Arj O mand

Re religion and democracy

Siavash, I don't see a need to advertize Pahlavis' positive aspects, for I believe there is enough of it being done here and elsewhere! Hence. I believe that it's imperative on some of us to also reflect on their crimes that are being overlooked due to their propaganda!

You have no idea about the relations between religion, secularity and democracy, yet have the audacity to say that a religious person does not know about democracy! Let alone that many activists who consider themselves devout Moslims and yet are enduring barbaric torture in the IRI prisons in defence of democracy. But even in the U.S. there are religious figures who are revered as democratic icons, e.g. Martin Luther King whose birthday is considered a national holiday in the U.S.! One can't help but wonder what gives you the right to right them off as democratic or not?!

Moreover, talking about actions and words? One of the key elements of democracy means tolerance of dissent and opposition. Monarchists have shown no such tolerance or any interest in democracy, period! Just look what Shahollahis are saying here and elsewhere about opposition groups! While claiming to condemn IRI for having killed thousands of political prisoners (majority of whom BTW are the same political groups whose members were imprisoned, tortured and killed by the Shah, such as Mojahedin, Fadyian, Peykar, or even Tudeh...), Shahollahis defend the torture of the same groups as "traitors" and "Kharabkar!" They even go so far as to pledge to kill millions of people and hang their corpses from the trees! Is that in any way democratic, even if they include akhoonds?!

Mr.Arj talk is cheap, reality mandates something else

"...our nation's chief struggle is between those who strive for demosracy and those who are against it." Arj

That is common sense. No one is against democracy. Show me some one who is is against democracy, I will show you mental person. Everybody loves democracy and everybody hate to be controlled by anyone. No need to be Einstain to know about this simple fact and no one deny that.

"This does not mean that those who are non-religious/secular are pro democracy those who are religious are against it" ! Arj

Wrong dear. religious is set of laws that mandate people obey those principals. so those who are religious are being control by superpower and there is no concept of democracy in their mind because of simple reason they have to submit to whatever came from God. Those who are melli mazhabi should realize that religion doesn't go with concept of democracy. That is again oxymoron term. you can't respect dogmatic laws of pre prescribed by God and then want to have democracy. On the other hand, we know monarchy can go with monarchy as you are aware the most democractic country such as U.K runs by monarchy.

"Both in its modern or historical terms, MR Pahlavi fled the scene everytime he faced a serious challenge, as our nation witnessed in at least two occasions (28 Mordad and 1979)" Arj

That shows democratic and kind hearted shah' mentality. He didn't want to see his countrymen/women get killed. He preferred to leave the country that he loved so much to save the lives of his people.

"there have been many instances where kings were anything but "symbol of strength" (e.g. Shah Soltan Hossein, Yazdgerd III...) and rather seen as a liability" Arj

Of course, we had great kings such as Koroush....etc and we had weak king throughout history. From weak king such as shah soltan Hossaine arised a strong man by the name of Nader and from weak king such as Ahmad shah Qajar arised a strong man by the name of Reza Khan, but we always had king. No one deny that historical fact. In either way, king maintain to be symbol of integrity, unity and strength of our nation.

"Remove QE II or king of Denmark from their respective systems, and I gurantee that they will keep functioning as if nothing has happened." Arj

Of course, that was my main argue with you over last 6 months that democracy comes from the people, NOT administration. I tried many times to explain the family system in Iran that is structured as one man show and it not comparable to democratic country like Europeans. It has nothing to do with shah or anyone else in charge. I am the one who keep emphasizing on the level of people's education. I am surprised that you forgot all our previous discussion.  In fact I think Mr.Anglophile explained it very clearly in this blog. What I noticed and Mr. Anglophile rightly addressed the issue,you are selective in responding or reading comments. Anyway that is your choice and we respect that.

At the end, I am still waiting you read something positive about Pahlavi dynasty era. Again that is begining of practicing democracy. Let's first start from you. you have already wrote and commented negatives aspects of Pahlavi dynasty. Let's write something positive and let's readers judge for themselves. Therefore, your mind don't mandate one way track which is against democratic system. Look forward to read it soon.

Regards,

Siavash 

Secularism and/or democracy!

Mr. Siavash; on the contrary, it's you who is making a mistake in that regard! Rhetorics and posturings aside, on a broader scheme, our nation's chief struggle is between those who strive for demosracy and those who are against it. This does not mean that those who are non-religious/secular are pro democracy, and those who are religious are against it! For there are those who are devout Moslems and yet yearning for a democratic system for Iran (e.g. melli-mazhabis, many of whom are among those in IRI's prisons), while there are seculars who are against democratic principles -- e.g. a vast majority of monarchists (aka Shahollais)!

the term 'Shahollahi' does not refer to religiousity (or lackthereof) of the institution of monarchy in Iran, but rather to the approaches taken by monarchists and supporters of Pahlavi regimes towards the concept of democracy! Shah (although a religious person and extremely superstitious) was secular in political terms, but adamently anti-democratic, as he did not approve of free expression of opinion or any political freedom in general -- indeed his opposition to democratic values manifested in the form of his Rastakhiz party whose inception led to illegalization of any other political party in Iran! Sounds familiar ("hezb faghat...")?!

Moreover, monarchists and supporters of Pahlavis (just as Hezbollahis do) believe that those opposed to their system and challenging their "pious" leader's authority, are "traitors" and should be killed and/or imprisoned, tortured...! Aas it's witnessed on here and elsewhere, Shahollahis not only advocate reprisal of violence in a post-IRI era, but premonitions of hanging of millions of people from the trees and lamp posts, as they believe Shah did not kill as many as he should have -- something that Even Taliban could not entirely succeed at!

