Sic Semper Tyrannis

Death march Photo essay:

Photo essay: Khamenei supporters demand firm punishment against opponents

This is us also. Take a look at their faces and their slogans. Tell me we are not stupid in 2010...
 

You must be executed

... you reject Velayate Faghih's absolute authority

Hojjatoleslam Seyyed Mahmoud Nabavian:

Kill protesters and things will calm down, he says on naitonal TV.

This is 2010. This is Iran. This is Us. We have become more stupid.

We deserve the government

We deserve the government we got. Do we deserve the consequent suffering and misery???

Sadly the real miracle did not occur!

Parsa,

When a person resorts to lies and misrepresentations (and hurling the "hater" card), you know that you've crused your enemy because that's all they have left, lies and more lies (and accusations).

Yea, I think I understand. It's a lot like the "little man" line you wrote, and all the "hurling" you did in this thread.

There was only one miracle that looked like it was going to happen. I had hope that you would stop making a fool of yourself in claiming:

I'm done with you, as I refuse to waste my time with blatant liars!

I figured after all this knocking about, perhaps you had learned one final lesson in hypocrisy. that would have been truly a miracle. Alas... it was not meant to be.

Seems you weren't done after all. So you either did waste your time or I wasn't a "blatent liar"... you know like someone who would say "I'm done with you" but then come back again.

I wonder which it was...

50 bucks says

Your backside is charred pretty badly right now ;-)

Nuri al Aziz, 10 Bucks says

you're a troll.

Cheers.

Again, GO TO SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!

Since when did the phrase "get a little friendly action" constitute a "threat?" It means go and find a warm body to lay with instead of your keyboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When a person resorts to lies and misrepresentations (and hurling the "hater" card), you know that you've crused your enemy because that's all they have left, lies and more lies (and accusations).

Well done. Q! And a small miracle did happen here tonight: you didn't flag me once! How big of you, little man!  Or did I speak too soon?

Good night.

10 bucks says

Ramin and that Hooshie character are one and the same person...

Yawn... don't be such a sore loser, Ramin

Little man, I say you're the one who needs a little friendly action, (if you know what I mean),

It doesn't matter to me. Cowards never follow up with any "action" anyway.

I'm done with you, as I refuse to waste my time with blatant liars!

See you until your next fake account!

Typical Shiite Muslim misinformation

Q writes, "you threaten violence when you have nothing left to say."

I dare you to show me WHERE and in WHICH post did I "threaten" you? You're a monumental liar, Q, first and foremost. Everybody can see on this thread that I have NEVER threatened you, NOT ONCE!!!

Like I said, for Islamists there are different versions of the truth! I'm done with you, as I refuse to waste my time with blatant liars! 

Oh, so Biblical stories are more accurate?

did they happen or didn't they? People now in modern times believe that they did.

some of them believe that the Earth is 5000 years old now. Some religious people believe in divine miracles now.

It's the same thing. You're just too blinded by hate to realize it. That's what usually happens to haters.

Jesus actually existed -- he was a real person!

Some people would call you a moron! People a lot like yourself! But not me. At least not for this particular belief.

Typical Islamic gall...

Q writes, "Why is the moon-face sighting any different than belief in Jesus Christ, Virign Marry or Moses parting the red sea?"

Pathetic! Those are freaking Biblical stories/personalities dating back thousands of years! We're talking about modern times, 1979 in fact! Are you this pathetic, really???

The fact that you would compare Iranians in 1979 claiming to see Khomeini's face on the freaking moon with the belief in Jesus Christ is not only despicably cheap and ludicrous, but smacks of the typical gall and twisted morality and logic of an IRI apologist.   

The belief in Jesus Christ as heaven sent is not the same thing as the FICTION of seeing Khomeini's UGLY face on the moon -- a disgusting farce that was disseminated by like-minded individuals like yourself!

Jesus actually existed -- he was a real person!

HAHA! Thank Ramin, I knew it would come down to this

Little man, I say you're the one who needs a little friendly action, (if you know what I mean),

Oh, I know what you mean. You mean you have completely lost the argument and like the loser that you are, you threaten violence when you have nothing left to say.

