Pictory

None reason to fear

It is clear there is no worry command

thanks

Re: Q

I considered this thread closed and was unwilling to continue debating on it since you wanted to rant instead of debate.

However, since in another thread you gloated about "having taught me a lesson in the Columbia thread", I found it necessary to come back here and put you in your place.

So.... Let's see...

Quite contrary to your ranting, it is YOU who is lashing out on me and others who have a different opinion than yours. One can take a look at me remarks and yours and see the tone of hate and anger in yours being abound.

You attempt to deceive others by saying: "After I made him apologize, he ...." The second part of the sentence is irrlevant since the first part is false. You did not make me do anything junior Q. However if you see me with such high regards and as such a great opponent, to the point that it makes you "proud" that you have "made" me do something, then so be it! Please continue gloating! It'll make me happy.

Then the "Eye-Ray-nian" junior makes this remark: "... (Jamshid) pretends like he is a victim of fascism, like we are only attacking his Monarchist opinion. That's beyond cowardly, it's simply disgusting...."

Oh really? Your whole sentence is just a ranting because I am not a monarchist. I defend the shah when it's due and I'll critisize him when due as well. So let's see... Die hard monarchists think I am anti-monarchist and die hard Islamists like Q think I am a pro-monarchist. HOW MUCH FUNNIER COULD THIS GET? And yes the Shah was much much more civilized, better and more useful for his people than Komeini and your likes could ever be in a hundred life time (excluding those "gedaas" who thanks to Khomeini, overnight became "important", perhaps you Q were one of them?)

Then he says: "After I made him (Jamshid) apologize...." Then one paragraph below he says: "He (Jamshid) still refuses to ... apologize...." God this is so funny! So Q, did you make me apologize or not? Did I apologize or not? Make up your mind junior!

Now on to a few more "mochgiri"... Q says this: "in argumentation, someone who wants to dispute numbers shows BETTER, and MORE CORRECT numbrers from a SUPERIOR source that has better methods"... You emphasized on the words BETTER, MORE, SUPERIOR. Better, more and superior to WHAT? If you want to say "to AI's reports", then I have every right to ask WHERE DID AI GOT ITS NUMBERS AND INFORMATION FROM? HOW DID THEY COME UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS? WHAT WAS THEIR SOURCE?

I have asked the above question several times but you refuse to answer it. Why Q? Perhaps because you have no answers? Or you dont "like" the answer? Or... or maybe you know you'll get slam dunked once you write your answer? You are so fun Q! Instead you say that I (Jamshid) has to show that AI was wrong. No Q. YOU used AI's report as your trophical prize. I have every right to ask YOU what were the AI sources of information? Why do you keep dodging this question junior? Ok, ok, ok. Let me rephrase. WHY IS IT SO TERRIBLY WRONG TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION? Just answer it! Don't get into why I am asking the question, just answer the damn question!...

Then the junior says "The fascist invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration is a perfect example. Without ANY evidence of WMD, Bush claimed that Saddam was hiding them..." Doesn't that whole paragraph apply to you Q? That you just like Bush, claim that so and so "authority's report" is irefutable and therefore we must attack Iraq, you too say that so and so "authority's report" is irefutable and therefore its target (shah) must be attacked. When asked Bush would say "can you (reporters) show that any of the evidence shown by X and Y is wrong?" Just like you Q now ask me the same question about AI. Q and Bush, wearing the same clothes, just different color. So tell me Q, what do you think of the "authoritive" nature of Bush's authoritive sources? Lol!

The joy of slam dunking Q!!!....

Then he goes on and says that I have not shown any evidence that could establish a precedence with AI being wrong. ANY evidence that does not appease you is automatically rejected by you.

AI, HR and BBC blamed the Rex Cinema on the Shah's government, later it tunred out that they were Islamist extremists. I DONT CARE IF THEY WERE OF MOJAHED TYPE OR OF KHATE EMAM TYPE YOU IMBECILE. Don't try to use that as a diversion.

Same goes with the reports of 10,000+ people killed in the Jaleh square incident which is now completely refuted. If you don't like the sources that I provided that's your problem because you won't accept ANY thing that does not appease your beliefs.

Ok. I had enough fun with you Q. Now go pray to your god whose prophet had sex with a nine years old girl and with countless "slave war prize" women.

Fine. The LAST word is that Jamshid has Lost (it), proof below

Jamshid thinks he understands "debate." HE (!!!) calls me fascist. He lashes out at people who don't worship Pahlavis like he does (only after he helped overthrow them) out of hatred for himself and what he has done. He is also in denial. He has such a high opinion of himself that he holds himself incapable of the kind of wrongdoing instead overlooks his own vicious attacks and unfair accusations in a self-congratulary  tone and pretends people don't like him because of his "opinion." That's not why you are a fascist Jamshid, that's not why you deserve all that I'm dishing your way. But you can think what you want. Yea, Jamshid, YOU are the victim here... and I'm the big bad "fascist" bully... Does that make you feel better.

Why I called Jamshid a Fascist. This is what he said

--------------------------------

by extracting that text from his site and posting it here, YOU have concurred with his words. Therefore his words are an echo of your opinion. Therefore BOTH Proyec and you deserves this "vitriol"

--------------------------------

There were a lot of disgusting things said at the bottom about the person who posted the text under the picture of Shah. According to Jamshid, the person who extracted the text, deserves to be called all those names. In other words: just because he disagrees with what is being written, the person who happens to cut and paste the text is GUILTY!!! (Khalkhali, anyone?)

That's fascism. What's more lowly and cowardly is that Jamshid realizes this. After I made him apologize, he pretended it was all about a  confusion on who copied the text. His own words say that WHOEVER did it, deserves the "vitriol along with the author." But of course, he's too chickenshit to stand by his own words, and escapes from them. Further, he PROJECTS this onto others (me) by pretending like he is a victim of fascism, like we are only attacking his Monarchist opinion. That's beyond cowardly, it's simply disgusting. This was the original argument and a damn good case for why Jamshid is a fascist, but he affirmed this basic fact multiple times later. He still refuses to recognize this simple point and apologize for it. Therefore, he has no business calling anyone else intolerant.

Why Jamshid lost the debate on AI, misses the point of evidence, and he fails to comprehend the basic concepts argumentation:

Jamshid is pissed off about Amnesty International. He has claimed that Pahlavi was better than IRI and he wants that to be true with all his heart. He doesn't like the report that was published which shows that Shah in fact had more political prisoners in 1976, and that in AI's opinion, he was the "worst HR record in the 70's." 

Now, normally, in argumentation, someone who wants to dispute numbers shows BETTER, and MORE CORRECT numbrers from a SUPERIOR source that has better methods, more objective results and a process that is less flawed. It's simple. For example in science if you have a newer technique of measuring the speed of light, you show it and then talk about why the old method was inadequate. You also present the new, more accurate speed of light.

