Sic Semper Tyrannis

And one day, Shazdeh Jaan, they will both be used as such!

:-)

Let's not forget the all important No. 11

11- They both smell like the freshly prepared natural fertilizer.

I don't know AO - I think that religion

can be a force for good is people use it for the purpose of spirituality as opposed to a tool for dominance.  Islam (and other major religions) have many good aspects to them, such as charity, cleanliness of the body and the mind, etc.  Unfortunately, human beings being what they are, tend to focus on the negative aspects (no surprise there).  

OI- That may actually be a good thing

and not just with Islam.  Any demonstration of the true nature of any religion is a service to humanity.

Good comparison AO - I may also add

that they have both irreparably damaged the image of Islam in the world for decades, or even a century, to come. 

Truthseeker

I have seen that documentary.  It is rather disturbing.  The Taliban had actually banned "bacheh bazi", which is the tradition of "dancing boys".  They, on the other hand, did their brand of "bacheh bazi" in their camps with the new recruits.  

AO and Divaneh

Last night saw a documentary about "bacha bazi" of Afghans and it reminded me of Mullah's fascination with young boys. Islamic sexual slavery, as part of a tradition and truly disturbing.

Dear AO

I think you are exactly right about the Shah having his priorties wrong with the Marxists being his major problem. Thanks for the great response.

Divaneh Jaan

Very true about little boys.  We of course know about what goes on n the "hozeyeh elmiyeh" in Qom.  And  remember reading not too long ago that one of the biggest problems that the Taliban had during their reign was their commanders "inappropriate" relationship with boys.  

COP Jan

had wasted the "imam", there'd have been another, and another, and.....much like right now. Who'd have guessed there are so many aytollahs and hojatolislams in Iran? Where do these people come from (yeah, Qom, I know)?

True.  But not all of these people could have been a charismatic leader like Khomeini.  If Shah had eliminated Khomeini, he could have just played "whack a mole" with the remaining joojeh ayatollahs.  

But, I agree with you (in a sense) that we really needed this experience.  Let's face it, our people had been kissing akhoonds' asses for centuries, and thought that mullahs could bring heaven on earth to Iran.  And if the IR hadn't come to power, I guaranty you that they would, to this day, be yearning for a "jomhoori eslami."  It's a sad reality, but it's unfortunately true.  So, the silver lining to this macabre experience is that as AI pointed out below, once the IR is relegated to the trash bin of history--where it belongs--I doubt that we will EVER see a clerical regime in Iran.  Hell, after all they have done, I think that post-IRI there will be an official akhoond "hunting season", when mullahs are released into the woods and we can go hunt them...to cull the numbers. :-))   

Bavafa & Fair

Bavafa: I think that you are correct about the lack of political freedoms, etc.  However, at some point, there was a total breakdown of societal control, both on an individual level and also on a societal level. It just became an orgy and people just wanted the Shah gone without regard to the consequences.  The irony in this whole episode, which is working to the advantage of the mullahs, is that most of our people don't want to make the same mistake again, and are very apprehensive in just pouring onto the streets without a clear vision of what might be in store for them, especially given the unmitigated brutality of this regime.  The difference also is that in 1979 they realized that the Shah was not going to just open fire on them and kill them all, as oppose to the situation with this regime, where such danger remains a scary reality.

Fair: Thank you for your detailed response to our resident American know it all.  But, please just don't take this guy seriously.  He's IC's comic relief. :-)

Very good comparison AO

I just add these two although I agree with you that there is an endless list of similarities.

12- They both damn West and East infidels and in the same time use infidel made arms to kill Muslim and non-Muslims alike and cause unrest in the area.

13- The both like young boys.

Even if Shah

had wasted the "imam", there'd have been another, and another, and.....much like right now. Who'd have guessed there are so many aytollahs and hojatolislams in Iran? Where do these people come from (yeah, Qom, I know)? 

No...our problem is Islam, as it always has been. And, the clergy knows how to use this unfortunate weakspot that Iranians have for this religion; a religion that is not even of their own making.

