ISLAM DOES NOT OWN IRAN

ramin

actually, i was just giving you a way out before exposing the poor link you made between democracy and bombs. your response was to call me 'despicable'. do you even know what that word means? if so, feel free to apologize any time. but i suspect you are not courageous enough for that. my guess is that you are intimidated by me, hence your weird hatred.

on support for khomeini, i am cool with accepting that my assertion is open to a challenge. my own impression is that many inside iran - especially the religious ones - blame others for the regime's failures, but not khomeini himself.

personally, i think he was an idiot. like the shah. only, the shah was a bigger idiot. without him there would be no khomeini.

Peace

"Fantastical Conspiracies"

It is astounding to me that after 30 years, some of us are still belitteling the common occurrence and effectiveness of conspiracies, as if the admitted conspiracies in 1953 (Iran), and even the 2003 Iraq invasion have not taught us enough about the role of sinister outside forces and other alledged, and much poo-pooed conspiracies... in 1954 (Guatamala), 1960-1962 (Cuba), 1963 (JFK), 1966 (Indonesia), 1967 (Greece), 1968 (RFK, MLK), 1973 (Chilie), 1979 (Iran), 1985 (Nicaragua, ala Iran/Contra) and many others, including Saddam Hussein's rise to power in Iraq, which experienced its own share of coups and upheavels leading to the ascendancy of the Baath Party.

The likes of Q would desperately like us to believe that these are "fantastical" conspiracy theories, poopooing their validity, simply to safeguard his Khomeini shrine, as if to say that in all the above-named coups and revolutions, only the indigenous people were involved, therefore, only Iranians were involved in bringing Khomeini to power. Foreigners played absolutely no role, or at best a peripheral role!

Yeah, right!

This is not a "dayee jaan Napelon" complex, conspiracies happen all the time -- nine-out-of-ten revolutions don't happen unless a super-power wants it to, and the removal of the Shah and the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran was the classic case of a sinister MI6/CIA conspiracy, orchestrated at the highest levels of power in the UK/US, with many homegrown players involved.

Traitors are always involved, ergo Mossadegh's downfall.

Too many thugs to silence

Too many thugs to silence others who disagree with them.

Botshekan: This is not a disucssion  toudehis would enjoy, I'll give you that much.

Vildemose

This is what happens when someone tries to link mullah Khomeini with Jimmy Carter. The hezbollahis and their shameless leftist lapdogs come out of the woodwork to derail the thrust of this blog, namely, the UK-US-Khomeini conspiracy to overthrow the Shah.

And Bot Shekan, you're full of piss and vinegar, attacking my identity. I've had this account with Iranian.com longer than you or most of the people posting today, over a year. If you have nothing of substance to contribute, move on, pal. 

bencross

That is an excellent point.

Niloufar Parsi

writes, "just truly disappointed since my tone with you was very
polite."

You were polite in a backdoor way (moozi-bazi), when you wrote, "your arguments about the nuclear issue are very poor, and i suspect you know it."

You basically accused me of being a phony, that I know what I utter to be false, and yet, I still utter the falsehood. You know what you can do with your polite moozi-bazi, madame. And no, we don't want the same thing for Iran, specially if you actually think that Khomeini still has a "massive" following to this very day.

That is utter misinformation, and i suspect you know this because I've spent 3 of the last 4 summers in Iran, and in all of my travels, all over the country, there's no way whatsoever that you can describe Khomeini's following as "massive."

No way!

"derailining" what discussion?

vildemouse, if you are trying to be funny, try harder bro, but if you mean to serious, then you must be joking. Do you call this thread a meaningful discussion? No idiot except that treacherous follower of Martin Luther King, i.e. Andrew Young has compared Khomeini with Gandhi and now Ramin (aka Nusha) is recycling his drivel. There is no discussion here. It is more like ghaaraashmission.

irandokht jan

it must be the 'eye' thing :) can't remember who was first with it, but i suspect it was you, as you've been here much longer than me.

btw, i am on a rare visit to the US (washington d c and virginia) this week. americans seem quite friendly. what's up with their leadership?!

ramin: i won't engage in debate with you unless you cool down. am not even
offended, just truly disappointed since my tone with you was very
polite. u show too much hate in u. we are on the same side. if only you could see it...

