi aggression and invasion. Without that Iran would have kicked Saddam back in no time. 

2) By holding the hostages IRR alienated pretty much all the nations leaving Iran alone.  If not Iran would have been able to get more and better weapons thus reducing casualties on Iranian side.

3) Khomeini refused the peace and reparations Iraq offered. If he had not war would have been over. The injuries and deaths after that were entirely his fault. That man for personal revenge sent many thousands of Iranians to their deaths.

Tudeis just supported best elements of IRI

When Tudeis supported best elements of IRI, IRI was 100 times better than now.  How is it that now it is accepted to support Moussavi when he was prime minister at the time of killings? People are not so harsh to judge those who support Mousavi even after all his involvement in killings but same people balme tudeis since they supported fractions of IRI at the time that IRI was letting tens of political parties exist and no such mass killings had been done. 

I agree with jj on this (to Q)

Q, generally speaking, I hate to agree with jj, but he has a strong point regarding 1988 murders. Even prior to that, and around 1981, regime killed some Todehis, Axariaties etc., who were totally against armed struggle with IRI. Rumor had it that Todehis even collaborated with IRI.

.

.

Q

You ask MM:

MM: Are you saying Iran is worse than Nazi Germany?
by Q on Sat Feb 06, 2010 09:54 PM PST
or Stalinist Russia?
or Maoist China?
or Fasicst Italy? Fraco's Spain? Khmer rouge in Cambodia?

I ask you: Does it have to be? Do we need to wait until IRR kills a third of the population?  I think they have killed quite enough already. Listen: before AN V2 up to last summer; before the rigged election people had hope. They hoped that reform was possible. That the freak show of IRR would end by itself and become a distant bad memory. But Khamenei proved otherwise. No argument; no "safsateh va maglateh" is going to redeam the IRR. People need real democracy.

arrogance has no limit

you said it vildemose.  one can stop readin q's response to jj after the first part where claims that 99% of dead in behesht zahra are the dead from iran iraq war.  that exaggeration on its own speaks volumes.  i wonder if he's ever visited the cemetery.  i have as i have many family members buried there.  there's a large section for the perished soldiers but the cemetery has been in tehran for decades before the revolution, and the only place for all the dead in tehran.  and he persumes that all who served iran during the iran iraq war had done it voluntary including the children who were walking into the front clearing mines with their bodies (only after the donkeys refused to do so).  and there were no 'gasht', the basijis in pick-up trucks, going around in neighborhoods forcibly taking males of age (14 and up) and sending them to the front.

not to mention that he did not respond to jj's claim that the war was imposed by the regime when it had a chance to end it.  praising these atrocities and deaths and injuries caused by the regime on those who oppose it by just saying "the average person on the streets of iran doesn't care," seems callous and disturbing.  listening to people like this reaffirms my position of the brutal and murderous regime that is in place and those who support it.

Iran Azad: Precisely. I hope

Iran Azad: Precisely. I hope this blog is not deleted or at least a back up copy is made independtly of the IC.  

Reminder to everyone on Q's views

You know what will happen to collaborators like Q when Iran is finally liberated from the hands of these evil Mullahs? Have you seen the WWII movies right after France is liberated? Do you see how the French treated the collaborator woman by shaving their heads in public and made them ware signs in public?
This is what should happen to collaborators.

Q's writings below to Mr. Javid are so revealing of the evil in his world view and philosophy once again. The fact that the comparisons Q makes to Mr. Javid in his arguments are unrelated and weak at best are something else. Their comical nature must be preserved for future readers when our meehan is liberated from his likes.

Q's arguments and justifications show that he does not care for humans, human rights and basic principles of human decency. These are the same traits he shares with his Islamist Mullahs which he supports and has supported with full devotion for the past 30 years.

If you have not been exposed to Q's view before to see how wrong he is, and that he only argues for the sake of arguing with outright crazy and evil justifications, here is a taste of what Q has written here in the past in defense of the IRR and Islamists in general:

1) “So we have to admit, there is such a thing as a continuom...... The system as it is designed currently can deliver much better democracy. For example: if the Guardian Council starts vetting candidates less and less. The Supreme Leader could show less and less initiative. The foreign policy council could be dominated more and more by the popularly elected President (That's Ahmadinejad by the way). The system can move very far toward perfect democracy. “

2) "The fact that there is strict eligability requirement is not a reason to call it undemocratic."

3) "Even though I agree the candidate vetting process in Iran is unusually subject to abuse, it is only a few degrees different than other democracies. And in any case continued participation of people in the system also legitimizes it. That's just a fact of life we may not like but it won't go away.
That's just a fact of life we may not like but it won't go away."

