Pictory

Shah and Mike Wallace

Thank you for posting this video because it shows how the United States media is NOT the voice of American people and we did not have such bad opinions of The Shah. We loved him and still do today. His son should be in power.

Now today, the U.S. media is making these same attacks on the citizens of the United States of America by making these same claims of torture against us. Criminals must be dealt with and must be contained and controlled. It's the same in EVERY country!!

The PEOPLE of The United States and Iran must stand together against these attacks against our way of life, our Families, our traditions.

The MEDIA is no good, they are not doing any assistance to the greater cause of Peace.

Obama does not have the best interest of Peace in mind and we do not trust him since he works with the media, he lies, he is not working for Peace.

Germany, Russia, The United States, Iran, The U.K. - We must all work together - stop The United Nations for their power hungry elimination of people, traditions, religion and Family across the globe.

NO POLITICIANS WILL SAVE US - WE MUST SAVE OURSELVES !!

Thank you.

Re: capt_ahyab

بحث کردن با آدمی که هم متعصب هست وهم نادان و هم پر مدعا وهم هوچی گر، اتلاف وقت گران بهاست.

جواب ابلهان همان بهتر خاموشی.

Shah and Mike Wallace - GRAPHIC

-YT

Anonymas

Dear Anonymas,

I truly appreciate your candor and decency. People like him need to know that they are so miserably irrelevant that no one gives a hoot as to what they say and what they stand for.

These type are the people who have been joining voice with AIPAC and kind and have been propagating military attack on their own home land. The WORST kind of [VATAN FOROOSH] that ever existed.I have made my mission to expose these treacherous people. who are awaiting and praying for some foreign force attack Iran so they can go back and take over. How miserable and sick is that sir/madam?

Have a wonderful day

Regards

-YT

Jamshid

Obviously you are having a very hard time containing your rude and belligerent [arbadeh kashi]. In none of my comment to anyone I had said anything out of context to you nor to anyone else. However, as rude and ignorant you are , you started by insulting me and labeling me from the get go.

You have failed miserably in producing any factual data regarding your argument. To make the matter worse, you have confronted to your usual slanderous and baseless accusation of commentators. Every single attempt you have made, either in your dialogue with me or anyone else, you have tried to justify and whitewash criminal actions of Pahlavi and their SAVAK.

With people like you who are so delusional that think they can intimidate people by childish and ignorant name calling one can only do the best thing and that is to expose you for what you are.

No one has threatened you and just in case you do not know the meaning of the saying allow me to explain. [To clean ones clock] means to expose them for what they are. In your case you are a hollow being who is trying to justify atrocities that your Shah e BOZDEL and his father before him committed by selling out the country for their personal gains. Being perfectly honest little man, there is no difference between kinds of you and IR goons who are in charge of the country now. 

The only difference between your kind and IR criminals is that you guys wear ties and they do not. 

Hopefully now that your clock is cleaned you have learned your lesson and will conduct yourself as a human being and not act like [Shaban Bimokh] all the time.

Have a great day ;-)

-YT

Jamshid jan

You made many valid points my friend. Thank you for the informative comments.

Had we known better in those days, we would have acted differently. Maybe as you said, we could have had 30 years of Bakhtiar instead of IRI. Just imagine what it would be like for Iran. I second you that lies and exaggerations had a lot to do with our poor choices back then.

It is a shame.

Capt_ahyab: Please refrain from using threats and bad mouthing others. It will only show your lack of tolerance and your weak argumentation. You said you hate to be like shaban bi mokh, but you certainly act like it. So please, try not to act like him, if you really meant that.

Rostam

This Jahil is not at your level dear Captain!

Dear captain ayhab!

Any rational person reading your arguments with this ignorant prejudiced shahollahi can discern the logical and solid nature of your arguments versus his repeating illusional bla bla blas...

you are wasting your valuable time to put your logic in front of his shaboon jafaari style logic...

These type of shaboon bimokhs will always remain like their brainless father and will never understand reason and logic!

Re: capt_ahyab

Stop acting like a hypocrite and like a teen age bully.

I was having a polite discussion with you. The worst thing I might have told you is that hatred may be blinding you to the facts. Then you responded to me with a rude, angry and insulting voice.

As we say in Farsi, you needed to be put in your place. Now, didn't you, capt_ahyab?

From your last post:

"Do not label me, do not call me names, because you do not know me. So anytime you put your foot in your mouth, you are just making a complete fool of yourself by rendering judgment about a person that you do not know."

