Pictory

Jamshid

With all due respect allow me to give a real perspective of what really happened during years leading to the 1979 Akhund Mutiny, Shah as a SERVANT of BP[British Petroleum] and USA had done his service and it was time for him to go, and Went he did, not even stay in country and fight like a solider. Following excerpts are from a book called:

A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order

F. William Engdahl, Pluto Press (October 4, 2004), ISBN-10: 074532309X, Amazon.com 

//www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/074532309X/...

Excerpts:

"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote [balkanization] of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:

In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.

London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.

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.

British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.

Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,
I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.

With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.

Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.

Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.

There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.

Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.
Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

-- William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174.

Respectfully

-YT

Re: capt_ayhab

capt_ahyab, there is a huge problem with your assessment.

You indicated that the degree of the brutality of two regimes are irrelevant. As long as both are brutal, it makes little difference which is more brutal and which is less.

I agree. Nobody wants brutality. It is wrong in any form and any degree.

However, when the degree of the brutality of the Shah's regime was exagerated, to fantastic levels, using fabricated stories and false accounts and spread of rumors, then people like myself were robbed of being able to make conscience decisions for themselves. I will explain this:

I participated in the demonstrations from the beginning when there was smaller crowds, all the way until the end when there were huge crowds. I remember the atmosphere. I can tell you with certainity that with the exception of the Islamists and the leftists, most other people, including the Mossadeghis and Jebheye Melliyis, and the average Iranian people who didn't have any political affiliation (and who were the majority), would have been perfectly satisfied with a set of fundemental and meaningful reforms.

Reforms that someone such as Bakhtiar could have delivered. Bakhtiar actually had a good chance of saving Iran, if more people had supported him.

But because the average Iranians were fed with exagerated accounts of the Shah's regime brutality, they didn't want anything to do with the regime, including with Bakhtiar and with many other level headed rejaal who kept warning us of the catastrophe that is about to come.

We had fallen in the hands of the clever Islamists. We chose Khomeini instead.

Had it not been for those lies and exageration, and if we knew the true degree of the Shah's regime brutality (which was insignifcant compared to what we were being told), a significant number of average Iranians would have sided with Bakhtiar, instead of charlatan like Khomeini, and perhaps Bakhtiar could have had a realistic chance to save our country.

But we were robbed of being able to make this better decision, the cumulitive results of which could have made a huge difference in our future.

Therefore, contrary to your opinion, the degree of the brutality of a regime does make a difference and the truth should be told as is, so that people can make their own judgements and choices.

Think about it.

Anonym7

Could not agree more.

Mammad

Mammad

Mammad, our friend with misspelled name may not be good in fluid mechanics but he is definitely good in Wind Engineering, and by that I am not referring to the branch that deals with the flow around the structures, the vortex flow in the corner of the buildings .. etc.

you have to do much better ( to ex-Fanni)

ex-Fanni, as an atheist I really like to see you win an argument against Mammad (sorry Mammad), but so far despite all the gardo_khAk you have not been remotely successful.
I am starting to suspect that you can't win an argument, even if you argue with a lousy guy like me. Keep practicing Fred (sorry for misspelling your name ex-Fanni, my backspace does not work, can't correct).

Ex-Fanny

Regardless of how you comment, what you call me, what your tone is, how you attack me, etc., I respond so long as I believe my responses might be useful to some. Your antics, like those of a few others on this site, do not deter me.

Regarding my religion: You are either talking about me personally, or you are attacking all Muslims, or optimistically, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc., under the guise of commenting on what I said. Then,

(a) If you are talking about me, you have no right, because either you believe that my religion is a private matter - as all seculars do - or you do not. If you believe that religion is a private matter, then, so long as my religion remains a strictly private matter - i.e., I do not use it to harm anybody or the public, and I have not - you absolutely positively have no right to comment about MY religion. It is a strictly private matter between me and God.

If you do think that my religion is NOT a private matter, then, sir/madam, you are in the same league as the mullahs'.

(b) If you are using me to attack all Muslims, then, shame on you. Because even if I am the worst human being, you have no right to generalize.

(c) If you are using me to attack Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc., then I support you 100% I despise them as much as anyone.