Trust me, I'm doing you a favor by not counting the dozens of truely idiotic statements and logical fallacies you have graced us with on this thread. I like you. I think I can teach you things in the future!

Islamist Spin

Little man, I say you're the one who needs a little friendly action, (if you know what I mean), as I see your Islamist claptrap nonstop on this site, day-in-and-day-out TWENTY-FOUR-SEVEN!

Don't you have a life, bro?

And you need to go back to school, spin-amateur. Get a little education so you can respond without the use of insults. I know with your Islamist pedigree this is almost impossible, but you can try, can't you? 

Again, NO!

Precisely! You don't want to admit that Iranians in 1978 were by and large a bunch of superstitious dahatis, i.e., STUPID.

No, I don't admit it! It's not true. That would be an insult to an entire nation. Before 20th century 90% of Iranians throughout Iran's history have always been "superstitious dahatis." Should we call them all stupid Morons?

Do you refute my claim that a huge portion of the revolutionaries claimed to have seen Khomeini's ugly face on the moon?

I don't think a majority saw Khomeini's face. But it doesn't matter to the point here(except to true morons). I don't call those people stupid. Yes, iranian people are superstitious and religious. Why is the moon-face sighting any different than belief in Jesus Christ, Virign Marry or Moses parting the red sea? Does that mean, all those people are morons too? I mean, there are much more extraordinary claims that people like you could call people "stupid" for.

The majority of voters in any country are routinesly called stupid by the loser minority. So what? Their will still has to be respected.

According to your criteria, Iran today has "huge humbers" of Morons. So, maybe there can't be another referendum for a democratic government, certainly not one with only a Yes/No choice!

You always get yourself into trouble when you let your hate blind you! That's why you are such a nice example to teach others with, Parsa. khoda hefzet koneh! I hope JJ doesn't actually kick you out.

This is exactly what every fascist in history has said: "I know better than the majority." You don't like a democratic vote, so what do you want? For the country to put in charge an unpopular minority? Or perhaps just yourself?

The answer: YES! Khengs and Khaens, all of them!

What does it mean to call 90% of Iranians "khaen"? Is that even possible? Do you now understand what I mean when I said, "you have to look at who is making the accusation?"

Ramin, don't kill yourself buddy, study your grammar

You claimed that you do not "insult" anyone, which is a MASSIVE lie,

I claimed I don't insult except to retaliate.

"Except" means, I do sometimes as an exception. Like "I hate Cartoons except Bugs Bunny".

Do you hear?

Study your grammar. It would make your life a lot easier and you would make a lot more friends!

Do you see how patently ridiculous you are, almost always?

I really enjoy this because it exposes clueless attackers like you who hurt their own cause 1000 times more than I ever could!

Again...

Q writes, "But of course, even after 30 years, people don't see what they don't want to see."

Precisely! You don't want to admit that Iranians in 1978 were by and large a bunch of superstitious dahatis, i.e., STUPID. Do you refute my claim that a huge portion of the revolutionaries claimed to have seen Khomeini's ugly face on the moon?

If they did claim this, which they DID in huge numbers, would that not go a long ways in proving that they were indeed superstitious MORONS?!

The answer: YES!  Khengs and Khaens, all of them!

Q, the spin-amateur

who doesn't appreciate the distinction between the words "insult" and "retaliate."

You claimed that you do not "insult" anyone, which is a MASSIVE lie, despite the second part of your sentence in which you say, "except to retaliate." Well, guess what, pal, one can retaliate without the use of INSULTS! One can retaliate with facts and figures!

Do you hear?

You first lie when you say that you don't insult others, and then you somehow think that hurling insults is not really "insluting" when you're "retaliating" against others. 

Do you see how patently ridiculous you are, almost always? Insults are insluts whether or not you're retaliating. How about you try to retaliate with facts or with the truth???? Oh, I forgot, there are different versions of the truth, according to Islamists.

Don't make me laugh Parsa,

A referendum is an up/down vote on one issue. Almost every constitution in the world was ratified exactly the same way. People have a choice to elect represenatives to the constitutional assembly. Iranians elected them. Those representatives than write the document. You can't have 36 million writers.

That's how it happened in the US and pretty much every other country that has a written constitution.