4) "I believe the revolution gave us "Esteghlal"."

5) "Since when is having a democracy dependnet on Parties? The US constituion doesn't have any provision for political parties. The definition of what is a "party" is extremely vague anyway. What we have in Iran now could be considered parties"

6) "The fact that there is strict eligability requirement is not a reason to call it undemocratic."

7) "In Iran, the role of Supreme Leader is closest to a "chief justice" since he has no proper legislative functions."

8) "A referendum is not a bad idea, if the people of Iran want it. A majority would have to demand it. But personally I think if even 30% of Iranians go on record supporting such a referendum it would happen and I would support it."

9) IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING POINT:

"The point is that the IRI and its supporters will not allow such refrundum to take place since they know its results."

THE PERSON WRITES:
"I'm not sure if that's true, but where is the proof that such a referendum is demanded? When a large majority of Iranians come out year after year to vote inside the system, and support its positions (like Nuclear Power, anti-Iran terrorism, etc) in international polls, why should they think that anybody other than Monarchists and the MEK are calling for this referendum?"

10) IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:
"The majority of Iranians want the same things than any other normal human being would want: freedom, progress, prosperity, peace, security, happiness and so on."

PERSON WRITES
"no doubt. But IRI claims to provide these and a lot of people believe them. Contrary to popular belief in California, all those people ren't and really couldn't be on the "IRI payroll". You must face the fact that not everyone interprets these values the same way as you do or you understand them.

In fact since 65%+ of the Iranians routinely participate in elections, we can conclude that they have decided the system is reformable and good enough. They have decided they don't want the kind of chaos that comes with a revolution, especially since there are many foreign wolves waiting to attack. I know you don't accept this, but that's why you are not in charge."

11) "As far as IRI has imposed its ideological supremacy, I fail to understand how a government can do that based on a national constitution that was voted for by 90%+ of Iranians"

12) "IRI has neither occupied ("hegemony" by the definition that is relevant here)nor "forced an ideology through government"

13) "If Iranians want to put their lives on the line, they can remove the government right now"

Q's writings more than

Q's writings more than anything else are self-revealing. In him we have a making of another Khomeini, pol pot, Stalin, etc...

Hope he never gets to any position of power in Iran or anywhere else. 

Fair only if...

Q, thank you for another revealing debate.

Just remember that I jumped into this because I found it odd that you thought "Soltane-GHABR-ha" would be a more appropriate title for a song to define the Pahlavi family.

Clearly that was a judgment call on the Shah and his record, which would be fair only if you are consistent in condemning atrocities by any leader or government, be it the Shah, Khomeini, Khamenei, Bush, Obama, Israel, Hamas, or...

Q

Yes I will say it; Iran under the rules of Islamic theocracy by nature is as evil as the Nazi Germany was more than 70 years ago although they lack the German charisma and the inelegance. But in the following aspects they are equals, some hints for you; miming and Killing any and every opposition internally, promoting ideology of hate internationally, armed to the teeth and acquiring more, practicing ethnic and religious cleansing, mass killings, attempt at the religious indoctrination of the youth, morality police and ………

BTW, you should consider seriously to publish your writings you can call it; "Q's Collective Writings - A man who wasn't able to make up his mind about the evils of theocracy"   

What do you think?

1. Atrocities are justified in the name of God in such a way that people are driven to become Christians and Zoroastrians.  Meanwhile, the Mullah heads of the regime have taken out billions of dollars in petrol dollars out while people on the streets do not have jobs, money and food……. I can go on!

2. My sister or friends are taken to prison by the morality police and brutalized.

3. My dad is destroyed by this !#$%ing regime without a single formal charge.

4. Also, one million humans are destroyed in a war that could have ended much sooner, with a lot less casualty and with Arab compensation.  By some estimates, 155000 have perished as political prisoners.....   

What do you think?

MM: Are you saying Iran is worse than Nazi Germany?

or Stalinist Russia?
or Maoist China?
or Fasicst Italy? Fraco's Spain? Khmer rouge in Cambodia?

Assuming you are calling Iran a "theocracy", I just want to make sure you have actually thought about what you are saying. Or is it just some meaningless slogan you love to repeat. Which is it?

I'm not holding my breath.

This is what happens when people are incapable of a dispassionate discussion of truth.

Note that this comment is small, you don't have to hurt your head reading something -- heaven forbid -- one page long.

Theocracy is the worst form of a dictatorship

Theocracy is the worst form of a dictatorship because:

* Every atrocity can be justified with a verse of a holy book, explained by a faux-tawa, or become righteous with a sermon.