Similarly, you think AI's report is not correct? What does it mean for it not to be correct? Do you not need the correct number just so you can compare and show that it was not correct? Do you not need to show the REAL truth so that you can credibly say AI was wrong? Do you not need to show that there was something WRONG with AI or the way it did things?

But Jamshid, can't do any of this. Others have presented much better arguments but Jamshid doesn't bother with the details. He's so full of himself that he thinks all he has to do is RAISE THE POSSIBLITY that THERE COULD BE some mistakes and then has "won." Much like a 5 year old argues about his toys. This is a classic fascist trait. The fascist invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration is a perfect example. Without ANY evidence of WMD, Bush claimed that Saddam was hiding them. When they were not being found, he used this as "proof" that he MUST be hiding them. The moral of the story, is that he was not interested in any evidence. He had already made up his mind and was twisting reality to fit his fantasy. This is what Jamshid is doing with AI or any other evidence. If he likes it, he uses it (even though, he attacks others for using the IRI as a source, he himself is beyond these petty inconsistencies). If it doesn't agree with his fantasy, well then IT MUST BE WRONG!!!

To this last point, he spent a lot of "Morakat" (ink) trying to discredit AI. He lies like "abe Khordan." He claimed that AI had exaggerated other numbers and is therefore unreliable. [WRONG: Turns out his own sources didn't say anything of the sort.] Like a good little fascist he was SAYING that AI is wrong, by showing someone else criticizing some OTHER news agencies that were NOT AI, thinking his audience is stupid enough to accept it. Well, I wasn't.

Desperate to save some face and having all his so-called evidence crumble on top of his head, he turns to pure bullshit. Now he claims that we must find out where AI got their numbers just to make sure they are right (he doesn't know for sure either, but he's so deluded that he think the mere POSSIBLITY that these numbers COULD BE unreliable means that they ARE WRONG.)

This is why I said he does not understand argumentation or evidence. It's like this: evidence is presented by an AUTHORITY. An authority is an objective knowledgable referree on the subject. What makes something an authority is their reputation. AI is an authority. When an authority outputs a REPORT that means it has decided that these things are correct. If you want to question the authority, that's fine. It's allowed. All you have to do is show why the numbers are wrong or what the right ones are. Simply 'casting doubt' is not an argument. Why? It's simple if Jamshid bothers to think about it for even 5 seconds: Anything can be questioned. Any source, any agency, any report written by anyone is always suseptible to doubt. If that was enough to "debunk" anything, then there would be no certainty at all in the Universe. If that's enough to show that AI was wrong, than it's also enough to show that any other set of numbers is also wrong. This scenario does not allow for any truth, and is therefore not-logical.

The whole idea of having an authority is so that their reputation gives them crediblity when they make statements. That's all they have. One can certainly try to show that they have a BAD reputation (Jamshid failed at that), and they should not be trusted (Jamshid couldn't produce anybody saying this), provided you show who CAN be trusted. If you can't do any of this, you have no business questioning anything. You have not touched AI.

But since Jamshid is a self-absorbed fascist, he gives himself the right to knock down the report of an established authority SIMPLY BY SAYING SO, no counter-evidence whatsoever! HE wants to be the authority and thinks he knows better than AI. That's what we in Iran call "roo".

This was the argument in a nutshell. Jamshid failed miserably and in the process has acted like a true fascist. He has decided to "give me the last word." The question is, does he have the balls to stick by his own word? Or will he -yet again- have been lying?

Re: Q the EyeRaynian junior....

I read you last remarks Q. As always there were just a bunch of none sense ranting with its purpose being venting off your childish anger.

You say that I have no research, no numbers. I presented solid evidences and unrefutable numbers which are etched in history. I am sorry they do not match your outmoded beliefs. That is not my fault.

You cleverly tried to dodge answering the question of where did AI got its numbers and what were its sources of information. You cleverly dodged answering by shifting the focus from AI itself to how it compares with "other" sources of information.

Then you did worst. You said "It doesn't matter where they got them". Are you serious? IT DOESN'T MATTER? Listen up junior: IT DOES MATTER. The source of information of any agency, be it govenment, private, none-profit, local, international is important. It seems that as long as the reports appease your outmoded belief, it does not matter where it comes from.

Sorry to break the bad news to you junior. again I say: IT MATTERS. And I asked again where did AI got its numbers from? What was the sources of their information? Don't dodge the question. Answer it. Then we can continue the debate. Dodge it and you have admitted that you have backed off. Simple as that junior.

Then you outdo yourself by saying this: "you don't understand argumentation that's different than insults". Really? Duh! Of course argumentation and insults are different, even opposite. That is why, duuuh, I am saying YOU don't understand argumentatioin, BECAUSE you insult. Junior, you may need to hire a tutor to explain this, oh so very complex issue to you.

And one more "mochgiri". You said that I sided with the mullahs because I am using their information. This is not siding with them. This is listening to all sources of information. If I want to know how many died in Jaleh incident, and there are conflictive numbers, then I have to consider ALL sources and make my own judgement based on the source, time and other factors. This is the basics of research for crying outloud. Again, you may need to hire a tutor to explain this paragraph to you.

You also said this: "after taking days of abuse from you..." Abuse? ABUSE? You gotta be kidding! You found reading someone's opinion that is different than yours abusive??? Awww... What a soosool.

Then you say "give your wrothless life meaning..." My worthless life? My life becomes worthless because I have different opinion than yours? What a fascist. A hypocrite fascist. The worth of one's life is not judged on what his political opinion may be, it is judged on how he has severd other human beings. Something that you know NOTHING about me. But you pass judgement, as you pass judgement on politics.

Your defeat in the AI argument is proven to me, by simply seeing that you are so badly slammed that you are not even trying anymore. Instead you are insulting. Your insults simply bounce back and has no effect in me.

You have failed to "argumentatively", as you say it, contribute to this dicussion, and to finding the truth. You are incapable of "tabaadole nazar", as you can't tolerate opinions that are different than yours.

Now go ahead and reply again with more ranting. I WILL let you have the last word, as I had the last laugh. I close by saying this Farsi poem (In case you have forgotten your Farsi, the word "morakab" below does not mean "ink", it means "complex"):

aan ke nadaanad va nadaanad ke nadaanad

dar jahleh morakab abadol dahr bemaanad.

What a sorry bastard...

Jamshid,

if I'm the laughing stock of this site, why is no one laughing?

You don't anything about anything... You're just a scared little kid who is confronting ideas way above his head. You have no research, no numbers, no objective analysis of your own to compete with and the best you can do is "where did AI get their numbers from?" That's supposed to debunk the AI report? Real genius on your part! AI numbers were a lot more responsible than most other news reports which would make them more reliable. It doesn't matter where they got them, it matters that they put their name by them. Same with red cross or Human Rights Watch. This is why you don't understand argumentation (that's different than insults, I know you are new to English, but concentrate hard.)