Forethurmore, with regards to your claim that "Shah [king] is a symbol of strength of our nation...," you're also wrong! Both in its modern or historical terms, MR Pahlavi fled the scene everytime he faced a serious challenge, as our nation witnessed in at least two occasions (28 Mordad and 1979) in addition to otherless-known occasions (according to Ardeshir Zahedi)! In historical terms, there have been many instances where kings were anything but "symbol of strength" (e.g. Shah Soltan Hossein, Yazdgerd III...) and rather seen as a liability!

Indeed, in the modern world, and under a democratic concept, monarchy is not a symbol of national strength but rather playing a role as the national mascot in formal occasions! Remove QE II or king of Denmark from their respective systems, and I gurantee that they will keep functioning as if nothing has happened. But try to remove the king out of Suadi system or morrocco, and I bet you all hell breaks loose! Thus, it's not about one person or even the semantics of the matter, but about democratic functionality!

Arj's mistake. Shah and Allah don't go together

"Sabety for Shahollahis, and Mortazavi for Hezbollahis" Arj

Shah is a symbol of strenght of our nation for over 5000 years. Behind shah lays Great Persian Empire,  Great civilalization and rich culture. Shahollahis is oxymoron term such as snowy hot summer day. Shah and Allah can't mix with each other. Deliberate mixer of these 2 terms is an insult to Iran rich history which is history of Padeshahi.

Allah is a symbol of God for desert bare feet Arabs. According to DR. Abdul Hossaine zar kob in his book "2 centuries of silence" when bedragged arabs invaded Iran they were keep saying "Allah will help us to defeat Persians"

However, Hez (party) and allah could easily comingles. Shia is considered party of Ali or hez e b Ali. In other sect of shiaism there is a group who call themselves Ali allahi. They perceive Ali as a God.  

      THANKS ANGLOPHILE FOR HIS INTELLIGETN INPUT.

Re the question

Anglophile, I did not mean to dismiss your statement, but was simply not sure about its unambiguity with regards to the conclusion I was hoping for! All I'm saying is, that if we believe that an individual or a group is guilty of torture, they should be brought to justice for violating the human rights of their victims! Whether this person is Sabety or Saeid Mortazavi, the only way to put an end to the practice of violence in our society once and for all, is to bring those responsible to a court of justice and give them a fair and open trial. That would also be the only way of restoring our people's faith in our future justice system! I can't see what that has anything to do with wanting Pahlavis' blood -- for I don't even believe in death penalty, moreover, none of the remaining Pahlavis was involved in government, let alone SAVAK or the prison system! 

Nonetheless, thank you for acknowledging and condemning torture!

..................................

Shushtari; I'm not sure if you are generally this angry, or this is your way of engaging those with different opinion from yours in verbal exchanges! Either way, I don't care for your language, and don't believe that a conversation in that kind of tone would lead anywhere! Nonetheless, feel free to release your anger, but don't expect a dignifying response!

P.S. In order to realize the similarity of your logic (or lackthereof) with that of a Basiji, simply replace Khomeini with Shah and Khalkhali with Nasiri in your comment below, and the rest of what you're saying could qualify as a Basiji's position in justifying torture and use of violence against the opposition!

.................................

Dear aynak, you're absolutely right! Supporters of undemocratic rules (whether Shahollahi or Hezbollahi) are not necessarily against the use of violence and torture. What they object to is why it shouldn't be them who does it (Sabety for Shahollahis, and Mortazavi for Hezbollahis)! The irony is that both group ardently believe in their own righteousness and expect people to follow their lead!

aynakee

if you read slowly, you can see that I never mentioned 'sabeti' or torture- I was talking about a security apparatus like savak- which is needed- 

couple of other points for your education- the mullahs were not 'created' by the oppression of the pahlavis or their policies- they were in fact, waiting in the wings for centuries, waiting for the right moment to rule iran and loot it as long as they could

as far as allegations of tens of thousands of political prisoners killed and tortured or the burning of cinema rex, etc.-  have all been proven but PURE BS- propagated by the islamist for the consumption of the masses- which they swallowed like sharbat albaloo

I've never defended torture- no white washing there- however, your idealistic fanatasy of 'trying of imprisoning' monsters like khomeini, yazdi, khalkhali, khamenei, ejei, etc is what led to this big mess- if these fools were 'taken care of' then millions of iranians would be saved

as far as bazargan goes, isn't he the same guy who joined khomeini and sat on his ass when khomeini was murdering thousands of imperial army officers on the rooftop of the schools???? and isn't he part of the same jebhe mellli that abandoned dr bakhtiar, who was our last hope before the akhoonds destroyed iran????

bottom line, the shah would have died by 1980 anyway, and dr bakhtiar could have and would have saved iran and help transition it to a democracy......

you guys' pacifist fantasy of 'monitoring' mortal threats like khomeini and his gutless bunch is exactly what led us to this mess 

No win situation Shushtari

Shushtari writes:

"..And as far as 'democratic' forces which savak was trying to 'oppress'-
are you referring to MEK, tudeis,kalkhali, and fedayian eslam????? 
"

No dear, he is writing about preventing democratic expression of opinion that led to creation of MEK, Fadayan ....   You can not have it both ways:  Bazargan had a historic saying/warning to Shah that we are the last generation that tries to resolve these issues (accountablity of Shah, freedom of expression etc....) through peaceful means.   And he was right on the mony.   If one tightens the screws so no reasonable and logical entity can speak, then extereme forces gain ground.  This is so simple to understand that one might think needs no further explanation.   Then when you create these circumstance, where the like of Mossadegh are in life long exile, and groups like Mojahedeen pop up, you say, but these are terrorists and must be killed anyway.

 This whitewash of torture when you say "no one is denying" but every country has it is the real Sabati and needs it  is the real B.S.  