Regarding 3500 political prisoners at any given time: Despite your attempts at sounding sophisticated and knowledgeable, you neither know fluid mechanics nor, and more importantly, batch versus continuous processes. If you did, you would not even bring up your absurdity. It is outside your expertise. As long as you do not say anything about this, one can have doubts whether you know it or not. But, once you open your mouth, you remove all doubts. They were removed. Indeed, you know nothing about it.

But, do not take my words for it, not even one word. Read Amnesty International's reports about Iran during the Shah. They are available.

Regarding being Funny or Fanny: At least I am funny. That is positive. But, what are you? I know what you are. But, to say it publicly would require me to lower myself to your level. I will not do that.

Mammad

Jamshid

Hamid Ashraf was one of the greatest Guerrilla fighters of the 20th century. He lasted 7 years as first a high level cadre and then as the leader of the Fedayan-e Khalgh. Your beloved Shah left no choice for his opposition but to take up arms. Almost all of the founders of Fedayan and the Mujahedeen Khalgh (rest in peace all of them) were members of the youth wing of either Jebeh Melli or associated with Nehzat-e Azadi. It was the Shah's stone walling of any kind of opposition that pushed them to take up arms. Funny you call the great Hamid Ashraf a cold-blooded killer (yes, his audacity as a fighter was legendary) since your former Shah's SAVAK tried to discredit him by forging documents and the current pimps in power have tried to do the same by publishing a scandalous so-called history of Fedayan (as well as Mujahedeen Khalgh and the Tude party).

thanks captain ayhab

"Your comparisons is like saying Mussolini was good because Hitler was worse.
There are people today who try to show that Savak was not that bad and they work hard to
whitewash their atrocities."

Thank you captain ayhab for your thorough and exact information on the history of SAVAK and some of the atrocities committed by the criminal SAVAK and its IRI successors.

Your accurate historical hints and analysis shows how brainwashed, naive and sharlatan are Pahlavi apologists who try to re-write history and brainwash simpleton young dudes living in the west who have not lived under the totalitarian dictatorship of the Pahlavi dynasty. AS For the IRI, everyone has seen the atrocities in our time and much has been said about it.

And who are you to call yourself a Muslim Mammad?

When you give yourself the right to call yourself a Muslim (never mind a good Muslim or a true Muslim or any shades of Islam - just a Muslim) then you should be prepared to be questioned for your baseless claim. You lie as easily as you breathe and then hide yourself behind the banner of Islam for credibility. Here is an example:

"there were 3500 political prisoners AT ANY TIME in th Shah's prisons"!! which in your estimate would amount to 100,000 prisoners for all the years of his rule!

You sound more like a Funny graduate than and a Fanny one (your spelling not mine!!). What did you do in Fanni, Mech Eng or Chem Eng? What do you think the Shah's prisons were, constant flow tank reactors (heeh)? So let's have some fun with your figures Haaji. If in every second in time there was a constant mass of 3500 political prisoners in jail and over a period of say 37 years a total of 100,000 prisoners passed through these prisons!! then that means the rate of inmate's entry (and exit) per year must have been 2600 prisoners a year! Is that why fluid mechanics was one of Shah's favorite hobbies(lol)?

Haaji Mammad as long a you call yourself a Muslim, and lie so blatantly you will be granted a the title of Iranian.com's honorary peeshnamaz.

Now go and have one on me :))

Dear Jamshid

Jamshid! You rock! Thanks very much. Your reasoning and comments in general were very informative.

free and fair (to Ex-Fanny)

Ex-Fanny says: "If you don't have faith, at least be free spirited."

Ex-Fanny, I don't give a hoot to any religion including Islam. However, I know enough about the Taleban's history.
U.S is directly responsible for empowerment, and to a large extent even creation of Talibans. Not only progressive Muslims, such as the one you attack, but also many ordinary Iranian Shiites were wary of Talibans when the U.S media was cheering Talibans as "freedom fighters" (because they were their cold war ally)!
... yes some of us have no faith, but are free and fair.

Jamshid

Hey Jamshid, haven't seen your "illuminating" comments for a while. Have you found your 100 men? I see you are busy bear hunting again!

Anonymous Observer

1. I also hope for the same as you do.

2. The author of that op-ed mentioned explicitly that part of the core supporters of Ahmadinejad is part of the high command of Paasdaaraan. I agree completely with your assessment of their influnce, but the op-ed did imply that. In fact the most important point of that op-ed was to actually analyze that influence to show why they do not want detente with the U.S.