Are you a Monarchist?

Are you a Monarchist?

Wrong question. The right question is which constitution of Iran do you recognize? 

Kharmagas,

Am I a monarchist? If by that question you're proposing to pigeon hole me into a box of generalizations, no, I'm not .

I want what's best for Iran, period. If that be a constitutional monarchy in the order of Japan, England, Norway, and many others, that would be fine. But that's not my goal.

I believe that we should know the absolute truth about what happened in 1979, so we don't make the same mistake again. I also believe that the real forces of darkness in Iran have been the Ulama, specially in the 20th century. The real revolution was not the uprising in 1979. To me, that was a counter-revolution.

The real revolution was the Pahlavi dynasty, starting in 1925. Think about it, if the 2 Pahlavi kings had been self-serving jokers like the Qajars, playing foofsies in their harams and having a jolly good time, then Reza Pahlavi would be king today.

What separates the Pahlavis from the Qajars is the fact that they wanted to modernize Iran and shake up the status quo. And whenever you alter the status quo, in any country, you make serious enemies. The Pahlavis threatened the ayatollah establishment. Did they make many mistakes? Absolutely. But their heart was in the right place -- trying in good faith to awaken a superstitious nation from a 1,000-year dreams of behesht and Imam Hussein.

I grew up in a household that worshipped Mossadegh, and whispered in terms of sedition against the Shah. But I grew up and realized that my family, like many many other families in Tehran, were abjectly ignorant 1st or 2nd generation dahatis (which constitutied 80% of the population in Tehran in 1978).

What did my parents know about geo-politics and economic solvency for a nation that had experienced much corruption and financial mismanagement under the Qajars? While the west had airplanes and automobiles in the early part of the 20th cenury, we in Iran did not get our first bicycle until the year 1908, and it was an import!

My point is that NOT all of Iran's ailments were the fault of the Shah or his father, but that's what the revolutionaries in 1979 made it look like, that all of our problems were the fault of the Pahlavis, and the masses bought it, lock, stock and barrel -- that's fraud.

I'm a truth seeker, so, no, technically I'm not a monarchist. Present me with the truth and I will believe in you no matter what political dogma you adhere to!

More empty pejoratives from

More empty pejoratives from a frustrated old goon of IRI discrediting himself even further everytime he opens his mouth, never a rational thought hallmark of religious-diseased brain.

  Please don't let him derail the disucssion.

Fred

Beautifully put... hypocracy (and deception) is the tool and trade of the vermin sucking the life out of Iran.

How they sleep at night I will never know.

Ramin are you a Monarchist?

Are you a Monarchist?

Bunch of historical facts

It was the Shah, his demented sense of grandiosity, his total detachment from reality and his corrupt family who lost Iran to a bunch of mullahs.  

Green belt doctrine- that green, not this one!-was an all American policy which assumed it'd hinder the Soviet's expansionism.

The Brits did whatever they could do in order to give Khomeini the best news coverage inside Iran.  

The Pahlavis and all mullahs must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth.

A queue of hypocrisies

by Q on Sun Dec 13, 2009 04:44 PM EST

The truth is that you have gone crosseyed with hatred, and thus can't even see in which direction you are wildly swinging. Reality has left the station for you ages ago. All you have now is your own stew of anger, fantasies and prejudices.

The truth is you are frustrated that the world doesn't work according to your imagination and feel increadibly powerless.

Righteously threatening other people, calling them "traitors", on public forums is the only thing that can give your life some meaning. But deep down you know, even this is a completely worthless activity.

by Q on Sun Dec 13, 2009 04:07 AM EST

Yes, Q

You're right about one thing... discussing anything with the likes of you is a worthless activity, indeed.

One more thing, Niloufar Parsi

You write: "Your arguments about the nuclear issue are very poor, and i suspect you know it. there is no parallel between 'democracy' and the 'right' to nuclear weapons. it has never been like that, and the only nation that ever used nuclear weapons on innocent civilians - Twice - is the one that claims to be the most 'democratic'.

No, ma'am, my arguments against IRI nukes are not poor -- they are very much valid and shared by billions of people on this planet -- yes, billions! Fascist regimes should not have access to nuclear weapons! How many billion people would agree with me that Nazi Germany should not have had access to nuclear weapons? The IRI is the same beast as the Nazi regime, without the economic and military power. They share a twisted ideology of hatred, and as such, they are fascists.