Any one acting against national security of a country can be tried and put in prison if convicted.  Why is that no enough for you?  Why do you guys need torture to be a part of the landscape?

You folks have not learned a thing about your own history.  And the price for those who don't lean is condemnation to repeat it until you learn.   Unfortunately for us Iranian, this dumb-ness and repetition comes at a huge expense.   

شکنجه صورت می گیرد، چه بهتر که ثابتی انجام بده:

 //news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2012/04/138515.php

سرکار خانم الاهه بقراط بر من منت گذاشته اند و ذيل مطلب طنزی که در
"گويای من" زير عنوان "چگونه از يک جمهوری‌خواه تبديل به يک پادشاهی‌طلب
شدم" يادداشتی مرقوم فرموده اند و در آن به نکاتی اشاره کرده اند که به
اعتقاد من شايسته ی بحث و گفت‌وگو است. ايشان نوشته شان را چنين آغاز کرده
اند:
"ف.م. سخن گرامی، يک بار ديگر هم گفته ام که وارد گفتگو شدن با کسی که با
نام مستعار می نويسد، برای من کار آسانی نيست. با اين همه دلم می خواست به
شما بگويم هيچ لازم نيست جمهوری خواهی خود را کنار بگذاريد و در مرز بين
طنز و جدی مسائلی را مطرح کنيد که خيلی ها بخش طنزش را جدی بگيرند و بخش
جدی اش را طنز تصور کنند! سود کار طنزپردازان برای خودشان در همين نکته
است: می توانند بين طنز و جدی مانور بدهند! اين است که حتا اگر علاقه شما
به پادشاهی يا سلطنت جدی هم باشد، آن هم در حالی که جمهوری در ايران به يک
مضحکه بی آبرو تبديل شده است، ولی اصلا لازم نيست که «مخلص» پرويز ثابتی هم
باشيد...".

من از اين که ايشان محبت کرده اند و به يک نويسنده ی مستعار پاسخ داده
اند متشکرم. البته ايشان قطعا در نظر داشته اند که آن‌چه خطاب به يک
نويسنده بی‌نام و گم‌نام می نويسند بيش‌تر جهت اطلاع و آگاهی‌بخشی به
خواننده است والّا پاسخ به چنين نويسنده ای حامل چه ارزشی تواند بود؟ به هر
حال به عنوان خواننده ی مطالب ايشان از ايشان به خاطر اين زحمت تشکر می
کنم.

در مورد طنز و تاب خوردن ميان جدی و شوخی عرض خاصی ندارم جز اين که هر
کسی را بَهْر کاری ساخته اند و قسمت ما نيز از شيوه ی نويسندگی اين بوده و
چه خوب که مطالب نامعلوم از نظر شوخی و جدی ما در کنار نوشته ی بزرگانی که
تکليف جدی و شوخی بودن نوشته هايشان مشخص است منتشر می شود. به هر حال
نوشته ی ما را می توان برای رفع خستگی خواند و نيازی به جدی گرفتن آن نيست.

اما مايل ام بعد از چند سال نوشتن تکليف خودم را با برخی مسائل که در
متن نوشته ی خانم بقراط به آن ها اشاره شده مشخص کنم. البته تکليفْ مشخص
است و کسی که نوشته های مرا دنبال کرده باشد می داند نويسنده چگونه فکر می
کند اما بد نيست هر از گاهی، به طور مشخص، خط فکری نويسنده توضيح داده شود
تا احيانا سوءتفاهمی برای خوانندگانی که جسته و گريخته مطالبی از او می
خوانند پيش نيايد.

اين جانب، هرگونه تفکر و ايدئولوژی و عمل‌کردی را که منجر به محدود کردن
آزادی های فردی و نقض حقوق بشر شود نفی و رد می کنم. اين تفکر و ايدئولوژی
و عمل‌کرد چه سوسياليستی و کمونيستی باشد، چه مربوط به شوروی سابق و روسيه
فعلی باشد، چه باعث و بانی آن مارکس و انگلس و لنين باشند از نظر من مردود
است. به همين ترتيب آن کسانی که سرکار خانم بقراط به زبانی محترمانه به آن
ها اشاره می کنند يعنی پوتين و کا.گ.ب و ماموران بلوک شرق و افغانستان و
لئونيد شابارشين، جملگی از نظرِ منِ نويسنده ی گمنام و خواننده ی پی‌گير
مسائل سياسی محکوم اند. تمام آن چه در شوروی بعد از انقلاب ۱۹۱۷ تا زمان
سقوط و فروپاشی گذشته و باعث آزار و شکنجه مردم و جلوگيری از بيان تفکر و
نقض حقوق بشر شده است محکوم است. به همين ترتيب تمام کسانی که به نام
سلطنت، يا به نام اسلام، يا به هر نام ديگری باعث آزار و شکنجه مردم و نقض
آزادی ها و حقوق بشر شده اند از ثابتی گرفته تا حجاريان و لاجوردی و ری
شهری محکوم اند. ايده آل من برای شيوه ی حکومتی، کشورهای شمال اروپا که در
رده ی نخست جدول حکومت های دمکراتيک قرار دارند هستند که هر چند کامل
نيستند ولی در زمان حاضر و بر اساس واقعيت های موجود بهترين اند.

سرکار خانم بقراط می نويسند:
"...مگر نه اين است که هر رژيمی، پرويز ثابتی ها و سعيد حجاريان ها و
مأموران امنيتی خود را دارد؟! مگر نه اين است که اگر مثلا چپی ها در ايران
به قدرت می رسيدند، سازمان امنيت خود را بر پا می داشتند و پرويز ثابتی های
خود را در رأس آن می گماردند؟ شايد يکی از همين هايی که پس از گفتگوی
پرويز ثابتی در صدای آمريکا، امضا جمع کردند و مقاله نوشتند و حتا اعتراض
کردند! آنها نيز برای حفظ رژيم خود همان کاری را می کردند که مشابهانشان در
کشورهای بلوک شرق و يا افغانستان کردند!...".