And from your post before that:

"Jamshid agho... your word and shaholahi's word do not count."

Let's see... I am not a monarchist, let alone a shaholahi. My preference is a parliamentary, multi-party form of government, be it a republic or a constitutional monarchy. Now go read your statements agains and ask yourself, doesn't it look like you are badly in need of your own advice regarding rendering judgement?

Shouldn't you already be feeling embarassed? Or do you need more examples? Here is another one:

"I do not play SHAHOLAHI games of ignorance and intimidation..."

"Jamshid, I have no problem to clean your clock..."

Do you have enough intelligence to see your hypocrisy? You complain to me about my shaholahi games, then you threaten to clean my clock.

Who is acting like a hezbollahi/shaholahi now? Me or you? Do you realize how childish and foolish you made yourself sound in front of everyone?

Hatred and anger does this to people.

Anyway, what was that thing you said? "Clean my clock..."?

"Clean MY clock?!" Who, YOU?!! When I read this I literally laughed so outloud that my shoulders were jumping up and down! Are you serious kiddo? Don't make me laugh, and please for your own sake, stop inadvertently exposing your true timid inner being in public. Delivering threats form behind the safety of your computer is not only a childish kiddy act, but also as cowardly as it can get around here on the net.

But despite this, it would be so irresistable to have seen you deliver this threat in person, and to have seen you shaking and "be pet pet oftaadan" when reality hits you in the head, that I'd be willing to even pay for your airline tickets!

Now, capt_coward, do we have even a much much better understanding?

It is a shame that an uncivilized individual like you turned this civilized discussion that included Iranians from all political spectrum into accusations, bullying and physical threats.

Jamshid

So far I have refrained from stooping to your level, and I have no intention of doing it, But I will give you one chance to act like a decent human being and  not like a [Shaban Bi Mokh].

Do not label me, do not call me names, because you do not know me. So anytime you put your foot in your mouth, you are just making a complete fool of yourself by rendering judgment about a person that you do not know. I do not play SHAHOLAHI games of ignorance and intimidation, being perfectly honest with you, men lot bigger than you have failed in intimidating me. I do not attempt to belittle people, specially in your case little man since you have already proven how low and ignorant you are by acting belligerent and talking without any logical base.

Jamshid, I have no problem to clean your clock so to speak, but then I'll be someone like you, something that I despise to be. Someone who is so pathetically engulfed in his ignorance that all he can do is to [arbadeh kashi] and name calling.

I think I have made myself very clear little man, either talk to me like a human being or be prepared to get exposed for your TOTAL lack on class and knowledge. After all, you are as irrelevant as your master Reza 1/2 Pahlavi who is even more BOZDEL than his daddy jun.

Do we understand each other little Jamshid?

-YT

Re: capt_ahyab

For the last time: I am NOT talking about whether less or more brutality has any relevance. So don't keep repeating othewise, like a parrot. I am saying that IF people are not lied to, they CAN make better decisions. If people were NOT lied to 30 years ago, more people would have turned to Bakhtiar instead of against him. WHAT PART OF THIS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?

But I now come to realize that it is not about whether you understand or not. This seems to be more about you being an ignorant, an angry ignorant filled with oghdeh and complexes.

It was people exactly like you (Sanjabi, Foroohar, etc.) that their complex and oghdeh and anger made their ears deaf to the words and warnings of Bakhtiar. They hated the shah so much and so passionately, that feeding and satisfying their hate was more important to them than reasoning or the interests of Iran.

You are a representation of them, of why the revolution was destined to fail. But buried under miles of oghdeh and anger, you'll never be able to see this, or be a positive and constructive force. The best you can do is to bark and propagate your ignorance.

There is nothing further to argue with you. javaabe ablahaan khaamooshist. I should have known better.

Now go feed and satiate your hatred towards the Shah, as though it will do you or anyone else any good.

Jamshid agho

Firstly lets get one spelling correct it is exaggerations.

Second, These numbers that you are posting mean absolutely nothing, where ever you have extracted just put them back.

Your problem is that PRINCIPLE means nothing to you. My arguments are based on PRINCIPLES and not numbers. You can argue the number of dead, tortured, maimed, raped killed  imprisoned till you are blue in the face. But they do not change the reality of Shah.

So far I have provided recorded facts, analysis, and historical data, however you still insist on shedding glimmer of humanity on you beloved DEAD shah by telling me that he KILLED less, and that he TORTURED less, and that he RAPED less.

Dude is this you entire logic? Please tell em that you come to these threads armed better than that? 