I know people don't like to hear it, that's one of the reasons we're where we are today.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Colonel Sanders

Indeed a half assed attempt to distance Khomeiniist shia mullahs in Tehran from Taliban sunni mullahs in Pashtunistan. Of course, like all previous attempts ending in utter falure:

8. They both implemented Shria law in place of a civilcode;

There is a large civil code in Iran that far exceeds Sharia.

Baraye hameene keh dar Iran sangsar va ghessas va dast boridan darim.

7. They both caused a huge brain drain in the country;

How could that be? You're not there, you're here. (lol)

You might think brain drain is funny,but that  because it is not your country that suffers.  In fact your country (USA) is the prime beneficiary of Iran's brain drain, no wonder you laugh.  Of course some of Iran's garbage like you makes it to the US as well, but the worst garbage by far ends up in Tehran and Ghom.

4. They both put ideology over national interest;

Surely you're making a gross generalization. Particularly under the direction of Rasganjani and Khatami.

Een do adam avval beh nezam va emame beevataneshan vafadar hastand, va agar cheezi baraye Iran baghi mand zeeyad narahat nemeshavand.  Barha vafadarie avvaleshan ra betore vazeh bayan kardand va dar amal neshan dadand.

2, They both force women into a compulsory and oppressive dress code;

There's two sides to this issue.

LOL, what a pathetic copout.  Maalome do var e een ghazieh hast- yek var tarafe vahshiane basiji keh beh khodeshan hagh meedahand ba zan va bacheye mardom har jenayatee ra anjam dahand, va tarafe deegar tarafe mardom va hagheshan.  Albateh az tarafdare estebdade nezami mesleh een sardare morghha  cheezi joz een besharmee ra nabayad entezar dasht:)

1. They both believe that 7th century Arabia should be the model that their respective societies should follow.

That's another sweeping and unrealistic generalization. There are
cars, iranian art, Western literature translations, elections,
television soap operas, etc. etc.

Yeah, there sure is, especially the "elections" part:)  Anything that is there is only there if the khalifa supreme leader allows it to.  Western literature translations that must pass the ministry of Islamic "culture and guidance".  Iranian art that only passes the permission of mullahs. That is the 7th century Arabia model.   Of course, only a hypocrite would say this is totally ok for the Iranian people while living without any such restrictions in the USA.  

A truly half assed answer to a very on point valid summary.  

Hamantoree keh arz kardam, sardare morghha dar jostejooye hoveyattash dochare eshkale fannee shodeh va nakam mandeh ast. Ma Iraniha meedaneem taklifeman chee hast, ehtiaj nadareem keh bevatananee keh posht beh mellate Iran kardand va eech ashnaee ba mardom va farhange Iran nadarand baraye ma taklif roshan konand.

AO: "This is what I think Shah should have done"

Good blog and I agree with much of it if not all.

However, in regards to

"The time for Shah to act, was 1964 and prior. He should have nipped the Khomeini virus in the bud back then and simply"

agree wholeheartedly but here is what we differ on

"simply executed him instead on sending him on vacation in Turkey and then Najaf"

I believe the devolution was a result of decades of dictatorship and lack of political freedom for Iranian people. They were not so hungry any more and start learning there were other rights that they deserved. But instead, they were put in a pressure cooker, just as IRI is doing to Iranians. Any pressure cooker has a limit and it will explode at some point. Iranians exploded once in 79 and they are bound to do again. Also any more killings, injustice, lack of freedom, etc just adds to that pressure and cause it to explode sooner.

Mehrdad

Vildemose- You're right

that has been their plan since the time of the Safavids...at the earliest.  

AO jan:

I'm convinced more everyday that the mullahs would have tried a takeover of the government regardless of who was in power (Shah, President of a republic, or Prime Minister of constitutional monarchy).