Mammad

Jamshid

Believe what you want. It is perfectly fine with me.

Mammad

Re: Mammad

Since when have you become the final authority in judging a person?

Just because you know someone and you voucher for him, does it mean that the person is clean?

Let's say I knew Fouladvand and I said things like, "he was my classmate and the nicest guy, he wasn't really anti-Islam." Would you buy it? Or would you consider it just a personal opinion?

The same goes with your vouchers. I don't buy it. Specially for the case of Ashraf. Not only his political views and goals were distorted, but also in order to achieve those goals, he had no problem with being a cold-blooded murderer.

You call him a lengendary leader, others may call him a legendary traitor. Yet others such as me call him a legendary misguided individual who killed and died for his distorted political goals.

Mohamad Bagheri: He WAS an Islamist fanatic and a member of Fajr. Let people judge for themselves rather than rely on your voucher: //www.tebyan.net/Politics_Social/History/Iran/Political_History/2009/1/31/84421.html

Mansoor Farshidi and Mahmoud Namazi: Does it make any difference whether they were MKO or Fadayee? Yes, they were fadayees, but so what?

Ali Asghar Badi'zadegan and Ali Mihandoost: They were members of an armed organization that had killed and assasinated many. I wasn't there with them to see if they had killed anyone, but I wouldn't be surprised. Your safsasteh baafi doesn't change the fact that they were members of a terrorist organization.

You are using safsateh again when you say, "So, what was it that I did not say? That they were members of the opposition? Of course they were."

You try to vindicate yourself by using safsateh. aghaaye mohtaram, I'll repeat this to you again: you did not mention HOW and WHY they died. You made it sound as they were sweet university students who were brutally murdered because they just wanted democracy.

And finally, regarding the use of the word popularity, then by your own reasoning, we could consider that the Shah was a popular king because at first he was popular? Same goes for khomeini.

I hope you see the flaw in your logic.

Regarding your claim of torture of some of these named people, to the point that their body could not be recognized, I can only tell you that I don't beleive you. 

Too many fantastic lies were made in those days, too many to count. I do not trust you nor your sources because I have a feeling that your sources were exactly the same people who deceived the masses using fabricated stories, staged events and spread of false rumors.

Darius

1 - Yes (those I could think of are)
2 - No.

Parham My Turn to ask You & Others a Simple Question ;0)

Ok I got your point. Now your turn to answer the following questions ( the two being related).

1) Are the Monarchies in Europe Democracies ?

2) Do you consider the following heads of State: The Queen of England or King Juan Carlos of Spain as Dictators ?

Not asking for elaborate answers but a simple Yes or No.

Thank You,

DK

Hope

perhaps we should hope for the day that we don't see any Savak, vevak, Savama, Paasdar, Basiji, etc. in Iran.  Perhaps the day will come that we can express ourselves in Iran without the fear of adverse consequences. 

We shouldn't be fighting over which feces in the toilet bowl is stinkier (pardon the expression).  We should look forward and find a way to move on and figure out a way out of the mess that Iran is in now.

Mammad, FYI, I read the N.Y. Times Op-Ed that was written by someone who you may know.  Pretty interesting analysis.  The only crticisim that I have about it is that it overlooked the influence of the Paasdaran, which is pretty significant, both militarily and financially. 

Pathetic

It is disturbing and shameful to see how pathetically low we have stooped when the only way we can shed glimmer of humanity upon Pahlavi is when we compare them to another group of criminals who rule the country now.

Your analogies are much like saying one person is an angel when he stands accused of raping only one woman compared to another one who stands accused of raping multiple women. According to some of you the first man is an angle and must be set free then right? Rapist is a rapist whether accused of one rape or multiple rapes. A torturer is a torturer whether accused of one torture or 100 tortures.

Lets bring Pahlavi's back, why not? they killed and tortured less. Not to mention the fact that according to some claims, Shah did not know that they tortured. Sure everyone buys that, why not. Claiming stupidity always works, why should not it work for Pahlavi's.

BTW, I am certain if one of you guys ask the head criminals of the IR regime they would say the same thing that they did not know people were tortured. My question is, will you buy it?

Compare Shah and Pahlavi's to a government that really is a democratic without such a record and see how they stack up, Not to another set of criminal like IR. Your comparisons is like saying Mussolini was good because Hitler was worse.