Jamshid Agho please tell me that you have anything better to tell me except that YOUR shah killed less people.

Jamshid please tell me that you have compared shah to a human being and you have the proof that he was a good leader. Please do not tell me that only way you and your ilk can show shah in any light is when you compare him to mass murderers and genocidal manics as IR.

For once in this thread Jamshid Agho, can you do that or you are just going to repeat you misspelling of [exaggerations] over and over and over again? give me facts, give me international opinions, give me reports of amnesty international, give me something, ANYTHING that says DEAD shah of Iran had anything resembling democracy in Iran.

 Regards

-YT

P/S your word and shaholahi's word do not count... I shall wait for your response.

Mord

Be ellate fowte mokhatab, peygham baygani shavad.

JAVID SHAH

Javid Shahanshah Aryamehr!

Re: Mammad

You are welcome.

I think every one of us Iranians should try to fnd the common things we want for Iran's future and for its people. Things such as prosperity, justice, peace and freedom.

But this cannot be accomplished with those whose ideology commands them to sacrifice all of the above for the sake of Allah or Palestine or any other manifest.

I am sure you'd agree that the majority of us Iranians have learnt our lessons of the past, and that for those who haven't learnt after and despite 30 years of misery and destruction, there is no way they can learn now.

So why waste time and discuss a past that will never return? Isn't trying to change people's mind today, simply a waste of time? (I admit that I engage in this wasteful act plenty myself.) But could you change my mind? Could I change yours? Shouldn't we be focused on our today's ills and on the future instead?

I have no problem working on this with a religious individual like yourself, as long as his ideology (or mine) does not override and sacrifice the worldly well being of the people such as prosperity, social justice, security and freedom of religion and  politcal views (as opposed to "ideological", which is interpreted in hundreds of different ways and which is usually imposed.)

Re: capt_ahyab

"There were no exaggerations about his (shah's) atrocities,"

From my other post:

300,000 vs 3,500 IS an exageration.

10,000 vs 97 IS an exageration.

Cinema Rex burnt by Savak IS a outright lie.

600,000 vs 5500 IS an exageration.

"shah eghtesade mamlekat ro naabood kardah." Khomein 1978. This too was an exageration, worst, an outright lie.

The question is why say these were not exagerations when they clearly were. I think the reason why lies in the fact that there is a difference between opposing something based on "hate" and opposing it base on "facts".

With hatred, many lies will pass through the mind on a red carpet, gladly and with pleasure. But at the end, the hater is the one who will shoot him/herself on the foot. Case in point: Karim Sanjabi vs. Shapour Bakhtiar.

I think your haterd of the Shah's regime, has turned you blind to the facts, facts that their acceptance does NOT turn you into a pro-Shah/monarchist. Instead, they will keep you against him, but for the RIGHT reasons. But hate doesn't let you see it that way.

And hate is what Islamists fueled among the masses 30 years ago, via lies and fantasic exagerations, in order to turn them against the Shah to such degree that they turned against a good man and their savior, a man called Bakthiar.

I don't know how old you are, but if you are as old as me, do you remember the shoar, "Bakhtiar, tooleh sage bi ekhtiaar"?

Was he a "tooleh sage bi ekhtiar"? Or was that "another" of their clever exagerations? If you think Bakhtiar was indeed a bi ekhtiar, then there is no point to continue this discussion, since no amount of explanation could make you understand.

"him (Shah) and his Savak were ORDERED by CIA operatives to step up his repression and brutality against the opposition groups and individuals.... As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah."

The above sounds as though the Carter administration and CIA were trying to decieve the Shah. My question to you is why the need to deceive him when they could simply "order" their puppet'? Is it because he wasn't really a puppet?

I am certain you know the meaning of the word puppet. Do you see the illogic in your view? One would play these games with an ally, but not with a puppet. Or perhaps, continuing with our mistakes of 30 yeas ago, you are exagerating. 

Please listen to this and tell me if these are the words of a "puppet"?

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg-mtx6D4ZQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eiranian%2Ecom%2Fmain%2Fblog%2Fsouri%2Fshahs%2Dspeech&feature=player_embedded

Look, I am not trying to defend the Shah, A dead man does not need this. I am trying to defend a way of thinking vs. another.

One way leads to disaster and another leads to progress. One way was Karim Sanjabi's way, and another was Shapour Bakhtiar's way. Both Sanjabi and Bakhtiar opposed the Shah, but one filled with hatred and for the wrong reasons (Sanjabi), and the other free of hate and for the right reasons (Bakhtiar).