The Islamist fight is to save Islam and their associated "industries" (business) from becoming irrelevant in an increasingly connected world.

just my two cents..

bushtheliberator

While I agree with you that the religious commanlities of the IR and the Taliban has nothing to do with the U.S. or the West, their rise to power certainly does.  As far as the Taliban, they were an offshoot of the Mujahedeen who were supported by the U.S. and their subsequent rise to power was facilitated and funded by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (two of U.S. biggest allies in the region), with tacit approval of the U.S.  And as far as the IR, I think you should read this blog:

 //iranian.com/main/blog/anonymous-observer/mohammad-reza-pahlavi-no-ones-stooge

AI- This is what I think Shah should have done

Thanks for the response.  As you correctly point out, by 1977-1978, it was too late to stop the tsunami--short of committing mass murder, kind of like King Hussein of Jordan and the Black September massacre. And as you partially point out, that would have never happened, because: 1) the Shah would never have ordered such an act, and 2) even if his generals had ordered it, it is highly doubtful that conscript soldiers would have followed those orders.

The time for Shah to act, was 1964 and prior.  He should have nipped the Khomeini virus in the bud back then and simply executed him instead on sending him on vacation in Turkey and then Najaf (out of all places--which is kind of like trying to get rid of a bacteria by putting it on a nutrient rich petri dish and then putting it in an incubator).  Had he killed Khomeini, he would have had some limited unrest by Khomeini's [at that time] small group of supporters and it would have been done and over with.  But unfortunately, he did not do so. 

The problem with Shah was that he had his priorities wrong.  He was certain that his end will come at the hands of the Marxists.  While he had ample reason to believe so given the politics and dynamics of the time, in that process, he neglected the more than a century long clerical attempts to take power in Iran. He also underestimated the religious devotion of the Iranian society, something that gave the mullahs the logistical and financial support to spread their propaganda.  He also erroneously thought that by paying off the mullahs (even Khomeini's expenses while in "exile") and spending money on Shia religious sites (golden gates for the Imam Ali shrine as an example) and Shia causes (humanitarian assistance to the South Lebanese Shias) he will shut the mullahs up.  Kind of like what the Saudi rulers are doing today with their fiery mullahs.  He didn't realize that as a species, mullahs (of any religion)  should not be given an inch.

As far as the question of whether I think mass killing of protesters at that time would have been a good idea, I don't think so.  There were many ordinary Iranians who were dupes into pouring on to the streets, and I just cannot accept the death of those innocent civilians, regardless of whether or not it would have stopped this murderous regime. Plus, mass murder may have embolden the Shah to continue the practice, and his regime may have morphed into a bloodthirsty system not much more different than the IR. 

The Cancer Within

1. They both believe that 7th century Arabia should be the model that their respective societies should follow.....

Dear AO, the number one similarity you noted really is no 1 in their book. Unfortunately, if ass backwardness is the goal, the Islamic Repulsive of Iran is on its way to this amazing regressive "achievement".

Just think, we've resisted arabization all this time only to be assaulted by our own people in the 21st freaking century. We don't need external enemies - we are our own worst enemies.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Dear AO

Thanks for your response. You question is very controversial to answer because of its Machiavellian nature and coldness. But this is exactly the calculations that the Islamist made during the revolution when they mass murdered Iranians and during last years' election protests.

I understand your point very well. However, only in the context of knowing what we know today and seeing what has becom of Iran, wouldn't you have prefferred for the Shah to be a mass murdurer to save the nation? Many many more people have died at the hands of the IRI because he did not fight to preserve the state and many more people will probably die (than he would have killed) trying to get rid of the IRI. The only good thing I see from Shah's failure to act is at the end, when the IRI is destroyed, political Islam will vanish from Iran forever as most Iranians today see the mistake of mixing religion and politics. 

To answer your question about people committing mass murder for the Shah, from my understanding, there were many military people around him who would do whatever he asked including mass murder. He just would not give the order and that is one of the reasons why the state collapsed so fast.  Also there was a point that it was already too late. The demonstrations started late in 1977 by Khomeini supporters (these are the people that the Shah should have confronted with all his might). This is the period I am talking about. By early/mid 1978, it was already all over and to late to do anything and killings would not have accomplished anything.