If that last vote was a "No", they would have gone back to the drawing table and changed the document, possibly with newer elected delegates.

Funny stuff, my Islamist spin-master...

Q writes, "But of course, even after 30 years, people don't see what they don't want to see."

Precisely! You don't want to admit that Iranians in 1978 were by and large a bunch of superstitious dahatis, i.e., STUPID. Do you refute my claim that a huge portion of the revolutionaries claimed to have seen Khomeini's ugly face on the moon?

If they did claim this, which they DID in huge numbers, would that not go a long ways in proving that they were indeed superstitious MORONS?!

The answer: YES!

And again, the refrendum for the formation of an "Islamic Republic" was a mere formality -- a "YES or NO" vote! People were NOT given a choice between an Islamic Republic and a Democratic Republic, not that it would have mattered any back then as the masses were a moronic lot tickled three shades of pink by the foreseeable prospect of all the goodies that they were going to receive from the Hezbollahi Baba Noel! 

Parsa, why do you have to be so obvious?

And then, this shady character has the gall to write to rustagoo:

"And if you are at all familiar with my writing, you would know that I don't insult anyone..."

Let me write you the entire sentence:

And if you are at all familiar with my writing, you would know that I don't insult anyone except retaliate against those who purposefully attack and belittle other people, most often myself.

You skipped the second part to make your pathetic point. Do you think something this juevenile escapes the hundreds of people who read these pages? Do you think you are actually damaging my honor and decency by things like this? I should thank you.

Ramin Parsa, let me show you some real bullcrap:

Q, the IRI propagandist of the most dubious pedigree, thinks only half of the people on this site think that Ayatollah BBC was a British agent -- well, guess what, pal, the figure is much higher than that!

LOL. You got me! So, I guess you agree that AO was wrong in his assertion that "no one thought he was a foreign agent." Thanks bro!
(PS. You're right, I have investigated this myself wrote about this here.)

As for 90% of Iranians voting for the "Islamic Republic" -- shameless liars, cheats and traitors do not mention the very significant FACT that in April, 1979 the people were ONLY given a choice between "YES" and "NO" on the ballots of the referendum

I'm not a liar, and have never denied that's what the referedum said and I also don't see a problem with it. If that's all it was, it could be a problem, I agree. But some shameless liars, cheats and traitors do not mantion the other 2 votes that finalized the Islamic Republic. One more time for people who were either asleep or not yet born:

1. In early 1979 people voted on a Yes/No referendum for the Islamic Republic.
2. In mid 1979, people elected constitutional delegates to work on the constitution from the draft which was written under Bazargan administration.
3. In December 1979, people voted for a 3rd time to ratify the final version of the constitution which included the entire "velayateh faghih" and the Islamic Republic.

All votes had high turnouts and above 90% favored the IRI.

For those of you who want to make yourself feel better by telling yoruselves that 90% of Iranians were "stupid" or "fooled", and all the other excuses you have, don't forget about these other votes. I have my own reasons why this happened, but they don't involve insulting an entire nation.

But of course, even after 30 years, people don't see what they don't want to see.

Example of Q's "truth"

Q attacks Hovakshatare on this very blog and writes:

"You're insane. There's no amount of truth that will cure this kind of conspiracy theory."

And then, this shady character has the gall to write to rustagoo:

"And if you are at all familiar with my writing, you would know that I don't insult anyone..."

Welcome to "Islamic" honor and decency. 

And Q:

who writes: "If 90% of Iranians were "stupid" than you realy have to look at who is making the accusation."  

Yes, Iranians in 1979 were MONUMENTALLY STUPID!!! After all, these moronic dahatis in 1978 actually claimed in large numbers to have seen Mullah Khomeini's UGLY face on the freaking MOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to mention that a great majority of these dahati dimwit had fallen hook line and sinker for Khomeini's populist message: free gas, free electricity, free water, free bus fare, share of the oil profits, etc.

The masses (the moronic twits) won the revolution for the turbaned Devil and came out in droves to greet the Devil on his trip back to Tehran on Feb. 1, 1979 in large part because the dahati jackasses (i.e., the bulk of the nation) were foaming at the mouth thinking about all the delicious goodies that the turbaned Santa Clause was about to bring for them.