You don't know that you are supposed to show a superior source that debunks AI, or proves they are liars. So you think your own "aghab oftadeh"'s words are good enough? What a loser... no one cares what you think. People do, however, respect AI, and you have failed to show any flaw. -even through you changing sides with the Mullahs for your own convinience. (Repeating this for the 5th time)

I readily admit that I'm insulting you, after taking days of abuse from your retarded mind. There is nothing else left to do. You started it and now you can't take the heat, so you are crying foul.

Anyone interested in reading who started the insults and the put-downs, and who was forced to apologize for them can read below. The answer is YOU asshole. I dare anyone to read this page and see that you were abusive, ignorant and failed to understand any logic or evidence, and started regurgitating BS like a old cow. As for the rest of your BS, go ahead and let out your inner anger.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to give your wrothless life meaning... Anyone reading will sure understand that you are really debating your own inner demons and insecurities about having supported the revolution.

I'm sorry you betrayed your master, the Shah and now you are crying about what you have done. Nothing is going to bring him back and Iran will not be the same ever. The sooner you can understand this, the sooner you can get on with your life and actually contribute to society. I was angry at you before, but now I'm just sad. Sorry for your friends and family that have to put up with this all the time. You need help, don't try to hide it by acting all "in control", in your inevitable worthless reply. You have no control, it's time to realize it.

I'm asking JJ to stop the comments on this thread. Once he see what a waste of time this has been, I'm sure he will agree.

Q... Laughing stock of this site...

Q,

It is a common tactic of a "jaahel" to revert to belittling and cussing when they are convincingly and soundly defeated in an argument.  Your last post only serve as the proof that you are a "jaahel" and a "defeated" jaahel on top of that:

You are a "jaahel" because of your backwarded and outmoded opinions which are backed by debunked and refuted evidences that you proudly present as "trophy".

You are a "defeated" jaahel because with your arguments being slammed again and again, you are now reverting to belittling and cussing, just as jaahels do.

May I add that you are a hypocrite too? You are a hypocrite because you say this:

Q: "You can't understand the basics of argumentation..." and yet at the same time you say these:

Q: "You must be manic depressive...", "What an absolute fool...", "You really are more of an idiot...", "put down the manghal...", "take your head out of your ass...", "you can't speak English worth shit...", " your retarded ass..."

The list goes on. You talk about "understanding the basics of argumentation" and then you say these? That makes you a hypocrite, by definition. Period. A "defeated" hypocrite.

You now don't even bother answering my questions. What happened junior? Have you exhausted your "proofs" and "evidences" which I trashed, slam dunk style, repeatedly?

I asked where did AI got its information from? what were AI's sources of information for its reports? Where did those numbers came from?

You are cornered junior. If you answer the questions, you'll only make more of a fool out of youself. And if you don't answer it, you'll only make an ignorant fool out of yourself. "na raahe pas, na raahe pish".

Junior, this is the trap that all "jaahels" fall into. Naturally, this happens only when they are unfortunate enough to get into a debate with someone knowledgeable who can expose and "rosvaa" each and every argument they present, again and again, slam dunk style, like I did with you junior.

Now go. Go and punder about your defeat. Go do more research. Gather more worthless evidence that is only good to appease your defunct opinion and ego. You are a jaahel junior, but a clever one. Too bad your cleverness only serves your bankrupt opinion and not much more.

I am ready to close this argument now that you stand completely exposed for who you really are.

Fascists make me yawn...

You must be manic depressive because now you believe the Mullah's story? Now, all of sudden you think they are telling the truth, that there was nothing behind the fire, just a bunch of local hooligans? Can you get more selective than this? What an absolute fool you must be!

I don't believe that BS trial and your beloved Bani Sadr doesn't either. I never blamed it on SAVAK (can you read? sadly no) , I said it could have been the MEK which were tied to Khomeini at the time, so it makes sense that neither side wanted it exposed. You really are more of an idiot than I thought, if you believed that dog and pony show.

Now read the rest of my response again. This time, put down the manghal and take your head out of your ass, and fully digest the SERMON (yes, loser, that is how it's spelled).

//iranian.com/main/singlepage/2007/columbia-honors-shah#comment-8378

I was working in Khark in 1980, frequently traveling to Abadan. Just because you can't speak English worth shit, don't accuse me of being your "junior". Yes, take your own advice and don't debate again. You can't understand the basics of argumentation, "burden of proof" or evidence, and I don't have time to bring your retarded ass up to speed. So let me give you some advice, don't make a bigger fool out of yourself. Now get lost.

Ma'Aslam

Re: Q

Q,

Was my argument so strong that you felt you have to write an entire book to respond?

And what did you write anyway? A bunch of none sense ranting which you have already written before. You made me apologize? YOU? You can't even make me blink, let alone apoligize to anyone.

Ey ablah, for the last time: I attributed the selection of the text to Foad because his name and noone else's was there. GOT THAT? I stand by my comments regarding the text itself, namely that it is ridiculous to consider the shah the most brutal dicatator of its time, WHETHER IT WAS WRITTEN BY JJ OR FOOAD OR THAT IMBECILE COMMUNIST.

What part of this your brain cannot process? Let me know and I'll tutuor you into understanding it.

Then you tell my that my proofs are not solid! You are an ignorant Eye-ranian who does not even know the recent history of his country. Your ignorance is truely unbelievable. The AI should have never attributed the cinema Rex incident to Savak because it turned out to be false. The IRI tried the Islamist who burnt the cinema. Their trial was followed in the domestic newspapers. I know because I read it. And now here is an incredible imbecile like you who still wants to say that Rex incident was Savak's doing. I mean how out of touch with the facts are you?

To all other readers: Q is so arrogant in opining about Iran's affairs BUT YET HE STILL DOES NOT KNOW "ANYTHING", I REPEAT "ANYTHING", ABOUT THE ISLAMISTS WHO WERE TRIED BY IRI ITSELF FOR BURNING CINEMA REX. I mean it was in Iran's newpapers for god's sake and the guy is still refuting it!

To Q: Hey junior, you've been away from Iran too long. And even if you have visited Iran recently, you are so out of touch with Iran's affairs that you still don't know anything about the Rex trial.

You are slam dunked and your hopeless attempts to make your ignorance look "smart" has failed. Again and again in this post and others I will bring up this Rex issue and ridicule your "belaahat" and lack of knowledge.

Now here is a question for you: Where did AI got his numbers from? I am talking about the shah's time or even today. Where did those numbers came from? The 1976 report must have relied on some numbers. Where did those numbers came from? Who reported those numbers to AI? What was AI's source? It is YOUR burden of proof to show where did AI got its numbers, not mine. And you have failed miserably at that.

Now go think about that "junior" and know why you are slam dunked again.

And oh god puhleeeeze stop giving me a cermon about the Iranian revolution junior. I was there and participated in it. I have read about it from different sources, Islamist, MEK, monarchists, mosadeghists, etc. I have made up my own conclusions without being attached to any ideology. Only a pro-IRI or an ignorant fool would consider the revolution 100% made by Iran and 100% made by the "people". The hands of the western power can be seen in it. And as far as the Iranian people, if they knew the truth back then as they know now, the majority would not have participated in it. Their opposition to Pahalvis would continue by they would not have voted for khomeini.