من عرض می کنم اگر "چپی ها" در ايران به قدرت می رسيدند و سازمان امنيت
خود را بر پا می داشتند شايد بدتر از جمهوری اسلامی هم رفتار می کردند!
حالا ممکن است خانم بقراط فکر کنند دارم طنز می گويم ولی واقعا به اين
مسئله معتقدم.

اما نه چپ ها به قدرت رسيدند نه ما اين فرض را به شکل ثابت شده ديديم.
اگر می ديديم و ساکت می نشستيم شايسته ی نام "آزادی‌خواه" نبوديم؛ شايسته ی
نام "استبدادستيز" نبوديم. "نويسنده ی آزاد"، نويسنده ای ست که اگر با
موارد نقض آزادی بيان و حقوق بشر، حتی از طرف دوست و هم‌فکر خود روبه‌رو
شود ساکت ننشيند و به مبارزه ی قلمی با آن برخيزد. مشخص تر بگويم، من، با
داشتن افکار جمهوری‌خواهی اگر فردا حکومت مطلوب ام بر سر کار بيايد و همان
کاری را با مخالفان فکری اش بکند که رژيم شاه و حکومت اسلامی ايران و حکومت
شوروی سابق و روسيه فعلی کردند و می کنند، يک لحظه ساکت نخواهم نشست و عين
همين مطالبی را که امروز عليه حکومت اسلامی می نويسم عليه آن ها خواهم
نوشت. به اعتقاد من اين شرط اول نويسنده ی آزاد بودن است.

خانم بقراط می نويسند:
"...ماجرای برخورد با سخنان پرويز ثابتی، سبب شد من اعدام های اوايل انقلاب
را که پايوران رژيم گذشته را بدون انجام يک دادگاه عادلانه به قتل
رساندند، بيشتر درک کنم. آيا وقتی پس از سی و سه سال افرادی که طبيعتا به
دليل همين تجربه سه دهه ای بايد از گفتگو با امثال پرويز ثابتی استقبال می
کردند و آن را از زاويه تاريخی به عنوان همان مستنداتی مورد توجه قرار می
دادند که از امثال هويدا و ديگر مقامات مقتول رژيم شاه دريغ شد و در اختيار
مردم و نسل های بعدی قرار نگرفت، درست مانند زمامداران رژيم جمهوری اسلامی
بيش از هر چيز در پی پيگرد و مجازات او بر آمدند، نبايد در ادعاهای سرشار
از دمکراسی و حقوق بشر آنها ترديد کرد؟...".

البته تقاضای پی‌گرد و مجازات کسی را کردن يک امر است، خواهان سر او را
بالای دار بردن و حق انسانی او را ضايع کردن يک چيز، اما اگر چنين "تفکری"
حتی در پسِ ذهنِ مخالفانِ پرويز ثابتی وجود داشته باشد، محکوم است، گيرم
ثابتی دست اش به طور غير مستقيم به خون صدها نفر نيز آغشته باشد.

تکليف اشخاصی هم که به قول خانم بقراط "به تعريف و تمجيد کسانی می
پردازند که امثال لاجوردی را می ستايند..." معلوم است. کسانی که امثال
لاجوردی را "می ستايند" در اصل يکی از بزرگ ترين جنايت‌کاران حکومتی و يکی
از نقض‌کنندگان حقوق بشر را "می ستايند"، و اين ستايش محکوم است. اکنون
بايد ديد که چه کسانی در کجا و چگونه از اين جنايت‌کار "ستايش" کرده اند و
آن را محکوم کرد. من به عنوان يک نويسنده ی گمنام، در اوج هيجانات
انتخاباتی، دقيقا انگشت بر جناياتی که در زمان نخست وزيری مهندس موسوی رخ
داد گذاشتم. اما در کنار اين اشاره ها و محکوم کردن ها، ايستادگی ايشان را
در روزهای بعدی در مقابل جناح فوقِ مرتجع و فوقِ متعصبی که حکومتی مانند
حکومت طالبان برای ايران می خواهد ستودم و هنوز هم می ستايم. نه امضای
ايشان پای حکم آقای ری شهری که مدت هفت سال بنيان سرکوب و شکنجه ی
سيستماتيک را در حکومت اسلامی ايران گذاشت فراموش می کنم، نه حبسی را که
امروز به خاطر فضايی "کمی بازتر" از فضای فعلی دارد تحمل می کند. اين ها
تاکتيک نيست. ترکيبی ست شايد غيرقابل توضيح ولی واقعی که خواه ناخواه بايد
آن را در نظر بگيريم. به عنوان يک نويسنده ی آزاد، نمی توان چشم بر اين
واقعيت ها بست و دنبال سياهِ سياه و سفيدِ سفيد گشت. هر کس هم که به طور
مستقيم يا غير مستقيم دستی در جنايت داشته، بايد پاسخگو باشد، چه ثابتی، چه
حجاريان، چه مقامات سابق رژيم شاه، چه مقامات سابق و فعلی حکومت اسلامی.
به عبارتی ستايش از مهندس موسوی، باعث چشم بستن بر آن چه در دوران نخست
وزيری او گذشته است نمی شود.