Which one of these two do you think were right?

capt Ayahab

mokhlesim.

SAVAKI TANBAL

Had the Savak done their jobs properly, after arresting Khamenei and his thugs carrying bombs and going to Abadan, and have him shot for treasons, We would have been in Our country. Or had they shot down the plane carrying The Evil Khomeini, things would have turn out for far better, maybe.

SAVAK failed to Protect her people from danger. Now they work for The terrorist regime.

Anonym7

I gotta say this man, I enjoy your short and to the point comments . Keep it up.

-YT

Dear Artificial Intelligence

Firstly I appreciate your kind words, it mean a lot, Thank you sir/madam.

Secondly, I, Although sworn opponent of Monarchy and Islamic Republic, do not recognize the events of 1979, and years leading to that as a revolution per se. Revolution is to change the structure of a nation for the better as far as individual liberties and welfare of country is concerned. To me events of 1979 was merely a MUTINY by akhunds.

There are couple of issues in your rebuttal that are missing so please allow me to bring to your attention:

1. Ramsey Clark, Former US attorney General, and Justice of supreme court, due to his views on US foreign policy was front man contact with Khomeini. He met with Khomeini in January of 1979 in Paris, days leading to MUTINY.

2.  Unbeknown to Shah, American general Robert Huyser, Deputy Commander of US forces in Europe," went to Iran to encourage the Iranian military to either support the new but non-revolutionary Bahktiar government or stage a coup detat, he was approached by "representatives of the revolutionary
forces" who made it clear to him that "if the United States did not
wish its personnel to be harmed or to allow uncontrolled, armed guerrillas, some with pro-Soviet sympathies, to gain access to its
sophisticated weapons" he had "better see to it that the military
surrendered to the popular revolutionary forces." Thus, according to Sepehr Zabih, Huyer chose between American personnel/materiel, and America's strategic ally in the Persian Gulf, and this explains why
Huyser's mission to Iran was accompanied by "the disintegration of the Imperial Army" in final days of the revolution.

I mind you sir/madam that I am not trying to support this idea blindly although it seems to be the most plausible perspective to me.

I would love to debate with you on the causes of MUTINY, but i doubt if this thread is appropriate.

Resource[Since I am so very tanbal] //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_ch...

Regards

-YT

Mr. Jamshid

You said[ Nevertheless, what you wrote had nothing to do with what I said to you.
I said if the truth was said to the people about the Shah's regime in
1978, instead of fantastic lies and exagerations, maybe, just maybe,
Bakhtiar could have had a better chance to succeed, and the oil cartels
would have failed.]

You seem to be missing the point of the excerpt that I quoted.  There were no exaggerations about his atrocities, him and his Savak were ORDERED by CIA operatives to step up his repression and brutality against the opposition groups and individuals. Like a SERVANT and PUPPET he was he obeyed at the expense of Iranian women and men and political prisoners. Allow me re-quote again:

As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy
to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah. 

My question is, WHO was running the country, Shah or CIA and SAVAK?

-YT

Farhad chAkhAn and toppling of IRI (to Jamshid)

Jamshid, suppose you find your 100 men. Furthermore assume Farhad chAkhAn lies in his resume and ends up among your 100 men. ..., and you go to Iran, organize people, and topple IRI, ....., and we end up with king Jamshid.
Let's say things don't go as well as you like and Iran descends into total chaos a year from now. I will then blame IRI, and more specifically its years and years of economic mismanagement, its excesses, ..., for that. I will hardly blame Farhad chAkhAn, although I regard him as one the biggest exaggerators I have ever come across!

Bazargan did not have the

Bazargan did not have the power to stop the ayatollahs. To put all blames on Bazargan and the Nehzat Azadi is a joke. Bazargan himself was a victim of the Velayat Faghih theocracy and powerful clergies. He did all he could to stop them but he was not a strong revolutionary, he was more an intellectual, a liberal with religious ideals and democratic visions.

His political vision was a sort of democratic nationalistic regime which would pay respect to Iran's majority of people religion,that is Islam. Bazargan and most of his friends were totally unfamiliar and unapproval of the totalitarian concept of Velayateh Fagih (Vagih).

Most people who participated in the revolution were happy of the Shah's regime downfall because the regime and SAVAK were too brutal(as you see in this video and as we saw in reality) and te Shah with his totalitarian (and mozheq) Rastakhiz party would not allow any political freedom in IRan.