Everytime I promise myself not to debate with imbeciles like you. But then again there comes another imbecile, more of an imbecile than the previous one, that writes such outragious crap, that I find myself compelled to expose him.

Wrong again Jamshid, stop the lies

Jamshid,

Let me make it simple for you. It's called "verifiable proof," if you don't have it, you have no argument. Your "reasoning" cannot make up for your lack of objective evidence. Your words, and emotional conflations are the words of a proving liar, no one will accept them without evidence.

I'm bored with you and with this argument. At this point, I would have to repeat myself for the third time. Anybody worth their salt can read for themselves. I will explain for the LAST TIME and then you can respond to your heart's content.

First, on your tirade against "Who the hell" I am. I'm the guy who started this entire discussion about you being fascist minded and treating JJ and Foad with contempt. I'm the guy who made you FINALLY apologize, even in a half-hearted way. You clearly said if someone EVEN POSTS a paragraph as an excerpt it means THEY AGREE WITH IT and therefore DESERVE THE VITRIOL JUST LIKE THE AUTHOR. It wasn't about what name was "signed" for what paragraph. You consider the simple SELECTION of the paragraph as indication of the person's mindset. You said, it's right down on this page, and once again you are lying (in your last post) to get out of that responsiblity. This is the link to the comment.

//iranian.com/main/singlepage/2007/columbia-honors-shah#comment-6506

STOP YOUR VICIOUS LIES!

On your so-called substance:  First of all, the 3 options you layed out are your own creation. That is not how I or other people would see the situation. You are simply creating a false dichotomy. Even if I were to accept option #3, the entire premise depends on AI being untruthful. Do you have any evidence of this? NO, YOU DO NOT!!!

The bottom line is and remains the following. Once again, I have to repeat myself:

You have not shown that AI has lied! Read:

-- First, you grant that you do not have any proof that AI exaggerated about the 1976 numbers. You simply speculate it (and everything else they ever wrote) COULD be false because they have made done this before. So now you have to show that Amnesty International has made similar exaggerations, and at best, you will only cast doubt on this. But you attempt this and FAIL MISERABLY!

-- In order to show that AI is an organization whose numbers cannot be believed, you must find an even more credible and impartial  authority (for example HRW, or Red Cross or any other global agency) to make that determination. Your word doesn't count. Do you have anybody who has proven the AI is a liar? Do you have a scientific and unbiased report that calls AI's findings into question? Do you have other authorities disputing the numbers that AI provided? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OF THIS.

-- You ATTEMPT to show this by throwing me Bani Sadr. I do not consider him a credible source and he certainly could not possibly be considered objective. It's like Nixon saying "I'm not a crook." He has no crediblity. BUT EVEN SO, he does not dispute anything with AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Which is the organization we are concerned with.

-- Bani Sadr has a long drivel on the theme of "ghani sazi" (enrichment) and he's using polemics to call the Iranian government liars. Fine. If that's the case, we can't take their word on the Rex disaster either. It's interesting but not evidence of anything. You say that the Cinema Rex somehow shows that AI was wrong? What? Where does Bani Sadir talk about Amnesty International?

-- More importantly EVEN BANI SADR IS NOT SURE ABOUT REX. Cineme Rex was one of the top 10 terrorist attacks of all time. "Solving it" would be a big accomplishment, and huge news. No official explanation has been produced by any credible source. Even your WIKIPEDIA source (not a good one), does not claim certainty that Mullahs were responsible. Other, credible theories are that MEK was responsible because the "do a violent act and blame your enemies" was a hallmark of their activities, and they had done such violent acts in the past. So Bani Sadr is not even claiming anything for certain and LIKE YOURSELF is merely speculating. It's obvious to anybody who understands the difference between a scientific finding and political rhetoric. [SEE MY LAST POST]

In the second sentence he says that people who did the deed went on to bigger posts in the government. So who are they? If he knows that they went to bigger posts to commit "bigger crimes", surely he knows their identities? The world would like to know. This is a second proof that Bani Sadr is just making accusations.

-- Your second source, again an INDIVIDUAL (Emad Baghi) is talking about a lot of discrepencies during the revolution and Jaleh square. He talks about all kinds of newspapers and French philosopher Michelle Fucoult. He says there were discrepencies. Sure, but where is AI? Did he accuse AI of discrepencies? NO! Did AI even cover the event directly (I don't remember reading AI numbers about the Jaleh square, usually it covers prisoners and executions.) Do you have what AI actually said? That's what's relevant here, otherwise this entire thing is a side-show.

-- Conclusion: You do not have any evidence against AI. You have no official determination that AI numbers are bogus or even untrustworthy. You are using weasel words to conflate the general chaos in the middle of a revolution and throw in Amnesty International, a respected world-wide organization, and smear it. EVEN if you are able to show that AI specifically was wrong in some cases, the burden of proof has not been met for this debate unless you show A) how it was wrong in 1976 and B) how it has such a bad reputation that other authorities recommend against it. YOU DON'T HAVE EITHER! You don't! Don't both trying.

You have no credible counter-point to the 1976 numbers.It's that simple.

-- You have failed to "slam dunk" or "debunk" or disprove anything I have stated. You are simply conflating, and outright misleading. You have a lot of irrelevent information about things we were not debating. Perhaps you can make a persuasive argument for something else. The one I made, however, was on a comparison of 1976 numbers with 2007 ones with Amnesty International.

I gave you the courtesy of reading your sources (I do speak Persian, btw, and this was a cheap shot), only to find out NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY PROOF AGAINST AI.

Stop lying!

I'm guessing that you felt you had been lied to by western media in general about the revolution and somehow "saret shire malidan" and convinced you to support the revolution. First of all, be a man and take responsibility for your own actions, where was your scrutiny back then? Second, you cannot be so arrogant as to think the entire country was "fooled." People risked their lives for the revolution. People voted for the Islamic Republic in overwhelming numbers. 10 Million people even poured in the streets for Khomeini's funeral. Were they all paid agents or fooled stooges? Have a little respect for Iranians. You are not the person who is supposed to think on their behalf, they have their own brains.

You can make a case that the IRI moved away from what it promised the people, but you can't say that the ENTIRE revolution in 1979 was because of Western fabrication of numbers. That is a classic conspiracy theory of people in that generation designed to escape responsiblity and justify vicious hatred and hostility. Get over it!

I'm done with this. Seriously, I've repeated myself 3 times now and all I get are lies and exaggerations just like what you claim AI was doing. Project much?

BANI SADR???

جنایتهای سیاسی که رژیم " قتل های زنجیره ای " خواند ، در داخل کشور ، و ترورهای سیاسی در خارج از کشور، تنها از افرادی چون افراد این جماعت بر می ﺁید . این جماعت قتل و جنایت را از روزهای اول انقلاب شروع کرد و همیشه در خفا دست به جنایت می زد : ﺁتش زدن سینما رکس ﺁبادان ، جنایتی نبود که با پیروزی انقلاب، مرتکبانش را به دست عدالت بسپرد، بلکه جنایتی بود که مرتکبانش را به مقامها رساند که به ﺁنها امکان می دادند جنایت ها را بیشتر کنند .