مطلب طولانی شد. اميدوارم با اين نوشته خط و خطوط نويسنده ی گم‌نام و
بی‌نامی چون من مشخص شده باشد هر چند نوشته و نام او ارزشی هم نداشته باشد.
حال بايد ديد، نويسندگانی مانند خانم بقراط که جدی می نويسند و مشهور و
پُر خواننده و پُر طرفدار هم هستند روشی را که اين نويسنده ی گم‌نامِ
مستعار در پيش گرفته است تا چه حد قبول دارند و آيا می توانند مانند او،
نقض حقوق بشر و آزادی های سياسی و اجتماعی را توسط دوستان و هم‌فکران شان
محکوم کنند؟ اگر چنين شود شايسته ی عنوان "نويسنده ی آزاد" خواهيم بود چه
با نام خودمان بنويسيم و چه با نام مستعار.

more chert o pert from

mr arj.....

show YOUR proof- of 'thousands' of political prisoners executed"

we're all waiting

and as far as 'democratic' forces which savak was trying to 'oppress'- are you referring to MEK, tudeis,kalkhali, and fedayian eslam?????

quit regurgitating the same nonsense- savak was brutal of course, no one is denying or glorifying it- but every nation, including the us has a security force to protect the country against anarchists and loonies like khomeini

Mossadeghists only seek blood - Pahlavi blood

Mr. Baraheni

is a gentleman of Azari descent with some family members who were active in the Pishevari's puppet Azarbaeeijan republic government.   So, he grew up in that family environmnet that was against the central governmnet.      He obtained a Phd. in English literature from Utah and was active politically against the regime in Iran.   He had leftist leanings in his earlier years and for a while collabrated with some followers of Trotskey's line on the east coast, giving speeches and publishing articles.

Obviously, due to the nature of his activities Savak monitored him closely.   Savak put him more under its scrutiny as his writings promoted for an independent Azarbeeiajn, replacing Farsi language with Azari and other social and cultural measures.   Savak was very sensitive to the separatist movements due to the historical issues (pishevari and ghazi-saeed).   Savak monitored him even more closely to see if he had any links to the Soviets or was  merely expressing his own ideas.

It is not clear why someone as intelligent as Reza Baraheni, with his anti-government resume, chose to visit Iran.   Did he not know that he would in trouble and be possibly arrested?   Was it his arrogance that he would be untouchable because he was part of US' Writers/Poets Association?  It is a question that only he can answer.  Nevertheless, he was arrested and was taken to Komiteh Prison.    Savak wanted to get to the bottom of this to find out where he was coming from.   During an interrogation by HossienZadeh (real name Attarpour) Reza baraheni acted very arrogantly and tried to bully his interrogator.   It is not clear why he did that; again was it his arrogance that he was part of the US writers/Poets association or simply the Azari blood boiled up too quickly.   Another interrogator, Azodi (real name Hassan Nasseri) who hears about this orders Mr. Baraheni to be whipped.

This was all there was to it.  He was whipped.

A few weeks later, due to request from US writers/poets Assoc. to Mr. Hoveyda Mr. baraheni gets released and becomes a free man.   Upon his release from prison and return to US he wrote a book, Crowned Cannibals, which went on dramatizing, sensationalizing and exaggerating his heroic prison days.  Subsequently, either Playboy or Penthouse magazine ran an article on him and his book, either 1976 or 1977.    Mr. Baraheni always had aspirations to become a famous writer and poet in the West, but never did.   His book filled with lies momentarily put him on spot-light but it fizzled out quickly.

Here is a good question to Mr. Baraheni - it is not a secret that the issue of torture and Human Rights violations are 1,000 times worse in IRI compared to the pre-1979 days, then how come he does not talk or write a book about it these days?

A good friend of Mr. Baraheni, a genetleman by the name Hassan Roozpeykar (he was also an activist against the Shah's regime), himself a prisoner of Savak once, had told his friend, Mr. Baraheni, that his experience was not anything like what he had described in his book.   Mr. Baraheni had vaguely commented that he did what he needed to, to help the cause the revolution.   In other words, he exxagerated if not outright lied. 

I am sure Mr. Baraheni can access this site and read this blog.  I welcome him to dispute the accuracy of what  I have stated here.

Mr. Arj, thank you

for your good and sincere question, I will respond to it shortly.

But, I would like to address couple of issues first, Mr. Baraheni and his book, and, the 1975/1976 Human Rights report.

Respectfully, 

The $64,000 question!

Dear Aria, thanks for the stories, they seem to be interersting! However, back to the issue at hand here; the purpose of this blog is to discuss whether we condemn torture, condone it, deny its existence, or excuse it under certain circumstances?! Perhaps I should've included this question in the body of the blog!

So far, pro-democracy commentors such as MK, Mehrban and aynak, have simply and unequivocally condemned the use of torture under any regime (both IRI and Pahlavi), under any circumstances, for whatever purpose (either to extract information or as a punishment) and believe that those who were/are associated with the practice of torture must be brought to justice in a court of law.

However, the rest of the commentors (who I believe in one way or another support monarchy or the Pahlavi regime) can't seem to come up with a straight answer, and instead have been beating around the bush by either trying to deny or excuse the practice of torture under the Pahlavi regime in various ways such as bringing the intentions of this blog under question (or even the imagery used), trying to white-wash it under a broader historical, political, or even economic context, and in some instances, by sheer joking around!

Nonetheless, since this issue should and would play a siginifanct role in the future of our nation in general, as well as the elusive unity of the opposition to IRI in particular, allow me to ask you the following question and the possible follow up:

Do you blieve that torture existed under the Pahlavi regime? If you do, do you in an unequivocal manner condemn the use of torture under Pahlavis and believe that its perpatrators should be brought to justice just as the ones who are committing such crimes under IRI should? 

...........................