The people, however, had no vision of the totalitarian concept of Velayateh Vaghih. They all had the same notion of Bazargan in mind, their ideal was one of nationalistic independent democracy respecting religious values ( the majority in IRan have some sense of religion, right or wrong). This VF theory was enforced a year after the revolution.

Thanks for your Civilized Debate! & Dear Capt.....

I must say that I learned a lot from all of your comments.

Dear Capt, 

I just can't subscribe to the view that the revolution was a Western/British coup. There might have been malfeasance by foreign governments (like that stupid idiot Carter) and or animosity towards the Shah by the British or the CIA because of his oil policies.  During that time, as is today, if you were a strong leader and wanted to stand up to the West, you could. There have been many leaders not liked by the West who stayed in power.

The ultimate blame must falls on Iranians who had no idea what they were getting themselves into (mainly the Left and Jebheh Melli who supported Khomeini) and very poor leadership by the Shah.

In addition, after the revolution, it was people like Bazargan who allowed the Islamist conservatives to take control by agreeing to the concept of the "Islamic Republic" and the Fagih without thinking about the consequnces. They allowed the Fagih to have the same exact powers as the Shah did. People did not understand what they were getting themselves into. Very poor planning.

The US constitution was debated for months and every concept in it was analyzed to insure that there was proper separation of powers, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and protection of property rights. The US constitution was also strengthened by the Bill of Rights only 8 years after its ratification. The constitution that came out of the 79 revolution is a joke as you can see today. Bazargan and his clan are to blame for this.

Jamshid

Thank you for having an open mind to partially agree with me.

But, I have said what I said in my long post below several times. This is not the first time. This is the way I have always argued about the Shah and his rule.

Mammad

Anonym7

Yes, I do remember it. In fact, as I wrote in my last post, when the Shah declared the establishment of Rastakhiz Party, he said, "if you do not like this, get your passport and leave Iran."

Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, the ultra-reactionary, said a few years ago, "those who do not like Velayet-e Faghih, get your passport and leave Iran."

What is the difference between the two? None, zilch, zero, nada.

Mammad

Re: Mammad

Regarding your last comment addressing me, for the first time (that I have seen you talk about the Shah), you have written facts that are true and I can agree with.

As I just said to capt_ahayb let's stick to the truth regarding the flaws of the previous regime, not to the false fabrications and exagerations.

However, I disagree with you regarding the change in the calendar and the 2500 years celebrations. You failed to name the real flaws in these two, as they by themselves were not flaws. How they were done was the problem.

I also agree with you regarding why some people turned against the Shah. The only issue I had with your previous comments on these individuals is that to the average reader who doesn't know better, it would sound as though they were just peaceful students wanting democracy and the Shah's Savak killed them all. As I mentioned, it wasn't that simple, there was another side of the story too that needed to be heard.

I don't think I can ever agree with your regarding Hamdi Ashraf. So there is no point in continuing that discussion.

Re: capt_ahyab

I read your interesting excerpt.

Do you mean to say that you believe the 1979 revolution was actually a foreign oil cartel coup against Iran's interests? And that we who demonstrated in the streets were mere pawns?

One flaw in your article: The oil price in 1978 was $32 per barrel, not $14.

Nevertheless, what you wrote had nothing to do with what I said to you. I said if the truth was said to the people about the Shah's regime in 1978, instead of fantastic lies and exagerations, maybe, just maybe, Bakhtiar could have had a better chance to succeed, and the oil cartels would have failed.

The oil cartels, US and other Western countries and entities are not gods. We helpled them do this to us. We counted too and our role was significant.

I am not a monarchist and there is not need to defend a dead regime that will never return. But I feel responsible for my regretful role and actions in the late 70s, and for having fallen pray so easily to the deceptions and falsifications of the so called revolutionaries.

The Shah's regime had many flaws, otherwise Iran wouldn't be where it is today. But as I said before, let's stick to the true flaws, not the fabricated ones that mollahs fed to us 30 years ago in order to take advantage of us.

Other than that I find myself in agreement with you.

right to the point mammad!

... and I am not sure if you remember that not too long before his demise but sometime before people poured into the streets, overly confident Shah basically said those of you who don't like me leave the country ......

The Shah was an evil man

Americans for a Democratic Republic in Iran.

The Shah was an evil man.

I opposed the Shah in 1979.

I opposed monarchy in Iran for all time.

As an American I believe that the monarchy does not suit the Iranian masses.

Iran is a 3rd world country.  The country's only source of income is Oil.

Iran must open up to the United States if it wants to survive as a nation amongst nations.