And it's patently despicable of you, yet again, to equate the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing with the situation in Iran today. The Americans dropped those bombs in the context of world war, to end a war that had cost the world over 50 million lives, most of which were caused by fascists regimes like the IRI. And the Japanese would not have stopped fighting -- that's a fact, which would have meant the loss of thousands more American lives.

Truman chose to abruptly end the war and prevent the loss of further American soilders. That was a debatable decision, but it was made by a truly elected representative of the people of America.

If the IRI gets nukes, will the decision to use them be made by a true representative of the Iranian people? After all, that is the hallmark of a true democracy -- to have those who are ELECTED, not selected, make decisions that effect the welfare of the nation.

LOL! I love the psychoanalysis, here's mine:

The truth is that you have gone crosseyed with hatred, and thus can't even see in which direction you are wildly swinging. Reality has left the station for you ages ago. You have lost the capacity (if you ever had it) to recognize historical fact, and present reality. All you have now is your own stew of anger, fantasies and prejudices you have been carrying all your life.

The truth is you are frustrated that the world doesn't work according to your imagination and feel increadibly powerless about it. Pulling fantastic conspiracy theories from your behind is the only way you can sustain your fantasies.

Righteously threatening other people, calling them "traitors", on public forums is the only thing that can give your life some meaning. But deep down you know, even this is a completely worthless activity.

Q

The truth? I agree you may know the truth deep in your black heart, but your job is to obfuscate and disseminate falsehood and present it as truth. That's what you do, and I suspect this gives you a guilty complex at night when you go to sleep, knowing that because of traitors like you, the innocent people of Iran suffer endlessly.

If there is justice in the universe, you will pay for your sins against the Iranian nation in the next life, if not in this one.

Niloufar jan

I think you were right...  it must be the "eye" thing  ;-)

Although I wish someone with a higher level of intelligence/integrity had confused us. I am flattered nevertheless :o)

IRANdokht

Vildemose

I have seen the Mike Evans video, have not read his book though. Much of what he says is true, I know that for sure.

Thank you for the heads-up. 

Ramin,

before you attack people who dare to disagree with your laughable nonsense, like a rabid dog attacks anything that moves, let me remind you of the advice I gave in my first post, which unfortunately as usual was instructive.

These are historical facts your hatred may not allow you to see, but they are the truth.

Think about it!

Niloufar Parsi or is it Irandokht?

You're one of the most despicable characters on Iranian.com, by far. It's IRI propagandists like you that give a black eye to this site, and I suspect you know this.

This intellectual hazard writes, "in that sense, Q is right. that is how he was seen in iran, and decades later he still enjoys a massive following."

You know very well that you lie like rug when you say "decades later he still enjoys a massive following." Massive? In all honesty, you're exactly what's wrong with our country -- a leftist die-hard who likes her own ideology more than the prosperity of her country.

That is sad.

At this very moment, the brave people of Iran are trying desperately to overthrow the Khomeinist regime, giving up their lives in the process, and subjecting their bodies to unmerciful torture and abuse, and you have the monumentally despicable gall and shameless porrooee to come on here and claim that Khomeini still enjoys "massive" support in Iran.

Who are you trying to fool, you despiable lady? You're a shameless enemy of the people of Iran, in every way, and I suspect when you go to sleep at night, you know this to be true.

The Real Story of 1979

Mehrban

Writes: "I believe, that Khomeini once in Iran and through pressures of more militant Islamists took matters in his own hands and ousted the moderate nationalists.  I also believe this may not have been part of the original ploy."

This is definitely not true, Mehrban. If you read Gary Sick's book, "All Fall Down," you will see that the US National Security team -- of which Sick was a high official -- very much believed that if Khomeini set foot in Iran, the extreme right would ultimately take over.

In fact, the "green belt" theory would only be viable if implemented by extremists like Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Khomeini in Iran. It would not be much of a bulwark against communism if a garden variety muslim leader was running the show.

The Islamification of Iran started in 1977, as Carter set foot in the White House. The game plan was not his, but because of his affinity for Arab causes, he quickly adopted its goals.

Fair

Writes: "Compare Gandhi to people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Desmond Tutu. Khomeini? What a joke, and what a poor reflection of our people's preferences and tastes."