Indeed, the ignorant masses fell hard for Khomeini's "campaign-like" promises and fought valiantly for his cause during the latter critical months of 1978, not because they knew of him or his writings, but because they didn't want to MISS THE BOAT on all the fabulous goodies offered by the "Iranian Gandhi," a moniker that was given to Khomeini by the west and their lackeys in the western media.

Intelligent people very routinely forget the massive lure and appeal of Khomeini's populist message, i.e., empty promises, as in fool's gold. It was not so much "Islam" that the masses outside of Qom were clamoring for, nor even the idea of democracy, or freedom for that matter, but rather, free gas and free electricity!

For these massively ignorants tools (= people who swore to have seen Khomeini's ugly mug on the moon), they had as much use for democracy as a pig does for a diamond neckless! But they sure could use a percentage of the oil profits and maybe some free electricity!

Khengs and Khaens, all of them!

Shazdeh, please correct yourself again

General Timur Bakhtiar, who had to flee to Iraq, after a failed coup attempt against the Shah

Taimur Bakhtiar, was sent to exile in Iraq, just like Khomeini by specific order of the Shah at the urging of Amini, and there's no evidence the Iraqi government was helping him at any time, nor could it have gotten away with anything like that. Then Shah had him assassinated a few years later in Iraq. (This may be a good reason why Iraq was a favorite place for Shah to send exiles). This incident does not pove Iraq's "hostility" to Iran. There were still quie a few non-kurdish people of Persian descent living in Iraq at the time. I'm sure Iraq did not have a friendly view of Iran, but nothing like Israel or later Saddam era.

Your "points" are interesting. I agree with most but do not agree with a few of them, but most importantly, I chuckled at your attitude, which is pretty much exactly the same attitude that the Shah had, which was his undoing. It was this elitist language of "rifraf" versus "intellecturals".

Your real problem seems to be not with Khomeini but with majority rule. Obviously not everyone agrees with you that 90% of Iranians were idiots, and only the "smart ones" knew Khomeini was evil. There were plenty of highly educated Iranians who supported the Revolution and continue to do so.

You are also wrong that "no one knew Khomeini". You probably mean "no one I knew, knew what Khomeini stood for." That's probably because you weren't visiting Mosques frequently in the 70s. Khomeini's message was spread through a very vast network of Mosques and religious schools where Shah's agents had the least influence and resources. Frankly Shah didn't think that's where the major threats against him would come from, and he put all his security resources on nationalists, communists and leftists and which made the West very happy.

Khomeini was one of hundreds of anti Shah dissidents. Every major IRI figure was a Shah-era dissident and were jailed by the Shah. But Khomeini stood out. There's a reason he was most popular and it isn't because people "didn't know anything about him."

So much bullcrap here!

Folks, there's a reason why Osama Bin Laden I, aka Ruhollah Hendi Khomeini, aka Ayatollah BBC, was given the moniker "Ayatollah BBC." The man was hailed, day-in-and-day-out, as a modern-day "Gandhi" and a "saint" and a man of "impeccable integrity" by these dubious western outlets.  After all, the BBC is owned by the British government, and its head of Persian services is appointed by the Foreign Office.

Q, the IRI apologist of the most dubious pedigree, thinks only half of the people on this site think that Ayatollah BBC was a British agent -- well, guess what, pal, the figure is much higher than that! Your beloved mulluh Khomeini's dirty father was a Hindu, and a known British agent, and of course, his feces/son followed in his daddy's footsteps.

As for 90% of Iranians voting for the "Islamic Republic" -- shameless liars, cheats and traitors do not mention the very significant FACT that in April, 1979 the people were ONLY given a choice between "YES" and "NO" on the ballots of the referendum (as to the creation of an "Islamic Republic"). The referendum did not give us a choice between an Islamic republic and a democratic republic. It was just a yes or no vote -- that's how they were able to secure 90% of the vote for the "Islamic Republic," aka, Mafia Mullacracy.

I stand corrected ... Q is not knowledgeable

In 1964, Iraq was very hostile towards Iran! It was like that ever since the coup of 1957, which deposed the Iraq monarch, who was Shah's buddy.