There are people today who try to show that Savak was not that bad and they work hard to
whitewash their atrocities.   The stories of Shah's atrocities started even before Savak was formed, when the journalist Karimpour Shirzai was burned to die and Dr. Hossein Fatemi was killed following the coup of 28-mordad.  The broken bottle in victim's rectum, murder of pregnant activists, and all other forms of killing and rape was the language of Savak and those who try to whitewash Savak better be ashamed of themselves, especially if they have been part of that criminal organization. For Iranian people, Savak atrocities are not just so-called "mistakes have happened", and they were the heinous crimes of Shah's regime against a generation of Iranian political activists, and those crimes are not a personal issue about Jack and Jill ,and were *political* reality of crimes against humanity committed by Shah's regime. 

Shah did not know? How preposterous this sounds? lets look at history of savak:

Formed under the guidance of United States and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957, SAVAK developed into an effective secret agency. Bakhtiar was appointed its first director, only to be dismissed in 1961, allegedly for organizing a coup; he was assassinated in 1970 under mysterious circumstances, probably on the shah's direct order.

His successor, General Hosain Pakravan, was dismissed in 1966, allegedly for having failed to crush the clerical opposition in the early 1960s.

The shah turned to his childhood friend and classmate, General Nematollah Nassiri,
to rebuild SAVAK and properly "serve" the monarch. Mansur
Rafizadeh, the SAVAK director in the United States throughout the 1970s, claimed that General Nassiri's telephone was tapped by SAVAK
agents reporting directly to the shah, an example of the level of mistrust pervading the government on the eve of the Revolution. 

What happened to SAVAK after the Akhund Mutiny? They were absorbed by SAVAMA!

[

In 1979, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
-- who as a dissident leader had been denouncing SAVAK -- came to power after
the revolutionary forces deposed the shah. The next year, the Washington Post wrote an interesting article with the title:
“Khomeini Is Reported to Have a SAVAK of His Own.”
And what was Khomeini’s own SAVAK like? It was none other than SAVAK itself. Here is what the Washington Post writes (emphases are mine):
“Though it came to power denouncing the shah’s dreaded SAVAK secret service, the government of Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has created a new internal security and intelligence operation, apparently with a similar organizational structure and some of the same faces as its predecessor.
The new organization is called SAVAMA. It is run, according to U.S. sources and Iranian exile sources here and in Paris,
by Gen. Hossein Fardoust, who was deputy chief of SAVAK under the former shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and a friend from boyhood of the deposed monarch.
...‘SAVAK is alive and kicking’ in the form of SAVAMA, claims Ali Tabatabai, former press counselor at the Iranian Embassy in
Washington under the shah... now president of the Iran Freedom Foundation in Bethesda [Maryland, near Washington D.C.]… ‘There are
large numbers of former SAVAK people’ in the new organization, he says. ‘In fact, with the exception of the bureau chiefs [who ran the
individual sections of SAVAK] the whole organization seems to be intact In Paris, a French lawyer who specializes in representing
Iranian exiles told Washington Post correspondent Ronald Koven that ‘SAVAMA is SAVAK without any change in structure. They just replaced some of the chiefs...
...Tabatabai, who claims he has good sources on the situation in Tehran, says that SAVAMA’s organization ‘is almost a
carbon copy’ of SAVAK’s, with nine bureaus. These, he said, cover personnel, collection of foreign intelligence, collection of domestic intelligence, surveillance of its own agents and security of its own
agents and security of government buildings, communications, finances, analysis of collected intelligence, counterintelligence, and recruitment
and training.”]

//www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/savak.htm

-YT

Ex-Fanny

Yeah right. Now take a nice cold glass of water, relax, and rejoice at "exposing" me.

As I said, who are you to judge my religion? Criticize my views as much as you want. That is fine. But, my belief in my religion and God? That is up to God not you.

I did not backtrack from anything, because you either fabricated what you had said or, optimistically, you had misunderstood. I never said or imply what you claim I said.

Have a nice day.

Mammad

Borgias, etc.

Darius

That's funny, I hadn't heard that one! But I mean I get the other heritage, don't forget. Plus, it doesn't mean Orson Welles was right -- these guys were actually mercenaries for hundreds of years. How do you think the Vatican actually ended up with Swiss guards??

Gentlemen

A few words - you may want to take them, you may want to thrash them. Az ma goftan.