Siavash; you however, can't seem to get it! Are you serious! If you are, where are we going to have that conversation, in Evin or Gohardasht?!! :)

Not only you, but no one has the right to predetermine the fate of our nation! If they did, then what makes you more legitimate than a supporter of PMOI or any other group who does so?! And no, you are wrong, monarchy does not have a teflon guard as a "sacred entity," for the very first ones to be put down by IRI were members of the previous regime (which BTW, I do not approve of) and earth didn't stand still!!!

However, at the moment, people who are in IRI's prisons, and an overwhelming majority of those who are active against the Islamic regime, are pro-democracy activists and fighting for a democratic alternative to the IRI. Whether you condone, deny or excuse torture, or even if you condemned it, you have no right to tell them what is good for them or not! That's what elections are for!

Arj seems you got it right.

"...from the monarchist point of view (which I believe wrongly so) such admittance would seriously damage his public image as an alternative to IRI while staking a claim as the righteous heir apparent to the Pahlavi monarchy!" Arj

So dear Arj indeed you know well what is going on. So  bashing one side will make the other side stronger. That is right. it has always been like that. Surely, there is no perfect system in the whole world. So we have to be happy with what we can get. At this critical moment of our history that Islamic criminal gang suppressed any voice of opposition by claiming of being "Mahareb ba Khoda" or "in war with God", the monarchy is the only institutude that left intact. Filthy mullahs can't claim monarchy as "mohareb ba khoda" because we have been living under that system for thousand years. During last 32 years all oppositions had been bashed brutally, I think you know it all and I don't need to explain. So bring something negative will feed the other side which is mullah's side and we don't want that happens.

  Once we restore the monarchy, I personally sit with you and we will discuss all of the human right violation throughout the history aournd the world and condemn all of them. But first comes first.

    How about you write a blog for Free nutrition that you were receiving during shah days.? You were wistnessing free nutrition saved many Iranian children from being hungery. You may find some other thing that is positive from shah days and write something about it. That is basic principal of democracy to say sometimes negative and to say sometimes something positive.

     I look forward to read you next blog which would be positive aspect of Pahlavi dynasty.  I am sure you can find plenty.

Best,

Siavash

Re transformation of violence

Thank you dear aynak for your input. Indeed, what makes such a simple issue as denunciation of torture a complicated matter is the lack of unambiguity on the part of those of us who either support or excuse regimes who engage in such acts! Indeed, the nature of the allergic/hypersensitive reactions I received from those who can predominantly be considered supporters of monarchy and the pahlavi regime, while not shocking, (to me at least) was symptomatic of their lack of willingness to either address or condemn the existence of torture under the Pahlavi regime!

IMO, this lack of willingness is in direct correlation to their approach in restoring the Pahlavi monarchy! This could even be seen in RP's hesitancy in uequivocally condeming the practice of torture under Shah, for from the monarchist point of view (which I believe wrongly so) such admittance would seriously damage his public image as an alternative to IRI while staking a claim as the righteous heir apparent to the Pahlavi monarchy!

Such a paradoxical discrepancy has resulted in a lack of clarity on the supporters of the Pahlavis' part that, as in lack of communication in any relationship, it would result in unresolved issues that could only be compensated with violent reactions! That is why a majority of monarchists and supporters of the Pahlavi regime advocate a surge in violence and a violent process in replacing IRI! 

Students abroad

Savak closely monitored anti government activities outside Iran.

There were different levels of activities by students and each level was handled differently by Savak.

Tier 1 - soft activisits

Savak would contact the families of students who were active and ask the families to talk to their children to stay away from political meetings and demonstrations.  This would be carried out only for students who were consistenly attending meetings and/or demonstrations but were not in leadership roles.   Most of the time this approach was effective.

Tier 2 - student leaders

These were student leaders but were not associated  to any armed underground group.  Those who would come back to Iran would be summoned to a Savak Office and would be given a lecture of some sort, sometimes friendly advices and sometimes very intimidating, depending on what the case officer knew of the individual's level of activities or thought would be effective.  In this Tier 2 case, even the intimidating scenario was more of a psychological nature than any physical acts.

Tier 3 - student activisits tied to armed guerilla groups.  These individuals usually entered Iran illegally, by crossing a border or by a fake passport.

Passport stealing was a big business of groups that were underground on certain campuses.   Many non-political UC Berkelely students lost their passports mysteriously, thanks to fellow schoolmates who were associated with these undergroud groups.   Yet, Savak monitored these activities very closely and many were captured while they were in Iran.   This last group was subjected to torture to give out their information about other cell members and imminent terrorist operations.   Savak was able to disrupt many assassination and bombing plots by extracting information from these prisoners.

Also, Savak had many suceess stories in converting some students into double-agents as part of both Tier 1 and 2 efforts.

Mr.  Reza Baraheni's case was somewhere between Tier 2 and 3. and I will explain on the next post.

Students abroad

Savak closely monitored anti government activities outside Iran.

There were different levels of activities by students and each level was handled differently by Savak.

Tier 1 - soft activisits

Savak would contact the families of students who were active and ask the families to talk to their children to stay away from political meetings and demonstrations.  This would be carried out only for students who were consistenly attending meetings and/or demonstrations but were not in leadership roles.   Most of the time this approach was effective.

Tier 2 - student leaders

These were student leaders but were not associated  to any armed underground group.  Those who would come back to Iran would be summoned to a Savak Office and would be given a lecture of some sort, sometimes friendly advices and sometimes very intimidating, depending on what the case officer knew of the individual's level of activities or thought would be effective.  In this Tier 2 case, even the intimidating scenario was more of a psychological nature than any physical acts.

Tier 3 - student activisits tied to armed guerilla groups.  These individuals usually entered Iran illegally, by crossing a border or by a fake passport.