* Theocracy takes away political freedoms as well as social freedoms.

* For susceptible people, it becomes easy to do horrible things to others once labeled as mohaareb, mofsed-ol-fel-arz or kaafar.

BTW1: Anahid said it best: At least be concise Q; the more you write a manifesto instead of a reply, the less likely its readership.

BTW2: The killings may be numbers to you Q, but it really hurts when that one person is dear to you.  So, keep your justifications to yourself. 

Javid,

Can you give me examples in Iran where those who have been killed by the hands of the government indicate "moral justice and strength"?

First of all, I said "deaths", you write "killed by the hands of government." 99% of Behesht Zahra that you used as an example are deaths from the Iran-Iraq war. The reason there is such thing as a "hardliner" today is because of the tremendous support that the Government receives from people who have lost lives in that cemetary defending Iran, otherwise hardliners would be a tiny minority of nobodies easily swept aside. It is the moral strength of the blood lost that gives them legitimacy with most people in Iran.

Do these shining examples of "moral justice and strength" include the thousands shot and hanged in 1988 in Evin and other prisons across the country. The ones Montazeri condemned?

To a small extent with most people. It's not at the same level of war "shohada" but I hate to break it to you my friend, but average person on the streets does not shed a tear for these people. It is considered strength, to a LARGE extent from the point of view of a sizable minority who consider Iran being under a foreign-funded armed attack at the time which is exactly what the Mojaheds did. From that view, they are in the same status as civil war victims in America.

Shouldn't the government be judged for this blatant atrocity? Who should answer for it? Wouldn't a normal person consider this "bad"? Or are we not allowed to judge?

You are allowed to judge all you want. You're even allowed to pretend your judgement is shared by majority of Iranians, but it doesn't mean you are right.

Just as you want to the "right" to be allowed to call this or that act "bad", don't forget to put yourself in the shoes of people who don't share the sentiment with you and may even have opposite reactions.

Really? I'm in the tiny minority for seeing injustice in the number of people killed under the Islamic Republic? Is this your "dispassionate" view of the truth?

I'm getting a little tired of this. I said "total number of deaths", once again you pretend this means "innocent political activists in Iran". I gave you plenty of examples where the total number of deaths are high but the cause was undisputably right.

How can you absolve the Islamic Republic of those crimes and say it shouldn't be judged for those crimes? Let me hear it, please.

Let me hear how I said I "absolve the Islamic Republic" of anything, and then maybe we can have a rational discussion based on truth.

Are you saying the 1979 revolution should be viewed the same way as the French?

Yes, in historical terms.

Are you saying we are moving towards a democracy like the French? Seriously?

No, I'm saying we are moving forward much better than the French. The French revolution was a monumental step forward in democracy and no one denies that. However 30 years after the French revolution, an event with much more deaths and misery than IRI there was absolutely no democracy in France, and the Monarchy was back in power. Today, however, every french citizen points to the French revolution as the seminol act of democracy in France.

Not one follower of the Islamic Republic believes in the French Revolution or democracy.

That's just a laughable stereotype and a slap in the face of the majority of Iranian greens who are in fact reformists.

Every word spoken by the Supreme Leader and senior officials is precisely against the ideals of the French Revolution more than 200 years ago and the secular French Republic of today.

Yes, this may be true.

Show me evidence that Iran is going to become another France, or a democracy. And if you can't then the only thing the 1979 revolution has in common with the French is murder and mayhem.

LOL! No one can show you evidence of the future. But it is exactly in the same spot (in a BETTER spot) than the French revolution was in. We don't even need the French example, this revolution itself was a successor of the mashroutiat movement which is celebrated today but defeated at the time.

You brought up World War II and the American Civil War. Why, I don't know. We are not talking about wars but the difference between the Pahlavi regime the Islamic Republic.

We are talking bout "number of deaths" and how those decisions were right even though many people died. That's I've been talking about, go check my words for yourself.

We are discussing the way government treat their citizens and the fact that you see no reason to judge the Islamic Republic based on those who have unjustly died by its hands.

Please! I said I see no reason to judge the IRI by those who have unjustly died by its hands???

That's real funny.

You're one of the one who blames IRI for the people killed in Iran-Iraq war. So why is it that you don't all of a sudden understand the war analogies that I gave about Khuzestan, Nazis and Civil War?

Your interpretation of the War is of course a biased product of "hindsight". I don't believe for an instance in 1983 Saddam Hussein would have been satisfied and wouldn't just regroup and attack again. But that's a disagreement we have.

I asked you a simple question which you have dodged: wouldn't not resisting Saddam Hussein AT ALL have saved more lives? Yes or No?