IMO, it doesn't really matter who killed more or who tortured worse when it comes to such calculations. In these cases, as long as there's even one murder or torture, something has gone astray.

People did get killed under the previous regime, and they still are under this one. The truth is not any other way.

I'll also add that as a matter of fact, since people around here on this site are so used to going around and calling each other "agents", it would be interesting for you to know that it is one of the techniques of terror of dictatorial regimes to go around and make their own stories of death and torture bigger than they are sometimes, so to just scare their opponents. So if you think you're doing a lot of good by recounting those stories or exaggerating them, think again!

Parham That's because Your a Swiss ;0)

I'm sure You know the famous dialogue from Carol Reed's The Third Man (1949)

"In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? ... The cuckoo clock." 
                                                     
                                                         -Orson Welles as Harry Lime

LOL

Taleban's Islam and Mammad's

Here is the evidence of how the Muslim fanatics, the same group that Quran calls them Monafighoon, have in their own small mind, reached their peace:

"And if you are a true Muslim, then you must know that in Islam God is the judge and the only judge of how bad or good of a Muslim a person is. So, keep your judgement of my religion to yourself."

This is the same false and deviated rationale that allows them to kill and blow up innocent, or guilty if you prefer, people. The same line of resoning that led to 9/11 and to many other similar atrocities. They hide behind their concocted version of Islam and proceed to do their evil acts and think to themselves: well, if I am doing wrong then Allah will be my judge, and if I am doing right, then so be it.

Sorry Mammad but if things were so easy and black and white as you try to picture them, there was no need for religions and prophets to come in the first place. You just lie as easy as you breathe and then say "lakom dinakom valiaddin"!

Fortunately, there are voices who expose you and your lies much easier than I need to do. Here is another example:
"nor did I say or imply that Koran or Islam allows or justifies lying or exaggerations. "

You first backtrach and yet you shamelessly carry on and do it again and again. Do you think that the people who killed Imam Hossein were claiming to be non muslims? Hardly!. Yazid himself, claimed to be Amir al momenin!! Here is the message of Imam Hossein for you and the likes of you who have tainted the glorious name of Islam for their own ends and benefits:

"If you don't have faith, at least be free spirited."

You possess neither of them.

Jamshid

At least in this particular case, you are the one who does not know.

Hamid Aryan was my classmate and friend during 1351-1353. We both entered Tehran University the same year, and took all the classes together for the first two years. Hamid was a graduate of Alborz High School. He was a member of Fedayan. He was killed in an armed struggle.

Mohammad Ali Bagheri was the nicest classmate I have ever had. He also entered Tehran University the same year, we were friends, and we took all the classes together for 2 years (he was known to friends as Mamdal). He was from Zabol. He was NOT a fanatic as you claim. Instead, he was a very fine young man, and a highly enlightened Muslim. I find it amazing that he and I were classmates and friends, but you are telling me that you know the man - that you never met - better than I did. What should I call this?

Mansoor Farshidi and Mahmoud Namazi, members of MKO? This indicates the depth of your knowledge about them. No Sir, they were members of Fadayan. Farshidi was not executed; he was killed. Namazi, I believe, was executed. Yes, they were my contemporaries (meaning that they attended Tehran University and the same school WHEN I was). I went to the office of the Dean of the School many times, together with Farshidi and others, to protest the fact that the school had been surrounded by armed guards which was against the Shah's own laws. 

Ali Asghar Badi'zadegan and Ali Mihandoost never killed anyone. That again indicates the depth of your knowledge about them. They were members of the central committee of the MKO. Abbas Shahriari, the former member of the Tudeh Party and SAVAK's agent, had penetrated the MKO and had identified them. On Shahrivar 1, 1350, 12 members of the MKO's central committee, including the two, were arrested. THIS WAS BEFORE THE MKO HAD CARRIED OUT ANY ARMED OPERATION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. This is so well-known. Badi'zadegan was so tortured that could not be recognized. Mihandoost, after his great defense in the military tribunal, was executed. Note that, regular courts refused to put these brave men on trial. That is why the Shah always sent them to military tribunal.

Hamid Ashraf was the legendary leader of Fadayan. His brother - my contemporary (he entered the School a year ahead of me) - was jailed for 1 year ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS HAMID's brother (at least as far as I know). Hamid Ashraf was a student where I was but a few years before I attended there.