Anon, you're funny. Well, if

Anon, you're funny.

Well, if you're gonna put this out there, you've gotta expect feedback.

But like I said, this is getting monotonous. And you're right, I do have better things to do with my time.

Next time I'll probably skip this kind of thing. We'll see.  

Mark - No one asked for your opinion or your meaningless

"analysis".  Now, why don't you have a cold one, get on your motorcycle....and drive yourself off a cliff...as a service to humanity. :-)

The Phony Sargord gets more phony

I've read plenty of official criticism about the Bahais. 

You should have also mentioned that the IRI has killed over 200 Bahais and jailed many more for their religious beliefs.

They both stone people to death and believe in public executions

See my bet with Amir. 

Are you disputing that the IRI has punished people by stoning them to death, including for "adultery", O Phony Sargord? 

They both force women into a compulsory and oppressive dress code;

There's two sides to this issue. 

So, your argument as to why Iranian women don't enjoy even this very elementary freedom of choice is that there are "two sides" to this issue? Pathetic and phony.

As if there were any doubt (there really wasn't), you are a certifiable moron and an utter phony. Cheers  :-)

#6 Murderous authoritarians invented by the Great Satan .???

 IRI <=> Taliban: #6. " They are both products of the Western Powers...oil..."

Not so !

The Great Satan was born in 1776, but the commonalities of the Taliban, and IRI were already 1,000 years old at that time.

Are Iranians at all involved in their own fate, or does "the Great Satan did it !" pretty much explain everything ?

Okay, I'm back from my

Okay, I'm back from my motorcycle ride. It was really something, backroads and coastside.

So here goes (contradictions apply solely to Iran, not the Taliban):

10.They both despise their country’s national heritage and want to replace it withreligious superstition;

What about Mahmoud and the Cyrus cylinder ceremony? 

9. They both believe that anyone who criticizes religion should be put to death;

I've read plenty of official criticism about the Bahais. 

8. They both implemented Shria law in place of a civilcode;

There is a large civil code in Iran that far exceeds Sharia.

7. They both caused a huge brain drain in the country;

How could that be? You're not there, you're here. (lol)

6. They are both products of the Western powers’ cold war desires to stop Soviet expansion in the oil reach Middle East;

Huh? Are you saying the USSR assisted in the formation of IRI?

5. They both allow foreign terrorist organizations to train and to have operational bases in their country;

What terrorist operational base is/was their in Iran? There are training programs for Lebanese troops in the defense of their country. And there were Iraqi troops trained to resist Saddam. But actual operational bases? You're wrong.

4. They both put ideology over national interest;

Surely you're making a gross generalization. Particularly under the direction of Rasganjani and Khatami.

3. They both stone people to death and believe in public executions;

See my bet with Amir.

2, They both force women into a compulsory and oppressive dress code;

There's two sides to this issue.

1. They both believe that 7th century Arabia should be the model that their respective societies should follow.

That's another sweeping and unrealistic generalization. There are cars, iranian art, Western literature translations, elections, television soap operas, etc. etc. 

This was a silly post, Anon. But I spent the time half-heartedly responding. That's all I felt it was worth. Next time I won't bother.

Great Blog AO, and if I may, #11:

They both have expired their usefulness and are being put down like any mad dog who'd turn on it's Imperialist master, the USA.

AO Jan

Brilliant summary, says it all.  Of course there are those with an anti Iranian agenda who try to minimize your very valid points, but they cannot win unless they have the guns -Taliban are Taliban always no matter where they are.

Hoveyat va ensaf khoob cheezhaee hastand. Dorood bar shoma.

I once saw a special on Taliban where they were raping kids

in their camps, and getting away with it.  If one can make love to a donkey/camel..... according to Islam, I would not be surprised if they concucted a prayer and made child molestation legal according to Shari'a.

Khar - Very good point

I have not heard of a single instance of rape and sodomy by the Taliban.  They just behead the poor sap and get it over with.  In that sense, they have more honor and dignity than the IR.