In 1960's and 1970's, Iraq also gave refuge to other Shah haters and provided them with means and ways of fighting the Shah's Iran. Most famously, the first head of Savak - General Timur Bakhtiar, who had to flee to Iraq, after a failed coup attempt against the Shah!

Dear Vildemose: whatever Q is, he's intelligent & knowledgeable

There is no point in demonizing people like Q on this site. If we can't live with their comments and respond in a reasonable fashion, that is going to simply reflect badly on us. Q is argumentative, but most of the time accurate and learned. It is not hard to see that most of his points of view are logical, although biased towards a certain mindset (leftist/islamic). That's where he is most vulnerable.

Now, all of these coming from me? Must be my New Year resolution to minimize drinking and cursing - let's see how long that will last ;-)

A couple of sober points about the Western media's negative coverage of Shah and positivity towards Khomeini, which I saw first-hand in US.

1. Before 1973, Shah's image in Western media was low-profile, but neatly painted. However, after the oil embargo, which Shah cherished to the hilt by pumping the oil prices to the stratosphere, he came under scrutiny.

2. Everyone knows that once under the scrutiny of Western media, even the most beautiful Hollywood actors will show their dark side. But Shah didn't realize that and swallowed the media bait, tackle, line and sinker.

3. Shah gave a number of televised interviews, which can only be categorized as disastrous! He came across as a cruel, uncaring and rude dictator - with a lot of psychological baggage.

4. Even the American government officials were angry at the way Shah was jacking up the oil prices. The Secretary of State at the time, famously said, "Shah who was supposed to be our friend, has turned around and screwed us. He is an unreliable megalomaniac."

5. At the time the US media attacked the Arab Sheiks as well, but those SOB's knew how to keep a low profile and hide under the sand. Shah on the other hand, was full of piss and vinegar. He came out batting! For example, during one TV interview that I won't forget, he was asked about Savak applying pop bottles into the political prisoners - when he callously "corrected" the interviewer and explained, broken bottles.

6. You should also recall that it was the era right after the bloody Chilean coup AND the Nixon Watergate. The leftists were in full swing in Washington and Shah provided a very handy target!

7. Khomeini knew shit about the world, beyond his beloved Ghom (where he lived most of his life) and Karbala (where he spent most of his exile). However, he had a good number of leftist/islamic followers who handled each and every one of his interviews! Almost all those poor souls have since been tormented by Khomeini's IRI, including Ghotbzadeh, Banisadr and Yazdi.

8. Khomeini's image in the Western media was the antithesis of Shah, i.e. a simple man of religious and ethical convictions who did not seek a governmental post and who only wished his country free from a brutal dictatorship.

9. Most of the people in Iran had no idea who Khomeini was or what he wanted to do with Iran. Even his f...ing Tozih-ol-Masaeel was forbidden and carried a jail term! Imagine if we had read that piece of shit + his musings on Velayat-Fagheih!

10. Yes, the rural riffraff population came to be Khomeini IRI's greatest asset, but even the city intellectuals were initially sold on his dogged determination against Shah - who by early 1979 had acquired the "devil incarnate" position in most Iranian minds.

11. Most of us had not heard "the Imam" talk until his triumphant entry to Tehran - by then, it was too late. By summer of 1979, most intelligent Iranians had realized that Khomeini was a rotten apple, but there was nothing that we could do against his  Hezbollah militia, which was ready to stab and stone any opponent!

12. Yes, the Iranians voted 90% for the Khomeini referendums, but 90% of them did not know what they were voting for! No one knew what "Islamic Republic" was, let alone "Velayat Faghieh". The intelligent people hated it, once those concepts became clearer; but it was too late, as the riffraff masses had already established a mind-to-ass relationship with Khomeini.

AO, respectfully,

I think you are mistaken completely. I can tell you why and the we can just agree to disagree.

First of all when Khomeini was exiled to Iraq Saddam Hussein was not in power. He was in fact against the decision. The al Bakr government (Iraq's previous president) had a vision of Baathism, the true doctrine, that was not hostile to Religion. In 1964, Iraq was not a "hostile country" to Iran, unless you mean "hositle" like any other neighbor Iran had. Saddam on the other hand was more secular and more sectarian so Khomeini was a threat to him too which is why he reversed the decision when he got the chance in 1978.