The fact is, these brave men felt it necessary to take up arms against the Shah's dictatorship. I am not saying that this was the correct way of resisting the Shah. But, the fact is, many people felt that way at that time. I know that Tehran University and my school was full of supporters of Fadayan and the MKO.

When the Shah put Mahdi Bazargan and his team in the Freedom Movement on trial in the early 1960s, Bazargan told the court, "we are the last group that talk to you (the government) peacefully. The next group will fight with you with arms." He was exactly right, and the rest is history.

So, what was it that I did not say? That they were members of the opposition? Of course they were. Then, as now, if you do not bother with the Government politically, the Government will not bother you. So, clearly, when we talk about the people killed, we mean people in the opposition. The goes without saying.

I am not trying to hide anything. All I am saying is that the Revolution did not happen in a vacuum. It had political, social, and economical reasons.

Finally, regarding the word "popular:" You are playing with words. The Revolution occured in 1978-1979. It was hugely popular. Saying it is not popular now is meaningless, because it was not a continuous phenomenon, nor is it happening now. The Revolution toppled the government, set up a new system, and then it was done. You do not agree? Be my guest.

Mammad

IRI brutality vs. Pahlavi brutality

My father, a Tehran University student and a member of Fadaeeyan, was a political prisoner during the Pahlavi regime and was tortured by SAVAK multiple times until Carter was elected, who asked Shah to stop the violation of human rights and consequently SAVAK stopped torturing the prisoners. One of my close relatives, a member of Fadaeeyaneh aghalyat, was a political prisoner during IRI and was tortured repeatedly for three years until he was released. Having heard both of them talk about how they were tortured in prison, let me tell you, there is no comparison between the IRI animals and SAVAK. The IRI regime is hundreds of times more brutal and inhuman than the Pahlavi regime. SAVAK interrogators were professionals trained to torture to extract information where as the IRI torturers were/are often sadistic psychos who tortured/torture just for the fun of it. The worse my father got was being lashed on the palm of his feet, where as my close relative was hung from the ceiling by his hands twisted from behind and lashed and beaten all over, his teeth were broken multiple times as well multiple number of his bones. He still counts himself lucky that he wasn't put into Lajevardi's infamous 'Komod', 'Dog's Box' and 'Coffin' where prisoners were put into for weeks or months and often never recovered.

The lady in the video should be happy that she wasn't a prisoner under IRI, because in that case she not only would have been tortured but also raped, executed and then her parents would have received her "Mehrieh" as a nice "Islamic" gesture from her torturer/rapers!!.  

It disgusts me to see the IRI lackeys jumping in and blaming the Pahlavi regime for being brutal while IRI is much more brutal & vicious than the Pahlavi regime ever was. The number of political prisoners executed during the Pahlavi regime is less than 300 while IRI has executed over 40000 political prisoners to this date. Of course, Shah was a dictator who was flawed in many ways and there is nothing wrong with looking back at the Pahlavi regime mistakes and wrong doings. But it's also important to remember that Shah is dead and the Pahlavi regime is gone for good, while today Iran is ruled by IRI and the Mullahs who are torturing and executing Iranian men and women today … just something to think about!.

Re: Mammad, you (intentionally) mislead

Sorry to be blunt or even rude with you Mammad, but half-truths only mislead people and are the same than lies. And you say a lot of half-truths.

You name individuals that you claim were killed by the Shah's government. But you don't say how or why they were killed. You make it sound as though they were just innocent students wanting democracy and in response they were killed by the Shah's "brutal" government.

What bothers me is that you know the other half of the truth, but you intentionally do not state it, in order to mislead the readers. just as it was done by others 30 years ago. If you had a shred of conscience, you would state the whole truth, not half of it.

Let's take a look at your list and learn more about the "whole" truth: 

Hamid Aryan (Saeed Aryan?)

Mohamad Bagheri

Bagheri was a fanatic Islamist militant whose goal was establishing an Islamic Sharia government. After attacking several paasebans in one of their missions, he and other members of his group were caught and later sentenced to death.

We are talking about an individual similar to the kind of brutal and barbaric people who are running our country today, and if he were alive today, he would probably be among the IRI rank and files brutalizing the innocent people of Iran.

Mansoor Farshidi

Mahmoud Namazi

Do you even know the details of what happened to your own "contemporaries"? Or are you intentionally keeping it from others?