As you can see, he's saying "افرادی چون افراد این جماعت بر می ﺁید".

This translates to "such people are capable of it". That's not proof, that's political rhetoric and speculation. Bani Sadr is only accusing his political enemies, he's not sharing who actually did it. If he knew, he would name the names.

All revolutions engage in

All revolutions engage in exaggerations and intentional or unintentional campaigns of misinformation. The 1979 was no different. Iran's Shia culture especially martyr-centric so the more dead the merrier in a morbid sense. There has long been a debate about Cinema Rex. A lot of evidence have been pointing to extremists within pro-Khomeini camp in Abadan but whether or not it was a directed effort by the leadership is debatable. Apparently the Abadni Islmists wanted to prove that they were as hard core as the rest of the country, given the reputation of Abadan as party central. Yes, Jaleh incident was exaggerated too and Amnesty most likely trusted sources within the opposition, although they are not as willy-nilly as Jamshid makes them out to be. But the fact is that the army opened fire on unarmed civilians repeatedly. I was an eye witness on the Black Friday but not at the Jaleh square. As an 11 year old I drifted into a procession that ended up near Narmak in East Tehran (my memory is fuzzy regarding street names). The army opened fire on us and I saw two people who had been shot in the stomach and their innards were spilling out. I of course hot footed the hell out of there so can’t tell how many more people were shot. I also remember pictures of morgues full of corpses with shattered faces and bodies. The point is that Shah chose to enforce his crumbling regime with force. According to vitriolic Monarchists he should have bombed most of Tehran (except for areas North of Pahlavi square) and possibly good portions of Tabriz, Qum, Mashhad etc, kill tens of thousands of demonstrators, blah, blah, blah. But alas he couldn't. He didn't live in a vacuum. The West preferred a clerical regime to god forbid pro Soviet leftists and they muzzled him and his so-called eternal guards who were supposed to be his last line defense. What happened to them and his generals some of whom mysteriously died in plane and helicopter crashes are another topic of conversation. In spite of his arrogance I'm not sure the Shah was willing to do that. I think in spite of all he saw himself as an Iranian and in his own way loved Iran. As to the 1976 Amnesty report: The regime’s treatment of the people regarding political matters were arbitrary and dictatorial in extreme. You couldn’t breath politically in Iran. There were executions, imprisonment. Bijan Jazany and his colleagues were killed in cold blood, this by the way the same time that Assadolh Lajaverdi and other former members of Fedaian Islam were being release from prison (this was around the same time that Savak and CIA were rooting out Fedaian Khalg and MKO). Put that in your grab bag of conflicted politics and smoke it. The Shah and his regime by the way used Islam themselves to demonize their communist opponents. In effect The Shah was destroying the left and MKO but kid gloving hard line Islamists. Mind you the Shah was mindful of the Amnesty and the outside world enough to have the political prisoner in their own wards and in relatively humane condition as opposed to the animals that run the prisons today, mixing political prisoners with common criminals. By the way the same exaggerations that were applied to the Shah could have been applied to the current regime although I don't doubt their brutality for a moment. History and politics is never as simple as some people think. Leave you with that thought.

Re: Jahanshah

In a previous comment I worte: "I think it is fine if you want to post your own text under a picture someone else has sent to you..." A reader suggested that I meant it was ok if you to write a text that opposes my view, while it is not ok if others do it, and if they do I would blast them.

That is not what I meant! I meant it is ok and it is anybody's right to post anything, but it is not ok to see somebody's signature (eg, Fooad's) under another person's text (eg, yours). This will create confusion as to who wrote what.

Re: Qmars / Amnesty International

Regarding AI (Amnesty International) and their 1976 report describing the shah to be the most cruel dictator of earth at its time , I am going to describe why I believed these reports once, and why I don't now. I am hoping from this point forward we could set aside any ranting and discuss this in a more thoughtful way.

There are three possibilities with AI, and three logical conclusions, with the third possibility in my opinion being the most likely:

1. If ALL AI's reports on the shah were true, then I could use this fact as precedence, and, by rule of logic, I could conclude that their 1976 report was also true, or at the very least, very likely to be true. 

2. If on the other hand, ALL AI's reports on the shah were false, then I could use this fact as precedence, and, by rule of logic, I could conclude that their 1976 report was also false, or at the very least, very likely to be false.

3. If SOME of the AI's reports were true and others were false, then I could use this fact as precedence, and by rule of logic, I could conclude that their 1976 report could be EITHER true OR false. In this case, more research would become necessary.

I know of three very important and verifiable AI reports on the shah's government that turned out to be false: 

1. AI and the opposition blamed Savak for the Cinema Rex incident. Savak blamed it on Islamists. Time passed. Then after the mullahs tried some Islamist extremists for causing the Rex incident, it became evident to me that AI's report was false. Here is the link that shows you who really burnt cinema Rex:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Rex_Fire
If you don't like Wikipedia then here is another link from an ex-revolutionary, ex-president of IRI Mr. Bani Sadr:
//enghelabe-eslami.com/dar-in-shomare/matn9-645.htm 

2. AI and the opposition reported more than 10,000 (ten thousand) people were killed in the Jaleh Square. The army reported that number to be less than one hundred. Time passed. Then the mullahs own archivers reported that number to be 97. Again it became evident to me that AI's report was false. Here is a link showing that:
//emadbaghi.com/en/archives/000592.php
If you don't like Mr. Kadivar, eventhough he is just repeating what Baghi had said, then here is another:
//www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus54.pdf
Who is this Emad Baghi? Read this: //www.emadbaghi.com/archives/000370.php#more

3. AI and some of the opposition reported that fifty thousands were killed by the shah's army in the year of the revolution alone. Other members of opposition and Khomeini himself put that number at 600,000. Yes you are reading the number correctly, that's six hundred thousands. The shah's government put that number at several thousands. Time passed. Then, again, the mullahs themselves brought that number (those killed in the year of the revolution) down to 3500. Again, it became evident to me that the AI's report was false.
Here is the same link from Mr. BaniSadr's site:
//enghelabe-eslami.com/dar-in-shomare/matn9-645.htm
Search for "57" where he talks about the number of people who were killed in the year 1357, the year of the revolution.

I just hope you can read Farsi, if you can't just have someone translate it for you. Pay special attention to the part where he (Bani Sadr) says:
"... this regime (IRI) in only 8 months (year 1360) has killed the same number of political fighters than Pahalvi's regime in 15 years (from 1342 to 1357)...." Text in parenthesis is my clarifications. 

Bani Sadr was an avid anti-pahlavi activist who was later an inside man in the IRI circles. He knows better than most of us what was going on. He should be listened to. These conflictive reports were red flags that were raised in my mind, and in the minds of many others I know of, and made me pause and say wait a minute what's going on here?