Passport stealing was a big business of groups that were underground on certain campuses.   Many non-political UC Berkelely students lost their passports mysteriously, thanks to fellow schoolmates who were associated with these undergroud groups.   Yet, Savak monitored these activities very closely and many were captured while they were in Iran.   This last group was subjected to torture to give out their information about other cell members and imminent terrorist operations.   Savak was able to disrupt many assassination and bombing plots by extracting information from these prisoners.

Also, Savak had many suceess stories in converting some students into double-agents as part of both Tier 1 and 2 efforts.

Mr.  Reza Baraheni's case was somewhere between Tier 2 and 3. and I will explain on the next post.

Mr. Reza Baraheni and his book, Crowned Cannibals

I will address the above shortly.  But, before I do that I will need to briefly delve into Savak's policy and practices about students who were active against the regime abroad as it is relevant to the unfolding of Mr. Baraheni.

Evin hills - 9 prisoners

Savak did execute them.

Many say that these 9 individuals had been prosecuted by military courts and were serving their respective sentences; and, Savak violated the courts' final verdicts.   This is a correct argument as long as you accept the legitimacy of those court  verdicts.   In that sense Savak should not have executed those 9 prisoners against the courts' final verdicts/sentences.

But, nobody has asked this question as to why those 9 particular prisoners were selected, and why in that particular point in time.

???????

The truth is that some of those prisoners from inside the prison had ordered the assassinations of certain individuals outside the prison.

The one particular assassination that finally tiggered Savak's action was the assassination of Abbass Shariari, a former communist turned government informant.   There were other assassinations ordered prior to Abbass Shahriari's murder including General Farsio, General Zandipour, Captain Fardad, Mr. Fateh (he was a wealthy businessman and Fedayeean killed him as the sympol of capitalist imperialism) and others.

It had reached a point that Savak needed to take an action (right or wrong) in reaction to the unending assassinations.

In context of violating the military courts' rulings/sentences Savak was at fault.   It is easy to sit and judge the matter from a high-horse-of-morality 33 years later, depending on whose side you are on.   But in war, there are no moralities. 

Savak found out that Abbass Shahriari's and others' assassinations had been ordered from inside the prison.

The shoe store incident......

It was a tragedy and should have never happened, and that young man should not have lost his life like that.   There must not be any excuses for that.

This was a case of a body-guard exceeding his authority, acting irresponsibly, without anybody ordering him to do what he did.

What the public does not know is that he was immediately arrested by police and was handed over to Ministry of Justice (Vezarart e Dadgostari).  It is not a secret that Savak was the power-house in the Iranian politics but it is also a fact that Ministry of Justice was very independent, which is why political prisoners were indicted through military courts and not by those of Ministry of Justice's.

The body-guard went to court and was given 7 years in prison; in an appeal's court his sentence was reduced to 5 years.   He served 3 years and was released due to good behaviour.

The incident became a point of friction inside Savak between Mr. Sabeti and other Savak officials who saw the incident, rightly so, as politically damaging to both Savak and the regime as a whole. 

The incident was mentioned on all opposition publications as well as foreign newspapers/magazines.

But, nobody talked about the fact that the guy went to jail for it, like any other incident.

Stalin used to say

that when you kill one you make a martyr but when you kill 100,000 it just becomes a number and nobody remembers them.

Where are yesterday's revolutionaries of all colors - Maoist, Stalinist, Peykar, Fedayeean, Confederation of the Iranian Students and others - who glorified Pol Pot's Cambodia (Killing Fields), Soviets (Re-education Camps), Eastern Block secret services' atrocities (the aftermath of Prague's Spring, Bulgaria's uprising and Warsaw's events).  Nobody talks about them.    They don't matter, it is just numbers. Stalin's theory was right.

But, some of our friends are still stuck on the shoe store and the Evin hills incidents.

I will address both of those events shortly.

Dear Mr. Arj

Sorry, I did not have access to a computer for a few days and was not able to follow up.

Glad to see that there have been so many comments on your blog.

I will pick up where I left off.

Regards, 

Not torturing is simple, finding justification for torture

 Not torturing is simple, finding justification for torture makes it complex.  Your statements are very revealing.

So the discussion has basically turned into a simple statement:

Can we unconditionally and unequivocally condemn torture and systems that have political prisoners to suppress opposition?   One would assume, we all could agree that much?  But no:

According to Agnlophile, that is:

 There is no denying that torture did exist before, during and after the
reign of the Pahlavi kings and continues to exist to this date. BUT what
the blog writer, quite deliberately, tries to simplify is to place the
blame entirely and squarely on the rulers and not the ruled.]

  ??? really?   who would you blame?   In this  mindset,  rapist and the raped are equally to blame.  Note how condemnation has given place to justification and dancing around  the main issue.    The first step toward eliminating both torture and persecution for political belief is to come out and say, I do not believe there is *any* situation underwhich either is justified.  But deep down inside, certain ideologies are based on fear as the primary way to rule, how could they ever come clean?   Is it really complex?  or is it really simple?   I think it is as complex or simple as we want it to be.

Re deliberate...

Anglophile, there's no complexity with such an issue as torture, we either admit that it has, did or does exist under the present and previous regimes, or deny it! Also, it's a matter of no complexity whether we do condemn torture or not!

Despite what you might have perceived, and as I reiterated before, the point here is not to blame one regime and exonorate another of the charges of torture. On the contrary, it is to stress the fact that torture should in no way and under no circumstance be excused or obfuscated for whatever means and by whomever -- if you notice, in the beginning of my blog I state that IRI has outdone the Pahlavi regime in terms of torture and violence! Hence, no one is denying that those who commit such crimes as ordering, executing or condoning torture, do indeed come from among our own people, whther it's an onrdinary person, Shah or even Khomeini (however demonic and psychopathic one may find him)!