These two were MKO members who were surrounded in a safe house by government security forces. In the ensuing gun battle, several security agents were killed. Subsequently, they were caught and sentenced to death.

Should they have been sentenced to death? No. But were they the innocent students just wanting democracy that you paint them as? No, they were armed MKO members who KILLED, and did NOT want democracy, as it is clear today what MKO stands for.

Do you see what I mean with half-truths used to deceive people?

Ali Asghar Badi'Zadegan

Ali Mihandoost

These were armed MKO members who were, according to MKO's own site, planning multiple bombings to disrupt the 2500 years celebration.

They along with many other MKO members were arrested and a few of them, including the two named above, who had killed members of security forces, were sentenced to death.

Hamid Ashraf

He was a Fadayee member. After he was discovered and escaped his safe house, he confronted a kalantari vehicle. He opened fire on them with his machine gun and killed all three police passengers.

He was later discovered again. He and a few other fadayees, along with many security agents died in a gun battle.

I am against capital punishment and the death sentences passed against all those named above, except perhaps Hamid Ashraf who was a cold-blooded murderer.

But the point of my comment is not capital punishment or whether they were guilty or not. That discussion should have its own blog. My point is solely to demonstrate that by stating half of the truth, you are intentionally attempting to misguide the readers against the Shah's regime.

Jamshid and Darius

Darius

I'm convinced that any democracy is better than a dictatorship, even when that democracy has periods of anarchy. Btw, I'm pro mai 68, so wrong example for me there! :-)

Jamshid

You and I have debated this before, albeit with a different angle. Seems we will just not agree.
You keep bringing up that "he" did this and "he" did that, and I say that it wasn't "his" job to do all that at all. I believe, especially because hindsight is 20/20, that he should have gone exactly by the constitution and sat aside as a monarch, not acting as a ruler. From that point on, we differ completely in our thinking.

I also know you think I'm not realistic; and that, we could debate forever. But I think you aren't, thinking anything good could have come out in the end by taking the reigns of the country in his hands. Perhaps THAT was his biggest mistake as well.

Ex-Fanny

No Fanny student ever killed by the Shah? Amazing!

I just name my own classmates,

1. Hamid Aryan
2. Mohammad Ali Bagheri,

contemporaries,

3. Mansoor Farshidi
4. Mahmoud Namazi

professor

5. Ali Asghar Badi'Zadegan

students before me

6. Ali Mihandoost
7. Hamid Ashraf
(and many more)

and ..... These are just the ones that come to my mind at this very moment.

No ex-Fanny student speaks to another ex-Fanny student the way you do.

I never said I was the only Fanny student, nor did I say or imply that Koran or Islam allows or justifies lying or exaggerations. I said those were done during revolution, as in any revolution, regardless of whether it was right or not, or whether it was justified or not. By "so what" I only meant that this is not new. At least read carefully, and then start name calling.

And if you are a true Muslim, then you must know that in Islam God is the judge and the only judge of how bad or good of a Muslim a person is. So, keep your judgement of my religion to yourself. When I asked you, give me your opinion.

Mammad

Re: Mammad

A few notes on your response:

"Just because you believe that you were fooled (in your teen years), does not mean that everyone else was also."

You are correct, not everyone else feels that they were fooled. The IRI supporters (including the so called reformists) certainly don't feel this way. But everyone else does. Even the communists and jebheye melliyis, admit it.

"should know what popular means... it means supported by a big or vast majority, without any reference whatsoever to whether that majority was fooled or believed in it."

Again you are correct. It was popular at the time. I myself participated and beleived in it. However, today, it is not considered popular by the majority of the same people who made it popular, Again, excluding the IRI supporters of any kind.

The Shah, before he became a dictator, was popular too. In your opinion, does that make him legit too? You would answer by saying so what he was popular at one time. I answer the same to you regarding the revolution.

"by repeating that they were fooled you only insult the intelligence of the people of an old nation."

You are wrong. By not repeating it, we will be prone to making the same mistakes again. Besides, by saying that people were not fooled at all, it would be you who would be insulting the intelligence of the people.

I will respond to your other comment addressing me at a later time.

Parham Democracy can also be Shit if practiced as an Anarchy ...

Example France in May 1968

De Gaulle Said about the events : La Reforme Oui, La Chianlit Non aka Yes to Reform but NO to "Shitfull demands" 

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYPitnz9as