There are numerous other AI examples that apply to the shah and there are others that apply to IRI even today. 

As my opinion reshaped with the passage of time and based on these and other AI discrepancies, I decided not to accept AI reports, nor the opposition reports during the revolution, as face value and absolute. That includes the 1976 report. I have learnt that in general, the numbers and incidents that were reported by AI closely match the numbers and incidents that were reported by the Shah's opposition. In turn, I found those numbers and incidents to be grossly exaggerated, as the three important examples I have provided testimony to that. There are numerous other lies that I actually "saw" with my own eyes during the revolution, but I turned my face the other way and ignored them since I was blinded by the fever and heat of the revolution. 

The point I am making here is that you can't take only one source or only one side's sources of information as the absolute truth. You have to look at all the sources, and where they are coming from and also when. Even then, one has to process all that information in an unbiased and neutral way, otherwise it will be all for nothing.

And no, I am not a kiss ass monarchist. In fact I am an ex-student activist, anti-shah, anti-monarchist, total Pahlavi hater, hamisheh dar sahneh street demonstrator who lost his voice chanting against the shah in more times that I could remember. And no, I am not a traitor nor a member of the 75M club, nor a US or Israeli agent, nor a fascist. I am just another Iranian who loves his country and his people as much as any other Iranian out there, and who is pissed off and mad as hell at those who brainwashed us with their careful spread of uncounted clever lies and baseless rumors long ago.

Qmars, WHO THE HELL do you

Qmars, WHO THE HELL do you think you are to tell me whether I should apologize to someone or not? Are you God's tribunal here on earth with absolute rights to pass judgements? That was between me and Fooad. You are out of it. GOT THAT? mesle in khalak zanakaa nashin inja hey chart begoo.

Now on to some of your rantings. You said this: "You attack the credibiliyt of the messenger (AI) just as I said you did in a fascist manner,..." In a fascist manner? What part of what I just described is fascistic? You think people are not entitled to have a different opinion than yours? Now THAT'S fascism. There is nothing wrong in attacking someone's opinion, but calling him a fascist because his opinion is different than yours?

You also said this: "but you have no realy analysis, no other, more credible organization that has done some research and said that AI is wrong" Well just take a look at the links I sent you. Do your own additional research too, if you are interested in the truth.

I also think you are pissed off at me because you came up with an obscure link, deeply buried in the internet, which you thought you had "discovered" and were showing it off, and then out of nowhere came someone who happen to had been old enough back in 1978 and active in the student organizations opposing the shah, to know who that bitch Nasrin is. I mean how unlucky can you be! So oh boy, you got pissed off! Then in your childish rage you accused me of being a liar!

Anyway this comment was for venting off. In my next comment I have tried to set aside my feelings and anger at you, and instead in a friendly and logical manner show you the root of my reasons why I believe in what I have been telling you. Read it if you are interested. I'll be interested in your response if you too set aside your feelings and proceed in a way that would be productive for the benefit of the truth.

Jamshid: That's not a real apology

I'm glad you FINALLY came around to addressing the original point. But you are not taking responsibility for your vicious attacks.

You're blaming the situation on "confusion," but this is just an excuse. Either you attacked Foad for copying the paragraph, or you attacked Jahanshah for copying the paragraph. How can you say it was OK if Jahanshah did it (which it seems that's what really ahppened) but not OK if Foad did it? Don't make excuses, make a real apology.

I have never tried to pass myself off as someone else and if Jahanshah agrees, I'm willing to take the same deal as you. "Q" is my user name and if you click on it you will see my real name: Qumars.

And finally on the Amnesty International, your reasoning is flawed and opportunistic. You are basically rejecting Amnesty International because you don't like the report in 1976. You have no evidence what-soever that the report in 1976 was wrong. You have concocted a scenario based on someone's opinion that AI must be wrong because "the Mullahs contradicted themselves." Here's the bottom line:

- You have no proof, or even a legitimate counter point to the 1976 report.

- You attack the credibiliyt of the messenger (AI) just as I said you did in a fascist manner, but you have no realy analysis, no other, more credible organization that has done some research and said that AI is wrong. Fascists try to destroy all sources of objectivity, so their own point can not be disputed. This is what is happening here.

- Where is the proof that "Mullahs" admitted that AI numbers were wrong? You don't have it. All you have is the opinion of Cyrus Kadivar, a notorious Monarchist apologist. So you want people to take the opinion of this one man over Amnesty International? A world-renouned and respected human rights organization?

- Conclusion: you have not been able to show any credibility gap with AI, and even if you think you have, you have not been able to dispute the 1976 numbers other than your personal (unjustifed) theory that they must have been getting their numbers from biased sources.

Therefore, you cannot dispute the AI report from 1976. It is not just that one quote that you love to denegrade by consistently saying I'm in love with it (what the hell does that mean?) This was hte conclusion of the report presented in 1976. You are proven wrong that the situation is "incomparable." In fact it is very comparable and worst in the case of 1976.

Don't Worry

Akhonds are on the run as I reported before. They are just waiting to complete their three-part mission (imprison and kill as many of our youth as possible, collect and ship as much of our oil dollars as possible to their foreign bank accounts and arabs, destroy as much of iran and iran's infrastructure as possible), and they are very close to achieving all of that. By the grace of allah, it is reported that the ugly face of the murderous emam is once again observed on the surface of moon, indicating that he will soon come back from dead and head for his home-town Najaf. the opposition, however, is saying that he is about to be kicked out of hell, quoting Satan in charge of the hell as saying: "the bustard is just too ugly of a character, even for the hell". President Sargouzy of france has reportedly sent an invitation for the murderous emam to go to france instead. He will then go to sweden to be presented with a Nobel prize for mass murder and destruction of a whole nation. This is a big honor for the dead emam, as arafat was the only person who came close to achievements of emam. Ayatollah jack strawberry of greater britain wants to personally thank emam for placing iran 56 years behind where it was in 1979 in just about 28 years, and is considering sending him to another prosperous country to screw it up (maybe india, the homeland of his ancestors). Please stand by for more hot news. javid shah!

Re: Jahanshah

Jahanshah,

Please take a look at the comments below (the ones before Foad posted his) and you will see that there was confusion by many as to who posted the text about the shah being the worst dictator. Most, myself included, thought that it was Foad, simply because right under the text we could see the words "From Foad", suggesting that it was him who submitted the whole thing.. Later we learnt that the picture was sent by Foad, but the text was postd by you/Admin.

I think it is fine if you want to post your own text under a picture someone else has sent to you. But in order to avoid confusion, I suggest that you either do not sign the sender's name under your own text, or sign YOUR name under your own text and then thank the sender of the picture for sending the picture.

In this way you will avoid the confusion and tons of comments that could be generated against the original sender, in this case poor Foad. I think both you and I owe an apology to Fooad. I will send him mine through his private email.

Re: Qmars/Q/etc...