According to you, the loss of lives is no measure of a government's good or bad behavior.

Yes, it's a matter of how and under what circumstances. What about this statement is controversial to you?

you let the Islamic Republic off the hook by refusing to even consider it worthy of being judged based on its atrocities

Please!!! I "refused" no such thing.

DK jaan I recommend u delet & repost since ur request wasnt met!

Everything is sacred.

Q, the dispassionate truth seeker!

Q, you say you can defend the truth dispassionately? Well, I hope so. Let's see your latest comments:

You argue that the number of deaths is not an indication of justice of ANY EVENT, "This is especially true of Iran where the number of lives lost is actually an indication of moral justice and strength."

Can you give me examples in Iran where those who have been killed by the hands of the government indicate "moral justice and strength"? Do these shining examples of "moral justice and strength" include the thousands shot and hanged in 1988 in Evin and other prisons across the country. The ones Montazeri condemned? Shouldn't the government be judged for this blatant atrocity? Who should answer for it? Wouldn't a normal person consider this "bad"? Or are we not allowed to judge?

You say, "Despite your distraction my point still stands. Iranians as well as most other people around the world do not see a negative correlation between number of lives lost and the 'justice' of the situation. If you do, you are in a tiny (and by most measures immoral) minority."

Really? I'm in the tiny minority for seeing injustice in the number of people killed under the Islamic Republic? Is this your "dispassionate" view of the truth? If governments are not judged by how they treat their own citizens, then when and how can they be judged for anything? And I'm not even going to go into forced imposition of the hejab, the overall mistreatment of women and minorities or the general lack of human rights and basic freedoms. Or the latest news that Iran has the world record in the number of journalists in jail. I'm just pointing out specific crimes against humanity in the execution and murder of political prisoners and activists (remember the chain murders, which remain unresolved?). How can you absolve the Islamic Republic of those crimes and say it shouldn't be judged for those crimes? Let me hear it, please.

You mention the French Revolution and the many who died. Are you saying the 1979 revolution should be viewed the same way as the French? Are you saying we are moving towards a democracy like the French? Seriously? Not one follower of the Islamic Republic believes in the French Revolution or democracy. Every word spoken by the Supreme Leader and senior officials is precisely against the ideals of the French Revolution more than 200 years ago and the secular French Republic of today. The theocracy in Iran is heading in the opposite direction. You say no? Show me evidence that Iran is going to become another France, or a democracy. And if you can't then the only thing the 1979 revolution has in common with the French is murder and mayhem.

You brought up World War II and the American Civil War. Why, I don't know. We are not talking about wars but the difference between the Pahlavi regime the Islamic Republic. We are discussing the way government treat their citizens and the fact that you see no reason to judge the Islamic Republic based on those who have unjustly died by its hands.

And you mention another war, between Iran and Iraq. Again, off topic, but in this case it's worth pointing out that the government led by Khomeini was directly responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives because the war was dragged on for another six years AFTER Khuzestan and virtually all other Iranian lands were cleared of Iraqi invaders. This is not my view, but that also of Montazeri, Bazargan and the rest of Nehzat Azadi who cannot be labeled unpatriotic or pro-Iraq. But human lives don't seem that important to you. According to you, the loss of lives is no measure of a government's good or bad behavior. Unless if they happened under the Pahlavis.

You say you won't "let Shah off the hook" for making Iran, in the words of Amnesty International, "the number one human rights violator of the decade (70's)" and yet you let the Islamic Republic off the hook by refusing to even consider it worthy of being judged based on its atrocities that have been far far worse according to the same Amnesty International that condemned the shah. Barikallah for your "dispassionate" defense of truth and justice!

All, will we ever have a Iranian society...

in which EVERYONE have individual rights no matter who you are or aren’t, religious, non-religious, monarchist, communist, republican, democrat, fascists, progressive, nudist, socialist, agnostic, swinger, nationalist, topless dancers, homosexuals, foreign agent, bisexual, akhond, A-sexual, godless, fool, smart ass, educated, uneducated, prostitute, pimp, jerk, angel, devil, god, lazy-ass , hard working, folks who live in the past, folks with no past, folk with no future, folks with bright future, and so on........live in peace and toleration! AND WHY DO WE HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER EVERY 30 YEARS AND FOR THE FOLLOWING 30 YEARS TALK ABOUT "ME-MYSELF & I" WITH EMPHASIS ON OUR OWN STUPIDITY?! PERHAPS I'M A DREAMER.... 

PS. I believe our Iranian DNA is missing some serious amount of chromosomes, unless proven otherwise!