America wants cheap Iranian Oil.

That cheap Iranian Oil arrived to the shores of America during the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasty.

After 30 years, enough is enough, Tehran must talk directly to America.

Ayat'Allah Seyed Ali Khamenei must get on his Persian rug and fly to the United States and meet with President Hussein Obama.

We must have 1001 nights of dialog until America gets free Oil.

Let us all bow our head and yell a 99% Iranian Muslim, "Allahu Akbar".

Peace out.

Jamshid

Suppose that everything that you say is 100% correct. The question is, why could a small group of dedicated revolutionaries (according to you) fool a vast number of people?

The reason is simple and straightforward: The Shah.

(1) It was him that did not allow a free press to educate people, so as not to be fooled.

(2) It was him that eliminated moderate secular opposition, like the National Front, and moderate Islamic forces, like Freedom Movement, both of which were willing to work with him.

(3) It was him that ignored Bazargan's warning during his military trial: "We are the last group that speak to you peacefully. The next group will take up arms. "

(4) It was him that ignored what Bijan Jazani said in the 1340s in his important book, "The Thirdty Years History of Iran," in which he predicted that if there were a Revolution in Iran, it would be led by Ayatollah Khomeini. You see, both Bazargan and Jazani, the opposite of each other ideologically, were correct. That is a good indication of the depth of the Shah's problems.

(5) It was him that told Asadollah Alam, "the mullah are finished." He thought that the secular left was the most important threat to him. He was wrong.

(6) Building on his wrong assumption in (5), it was him that ordered the publication of that infamous letter under the pseudonym Ahmad Rashidi Motlagh, in which he accused of Ayatollah Khomeini of all sorts of things. That became the spark that the society needed.

(7) It was him that set aside even the pretence to a multiparty system, abolished Iran-e Novin, Mardom, and Pan Iranist Parties and established the fascist Rastakhiz Party.

(8) It was him, just like Mesbah Yazdi of now, that declared that, "if you do not like it (Rastakhiz Party), get your passport and leave Iran."

(9) It was him that changed the calendar to imperial one (and a bogus one at that). That offended the masses.

(10) It was him that celebrated his throne and 2500 years of imperial rule, even before Iran had made any significant advances, spending lavishly on foreign leaders. 

(11) It was him that did not allow university students organizations and activities.

(12) It was him that ignored the corruption of his family and puppets.

This list can go on and on and on.

So, assuming that you are right (which you are not), it was still the Shah's fault that the vast majority of people could be fooled by a small group of revolutionaries and radicals. In a free society, people would have been informed, and would not have been fooled so easily.

The same goes about your argument about those people that I listed that were killed by the Shah. People are not born revolutionaries. They are not born with the intention of fighting. But, once they become informed and educated, and find themselves in an atmosphere that they cannot tolerate, then they fight anyway they can. It does not matter what we think now. What matters is what they thought at that time. You cannot call people like Ashraf ignorant or ill-informed. He was from an upper middle class family, extremely smart, and educated. He did not get up one day and said, "I am going to fight with the Shah, because I dreamt about it."

You ignore the most important part of the problem: The root cause of forcing Hamid Ashraf, Hamid Aryan, Mohammad Ali Bagheri, and thousands of others to fight and be killed the Shah's security forces. Whether what they did was the right or wrong approach, the fact remains that they were willing to lose their lives for their cause. There was no personal incentive in it for them. Calling them cold-blooded murderes does not just wash up the root cause of the problem. They were not terrorists, despite what you call them. They were fighters.

And the fact that they were perfectly willing to lose their lives for their cause, which was liberating Iran, is far more than what anybody can say about the so-called opposition in the Diaspora, which, from far, scream "lengesh kon!"

Almost all members of Fadayan and MOK belonged to the National Front and Freedom Movement. When the Shah eliminated them as political forces, and imposed deep repression on the society, the young members of NF and FM took up arms.

If your argument about Fadayan and MKO is correct, why can the IRI not use the same to justify killing of MOK members in 1360-1362 that were waging an armed struggle with the government in power, namely, the IRI? Indeed, that is exactly the reason that the IRI gives for those killings, and that is exactly why it is completely silent about the killings of 1367, right after the War, because it just cannot use the same excuse. Those young people, whatever they had done, had been jalied, and most of them had served their sentences.

And you are the one who accuses me of not telling the whole story! Well, do you see the whole picture? Your argument, with all due respect, and despite the applauding by somebody here, is shallow without much basis. It is simply hand waving. 

Mammad