You want to check IPs? Go ahead. I'd like the Admin to also verify if there were any comments made on this site with the same IP than yours but under a different name. I take it that you consent to this and I thank you for your consent in advance. I am amazed at your arrogance since you yourself are already using Qmars, Q and perhaps a few more names.

So far you have succeded in diverting attention away from the main subject. I read all your other rantings and nonesense. As usual they don't make any sense, and if they do, they apply to you, not to me.

Regarding Foad, I have left a separate comment to JJ which you can read.

Regarding the AI (Amnesty International), it is YOU who has failed to provide evidence. It is you who has failed to discuss this in a logical manner. You have found a quote you are so proud of and you are showing it off like a child. Who provided the information to AI? Was it the Shah goverment? I doubt it. Was it AI's spy in the shah's goverment? I doubt that too. AI relied on the information that the opposition was providing to it. Period. For example, when AI blamed the cinema Rex incident on the Shah's goverment and when AI reported 10,000 people killed in the Jaleh square, it was not because AI had agents in the Rex movie theater at the time it was burnt, nor had it agents in the Jaleh Square at the time of shootings.

It was because that was what the opposition reported to it. The same goes with the number of political prisoners and executions and so on.

So how can someone find out the truth? Well you just have to be alert and look at all sources specially with the passage of time.

I gave you two examples where AI's reports were refuted by the Mullahs themselves. The mullahs are blaming a few Islamists for the Rex incident, as did the Shah's goverment 29 years ago. The mullhas are saying that about 100 people died in the Jaleh incident, as did the shah goverment reported 29 years ago. So I looked at the reports from the shah goverment 29 years ago and the reports today by the mullahs, and I saw a match in the numbers.

I also looked at the numbers reported by the opposition (including myself who kept blindly repeating those numbers) and the numbers reported by AI and I see somewhat of a match.

Therefore, I have two sets of numbers that I must choose from. I have chosen to believe in the numbers provided by IRI today and by the Shah's goverment 29 years ago because I feel they are more reliable that the inflated numbers that were used during the heat of the revolution. History has proven the same with other revolutions too, that during the heat of the revolution, things get exagerated, because that exageration is used by itself as a weapon against the ruling goverment.

If there are precedence and proof that AI's reports can be challenged or even refuted, then perhaps other numbers and "quotes" should be challenged and refuted too. If it was not for numerous examples of exageration by AI, two of which I stated in this post, then I could believe in their reports and would concur with you that the shah's goverment could be considered the worst Human right violator of its time. But that is not the case as you can see.

In this long post, I demonstrated to you what my logic is and why I challenge your AI quote. It is because so many of their quotes and numbers are refuted by the shah's enemies themselves. Even today when I read AI's reports against IRI, I am careful to weed out the exagerations, if I can, eventhough I hate the IRI.

You refered to AI's reports and said: "I consider them consistent and accurate and if the Iranian government doesn't, than that's their problem." Well it is not just their problem, it is all of the Iranian's problem. Because we have to know what the truth was. I have demonstrated to you that AI's reports were not consistent, and maybe we have to look elsewhere too. Generally the more sources you consider the better.

Then based soley on AI's flawed reports you conclude that there were more executions in 1976 than in 2006. I was in Iran in 1976 and after 2000 too. There was no way that there could be 100,000 political prisoners in 1976, one out of 300 Iranians, and I wouldn't know it or notice it, I who was constantly exposed to anti-shah relatives and friends.

Again and again I see that the numbers reported by the shah's goverment are being concured even by his enemies. That is why I began to lean more toward several thousand political prisoners than a ridiculous number like 100,000.

You also said that I am trying to change the human rights by talking about Rex and Jaleh incidents. Well all these as you can see are related. One should open his field of view and consider all sources available and add them up in his mind to reach a conclusion.

There are numeours other nonesense you ranted about, I'll talk about them later if I have time.

OK, Jamshid,

by your response I take it you have no problems with the site administrators checking the IP addresses of these comments to prove that no other posts besides "Jamshid" and "Jamshidd" were from the same computer, right? Good. I will take what you wrote to be your consent and I will write to Jahanshah myself, thanks for agreeing, that's all I wanted. Of course if I'm wrong and you didn't sign in as other names, then I will apologize to you (something you should learn to immitate.) But I warn you, I've done this before and I'm rarely wrong. If you didn't try to immitate someone else, then you have nothing to worry about.

The answer to your last question is NO. I will not get into a substantive discussion with you anymore because I tried to do that for hours and you never engaged on substance in that entire time. You will do anything to avoid answering the questions when you are cornered and you believe you are clever by posing new ones. That's not clever, that's cowardice. This entire endeaver started by you and your friends viciously attacking Foad for merely daring to LINK to the article above. You were confronted with this, and you refused to apologize for the slander you threw on Foad and on JJ. That's basically the reason I came into the discussion, because of how fascist and intolerant you were being, and you didn't have the BALLS to admit a mistake when you were clearly confronted with it.

So, if you want to "focus on the argument", it is in your own hands. Don't make a bigger fool out of yourself by projecting your own crimes on me: you started the dehumanization, you started the name-calling, you started the "intolerance", not me. So, if you want a civilized discussion, YOU HAVE TO EARN IT. Go ahead and "focus on the argument", the first one.

Even after that, the discussion was on Amnesty International, you couldn't dispute the quote (despite a very pathetic and desperate attempt) so you start smearing Amnesty. Tell me what the hell does Cinema Rex (which was the Mojahedeen, by the way, lay off the Wikipedia, it's not considered accurate by anyone) have to do with Shah's 1976 butcherie in Iran? Why did you refusing to "focus on the question" like you want me to do right now? Could it be because you are such a huge hypocrite that you can't even recognize your own inconsistent behavior? What is it with this lame side-show question of what I THINK about Amnesty International? I consider them consistent and accurate and if the Iranian government doesn't, than that's their problem. You fantacized that I must be an IRI agent, so in your flawed brain this is some kind of contradiction. but it's not. I accept AI. But you only care about your own (Monarchist) side, and are looking for any desperate excuse to run away from Shah's record. You have failed miserably so far.

The bottom line is that I have proved to you that Iran in 1976 had more political executions than in 2006. You claimed that they were "incomparable." Well, you were proven wrong, and are now just refusing to accept reality calling anyone who contradicts your fantasy a liar. You have absolutely not one credible response to this issue and have tried to change the subject (like for example to Cinema Rex, or Jaleh Square) in a desperate attempt to run away from the "question." So spare me the BS you have concocted about sideshows. You are a waste of my time.

I sincerely doubt you are older than me. And since you've already lied dozens of times, I do not accept for ONE SECOND that you knew Nasrin P. Why should I take the word of a proven bullshit artist? Where is your evidence? That's right, you don't have SHIT.

Lastly, your islamaphobia is a prime example of dehumanization based on a person's religion. Now, do you understand why I call you fascist? That's what fascists do. Look that up in Wikipedia.

Qmars... Debunked and Slam dunked...

Qmars, before anything what is this "Ma'aslamo aleikum" arabic crap you are signing off with? Why are you speaking arabic? As though being a sellout to IRI is not enough for you...