Yet, the solution doesn't lie in blaming one person, another or even a group of people for the existence of torture, but the systems which we've been ruled under that allow for such practices to prevail! Therefore, if we are to do away with torture and violence, we ought to put a legal system in place that explicitly addresses and prohibits torture and other acts of violation of human rights, and a transparent system to guarantee that no one stands above the law, in addition to checks and balances to uphold the rule of law!

Deliberate simplification of a complex problem

There is no denying that torture did exist before, during and after the reign of the Pahlavi kings and continues to exist to this date. BUT what the blog writer, quite deliberately, tries to simplify is to place the blame entirely and squarely on the rulers and not the ruled. Unless we accept that there is a "torture gene" isolated by the human genome project and whoever owns it can pass it to his or her next generation, these torturers could not have come from a selected group of the society. This is a national malaise and not an individual syndrome. With the exception of Khomeini who pro-actively encouraged and institutionalised the abuse of human rights, be it torture, rape or organised massacre, none of the modern day rulers of Iran advocated such practices and it requires a very thorough examination of legally admissible evidence to connect an abuse of human rights to the man at the top. I am not suggesting it is not possible but it is outside the scope of this forum to even address such an issue. But I don't think our blogger is going to be content with such admissions. The people whom I broadly (and in a civil way :)) classify as Mossadeghist are asking for blood. The hypocritical nature of their accuations are best demonstrated by their zeal to incriminate the Pahlavi monarchs and their officials as opposed to prosecute the very present and living people who have committed the unspeakable atrocities of the past three decades and are continuing to do so at this very moment. We don't need a truth committe or Nuremberg style trials. We need a self-examining process to cleanse ourselves from our painful past.

Personally I don't think if we can ever make it there as we are still living in our past.

Re the difference

Anglophile, I have no intention of getting you angry, and for what it's worth, don't take your insults personally. However, rhetorics aside, may I say that what you are trying to say in your comment below, is that you do not necessarily respect others' opinion, reserve the right to treat it with contempt and react to it accordingly? In that case, and without any intention to compare you to the person quoted by our friend aynak below, Dehnamaki (For I believe you're far more intelligent, but merely pointing out the irony of what you're saying), that is also what he says and how he reacts!

But, back to what you are saying; let's say that Dr. Mossadegh proposed the establishment of a national secret service and advocated swift justice. Does that mean he endorsed and practised torture?! If he did, and as you claim(?) that under the Pahlavis torture did not exist, then why didn't Shah's courts who prosecuted Mossadegh, didn't bring up the issue of torture of political prisoners that, according to that theory, was against Shah's policies?!

And if you are of the opinion that torture existed under the Pahlavi regime, but was initiated or also practiced by Mossadegh, then why musn't all claims of torture during the entire Pahalvi era (including the Mossadegh tenure) as well as IRI be investigated and condemned?!

However, if not only you, but any of us, dismiss such considerations as unnecessary and/or try to excuse torture and violence for one reason or another, it's most likely that, whether intentionally or inadvertantly, they reserve themselves or the political entity they represent the right to resume violation of human rights!

Difference of a joke and a jibe

Re denial

Dear Mehrban, once again, thank you for your comment. As our friend aynak also eloquently expressed in farsi; the main question facing us in this regard is: Are we as a nation prepared to condemn torture in particular, and violence in general, beyond the boundaries of political affiliations? Indeed, how we answer that question, will dteremine whether or not we'll be able to bring about a civil society based on democratic principles that will gurantee the universal human rights of every citizen!

Based on reactions I see from our fellow expat monarchists and Pahlavi-supporters on here, I am rather convinced that, much like against supporters of IRI, we as a nation we'll have an up-hill battle forcing them to respect and abide by the rules of democracy for a considerable period of time, even in a post-IRI Iran! As you can see below, monarchists have a hard time admitting to violations of human rights under the Pahlavi regimes! In other words, what they are trying to suggest is that violation of HR existed before and after the Pahlavi era, but for some magical reason, there was a halt on such violations during "HIMs" Shah and Reza Shah!

As is evident below, this issue (torture and violence) that remains as a searing scar on the conscience of our nation, is treated as a matter of technicality or even ridicule by monarchists! Some try to justify it under a broader historical context, some by bringing up periodic economic booms, some by questioning the image (of all things!), and some outrightly by joking around and sheer horseplay!

Ironically, if technicality is to be a basis for categorical denial of the existence of torture, the Kahrizak affair would be a matter of debate too, for there are no direct evidence showing the torturers committing those heinous acts of crime on the victims caught in tha act, but rather witness acounts and circumstantial evidence -- that can be readily dismissed by shillers as have been here! Hence, the same measures apply to the pahlavi-supportes' denial of torture and violation of HR in prisons such as the one depicted above, "Komiteh Zed-e Kharabkari," and under the Shah in general! Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that prisons that are holding political prisoners under IRI such as Evin, Gohardasht, Ghezel Hesar... were originally built under the Pahlavi regime and to hold political prisoners that it too branded as "terrorists, trouble makers, traitors and enemies of state!"

Didn't know they used Iranian Extras on Ben Hur ? ...

Ben Hur: Ramming Speed!

Benhur Chariot Race.mpg 

Difference of opinion vs incivility

Anglo, where did I say that I've never read you posts? I did however say that I don't read your posts -- meaning I'm not interested in your posts and don't find any discussion with you productive! The reasons being; firstly, you are disrespectful (just see below and elsewhere how you're unable to address an issue without having to resort to insults), and seconly, you seem to have an obssession with Mossadegh and can't seem to be able not so feebly trying to link everything to him! Even if the issue at hand has absolutely nothing to do with him -- which insults my intelligence more than anything!

My attempt below at extention of courtesy was not an absolution plea, but to rather assert that I don't hold personal grudges based on difference of opinion!