In either case, there's no evidence that Khomeini was given anything other than premission to live in Iraq. Iraqi government did not "support" him or provide him with any facilities. Neither did the French government by the way. Not at all like what the US government is providing IRI dissidents, or those of many other countries today.

Second, the entire arrangement was done as a favor to the Shah. Who knows what Shah gave up to make this happen. As you know Shah himself was an insecure character who did not want to make a martyr out of Khomeini. Iraq was preferred to Iran, partly because Shah wanted Khomeini to stick to religion and leave politics out.

How is that not aiding him?

This is illogical. Iraq didn't do him any special favors. So you're basically saying what-ever country Khomeini ended up in, it means that country was aiding Khomeini?

This is a hostile nation which had huge problems with its own Shia high clergy, but still it took in Khomeini, a fiery Shia clergy with a view of Islamic world dominance.

Not so much in 1964, and Khomeini was not seen as such a big threat at the time.

Think about this: let say that Mousavi is exiled out of Iran tomorrow, and he ends up in Israel.

Won't happen.

Can you just imagine what is said about the guy?

Yes. I suppose the regime would say he's being aided by Israel. Whatever country he ends up in will have the same problem. But they would be wrong, wouldn't they? They already say this about him and he is still inside. So, here comes a very valuable point: just because it is said doesn't make it true.

Iraq of 1970's and Israel of today are in the same position vis-a-vis Iran.

NO, not really. Not at all. Iraq of 1970's had no power, nor the backing of American superpower, nor the nuclear weapons, nor the strong influence in America. Even Iraq of 1987 was nothing compared to Israel of today. Israel can end all life on Iran as we know it. A crazy loon like Netan-Yabu, with a history of aggression (that part is like Saddam) has the power to end all life in Iran at any moment. If it wasn't for those Arabs that people around here hate so much, it may have happened already. Anyway, no, Iraq of the 1970's was nowhere hear "in the same position" as Israel today.

is not considering and criticizing Khomeini's Ba'athist connections not hypocrisy?

There were no "baathist" connections. You are just making a slippery slope assumptin based on the fact that Khomeini was in Najaf. Had he been in Kerachi, you could have said Pakistan aided him. Same with any other country.

The first point is that if an Iranian opposition leader appears on western media a few times, he / she is immediately labeled a foreign agent.

Yes, most of the time by 3 groups:
1. IRI who is just trying to deflect criticism.
2. Other Iranian exiles who are in competition with the individual.
3. Everyone in cases like MEK where it's basically a proven fact that it is true.

But also, many American and Europeans do pay attention to them and consider them legitimate freedom fighters. So both things happen.

But Khomeini used the same western media at great length, and that claim was never raised.

It most certainly was raised all the time! Are you KIDDING? hALF THIS SITE still thinks Khomeini was a British Agent today! Many in Iran who was pro-Shah at the time did and still do say Khomeini was a foreign agent, with hints heavily dropped from Shah himself and hardcore Monarchists. A lot of other dissidents who were competitors of Khomeini did say this too. Trust me, it was "raised" plenty.

Also, there were certainly people within the western media, and especially the BBC, who were hostile to the Shah and wanted the revolution to succeed.

Yes, to some extent there was that same liberal/conservative dicotomy among the writers as well, but no one can point to a BBC policy regarding this. Yes, some left-oriented writers did praise him. But many conservatives were against him. There are much, much more western media today that want Iran to go through a revolution or at least a civil war. They say so openly and glorify anyone they think is against the regime. Look at Wall Street Journal or any Rupert Murdoch media. The bias is heavily against IRI, much more so than it was against the Shah. This is undeniable.

Just out of curiousity, I

Just out of curiousity, I was wondering, what is the "left"'s stance on China and Russia today, given their staunch support for murder and rape committing government of Iran? If the US gives diplomatic cover for Israel in the UN, we will never hear the end of it. What about when China or Russia use their veto power to protect Iran, and their silence on human rights abuses in Iran?

Do you think we'll ever hear anything back from them??