Remember, the Gandhi comparison was made by the US Ambassador in Iran, not the Iranian people.

The most opposite possible of Gandhi

was Khomeini. I agree totally with Botshekan, Niloufar, and ELS. Gandhi never advocated the export of revolution to all the neighboring states, never called for violence of any sort, and never showed intolerance of any kind to other religions. Gandhi never personally ordered the mass execution of thousands, nor ordered continuation of a war despite overwhelming certainty of defeat, justifying it by "don't wory, divine intervention will make us victorious".  Where was that divine intervention in 1988 after 1 million dead and 10's of thousands of chemical victims, many of which are still coughing up blood today?

To suggest that Khomeini was viewed like Gandhi by anybody reflects the absolute stupidity and ignorance of that person. Just tell me one statement that Gandhi ever made in his entire life (verbal or written) that rises to the level of absurdity found everywhere in Khomeini's seminal work, "Tozih ol Masael" (Explanation of Problems), in which he explains in detail under what conditions sex with an animal is permitted, or the conditions under which swallowing a fly will invalidate your fast during ramadan, etc. etc. etc. (The original version of this masterpiece is banned in Iran).

Compare Gandhi to people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Desmond Tutu. Khomeini? What a joke, and what a poor reflection of our people's preferences and tastes.

Concern for poor people? That is laughable. Who did all the fighting and dying and drinking chemicals as a result of his stupidity to continue the war after Khorramshahr was liberated in 1982? Rich people? Mullahs? Keep guessing....It was an absolute certainty for anybody with any military knowledge that victory was not possible by Iran after 1982, and indeed Iran lost that part of the war big time. Who suffered the most as the result of the economic isolation and hardship that this tyrant unilaterally decided to put Iran through? Did this person consult with the Iranian people and consider their opinion before making such life changing decisions for all of us? And how much did he personally suffer as a result? Nada. THE POOR PEOPLE PAID THE BIGGEST PRICE FOR ALL OF KHOMEINI'S STUPIDITIES. He took full advantage of poor people and their good faith, and destroyed their lives in the process. I spit on such a man.

As long as a significant fraction of our people reveres such garbage, nothing will save us. Burning his picture should be a trivial non issue for Iranians. He is the biggest anti Iranian figure since Genghis Khan and the Arab invasion.

-Fair

Khomeini

was, is, and will always be the most charlatan, the worst evil, the bloodiest murderer, and the worst polluted two-legged animal Iran had ever experienced. Gandhi's dog's poop has more dignity than Khomeini and his followers (some of which on this site). The only way to get this menace eradicated once and for all is through massive bombing of the Islamic Republic. Once Iran is free of these criminals, Iranians will convert Khomeini's shrine into the largest toilet in the world.

ramin parsa

Unfortunately, your view of the events of 1979 and shortly prior is quite plausible.  That is not to say there was not frustration and dissatisfaction with the regime of the Shah among the people.   The speedy unravelling of the shah's army is one of the most curious events of that time.

The green belt theory is sound, I believe Afghaniztan was subjeced to the same transformation as a test case before Iran.   To this day, in subtle ways brzezinski defends IR.   I believe, that Khomeini once in Iran and through pressures of more militant Islamists took matters in his own hands and ousted the moderate nationalists.  I also believe this may not have been part of the original ploy.

ramin khan

interesting question you pose. i never saw khomeini as a Gandhi-like figure. i was way too young, but still remember thinking 'who is this character'? and where did he suddenly come from? never trusted him, partly because he was a mullah, and partly because he talked nonsense (free this and that etc). but then something went wrong and the nation rallied behind him and even revered him. in that sense, Q is right. that is how he was seen in iran, and decades later he still enjoys a massive following. it is a poor reflection of our culture. but it is our culture and we have to deal with it in a practical sense rather than being dismissive.

your arguments about the nuclear issue are very poor, and i suspect you know it. there is no parallel between 'democracy' and the 'right' to nuclear weapons. it has never been like that, and the only nation that ever used nuclear weapons on innocent civilians - Twice - is the one that claims to be the most 'democratic'. the other nuclear power that is more likely to use such weapons and Should be disarmed is war-prone israel and her dangerously paranoid view of the world.

Peace