Now moving on to the main subject... You gave me a link to a google search result containing the quote you are so proud of. But first why didnt you answer my question? Is Amnesty Int. credible or is not?

1. If it IS why your IRI is doing everything they can to discredit this organization?

2. If it IS NOT, then why are you and IRI using quotes from AI whenever you find it convenient?

Also, why what AI reported back in the 70s does not match with what IRI reports today? Go to this link:

//straighttalkers.org/cnnVSfire.html

To your pleasure, you will find this: "During the Shah's reign, the UN and amnesty international incessantly reported that the Iranian government was guilty of gross human rights violations. In his last act of cruelty, some 400 Iranians were burned to death in the Rex Theater in Abadan after police chain and lock the exit doors and 10,000 anti-Shah demonstrators were massacred at Teheran's Jaleh Square..."

Now go to this link:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Rex_Fire

to learn that according to the mullahs themselves, it was the Islamists, and not Savak, who started the fire.

Then go to this:

//emadbaghi.com/en/archives/000592.php

to learn that, again according to the mullahs, the number of those killed in the Jaleh confrontation was less than a hundred.

So what happened to the AI reports (or Islamists' in 1978) that Savak brutally burnt 400 in cinema Rex? What happened to AI's reports (or Islamists' in 1978) that 10,000 were killed in the Jaleh square?

You see Qmars, your likes made many fantastic lies about the shah, and AI, much obliged to the Carter adminstration, kept confirming those lies. Now the mullahs and their nochehs themselves are retracting those lies.

So now, explain why in 1978, BBC, AI, Human Rights Org, etc, blamed the Shah for the cinema Rex incident? 

Now I'll ask you to take your figures and your AI quotes and regurgitate all those craps for yourselves all you want. I keep telling idiots like you that WE ARE NOT IN 1978 ANYMORE. This is 2007. We have learnt our lesson and we don't buy this crap anymore, we laugh at them instead. But you think that time has frozen in 1978 and we should still be bought into these lies.

Moving on to the next item... If I am older than you and if was actively involved in the revolution, specially in the anti-shah students movements, and if I I could recall the names of some of the student writers of that time, specially a pro-khomeini imbecile one, then I do not think that could be considered character smearing. You junior think that just because you have discovered her just now 30 years after the revolution and she seems to be obscure to you, you can lay claim and trademark rights over her name. Grow up kid.

Moving on.... I read this too: "you should know that I studied literature and English in college...." (felicitations) "I have also been active online for many years." (applause)  "I know writing patterns when I see them" (you junior, can't do even simple math and now you are seeing writing patterns too... BRAVO junior)... And on and on. Then you concluded that I signed in under different names. The only other name that I use is Jamshidd (with 2 d instead of one, at the end) because sometimes I am too lazy to login so I leave my comments anonymously as Jamshidd. Even then I leave the word Jamshid at the end of my comment. And I am not the only one who does this.

So there junior. All the exitement, all the fuss, all the jumping up and down, all your "zogh zadegi", again was for nothing.

Qmars, it is you who is accusing, slandering, cussing and fantasizing. You are so bankrupt in the argument dept that you are reverting to these base tactics. Now just for once, instead of attacking me personally and dehumanzing me to shift attention, just for once focus on the arguement itself. Being an Islamist that will be difficult to do for you, as your (possible) next response will indicate.

How pathetic you Islamists are.

Jamshid zade sime akhar!

Jamshid, you have clearly lost it.

You didn't (and stil lhaven't) debunked anything because in your angry rage, you attack the messenger rather than the originator which is Amnesty. Since your idea of "research" is Google.com, you should really learn how to use it. The quote is from Amnesty International. The "Evin" quotes are NOT. You refuse to admit this because you can't face the reality of what Shah's rule was really like (which is why I call you a Monarchist, even if a closet one.) IT's a famous quote from the 1976 report.

//www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22highest+rate+of+death+penalties+in+the+world%2C+no+valid+system+of+civilian+courts+and+a+history+of+torture+which+is+beyond+belief%22+%22No+country+in+the+world+has+a+worse+record+in+human+rights+than+Iran%22&btnG=Search

As for Nasrin Pakizegi, you're continuing to lie. Who are you kidding jamshid? You had never heard of this name before I pointed it out to you. When you said "she's a well known pro-IRI" you were lying. You're just making up some bullshit without evidence to cover you own lazy ass for having missed the date. Laster when you said she was "pro-Khomeini" you were just trying to smear someone because you didn't like the message. She was a reporter for the Crimson, she didn't make up those numbers. They are also from Amnesty. Just as you have demonstrated here, and I pointed it out, you are attacking the messenger without Do you understand any of this? I sincerely doubt it.

And as for your brilliant moment of j'accuse!!! again you are full of shit. Oh you thought this was 5th grade and you can slander other people without hearing a response? Your bully mentality told you, it's OK for you to start shit but others can't talk back?

Anyone interested in reading the actual context of your lies, should simply start reading your posts (and those of others that you pretend to be) from the beginning of this page at the bottom. You attacked and slandered other people, not even for their beliefs, but for the beliefs of people they FORWARDED BY EMAIL. Then you got called on it and are still have no BALLS to apologize. You still understand nothing and therefore are a fascist.

Lastly, before I kiss off this article as the waste of my time that it surely was, you should know that I studied literature and English in college. I have also been active online for many years. I know writing patterns when I see them, and I'm willing to bet money you have logged in with at least 3 different names in this very page. IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS JUST WRITE AN EMAIL to Jahanshah Javid and ask him to verify the IP addresses. He would do it if you say that you're being accused of something falsely.  But I know you wont' because YOU DON'T HAVE THE BALLS. YOU ARE A COWARD AND A FASCIST. I'm also almost 100% sure you will ignore this suggestion.

Nobody is probably reading this anymore, but I feel satisfied knowing that I left you with at least admitting your own fascism to yourself. Having to live with it, is your job.

Ma'aslamo aleikum.

Qmars/Q... Slam dunked...

You again Qmars? With more idiocy to throw at us?

First off, I do know what debunk means. It means unmask, convict, deflate, expose. And that's exactly why I used it.

Second, WAKE UP. You are so delusional that you think there is no way that more than one person can write comments against you. And when they do, you pat yourself on the back and self-thankingly claim that they all must have been coming from one person.

Well I got bad news for you akhoond zadeh. There are MILLIONS of Iranians that are against your Islamic views. Go treat your dellusions with a hard dose of reality and truth.

Third, having you exposed on your first remark, now I will go back to the AI discussion. First of all I could not produce a google result that could substantiate your claim, except for the one which claims that the Evin prison is like a paradise. If you have any other resource why don't you share it with us? Give us a link, or the name of a book and a page number.

On that same topic, if AI is such reliable source then why your IRI is so fevershly trying to discredit it? Oh, it is credible only when it suits your needs, then it becomes discredited the next day when it does not serve your purpose anymore. How pathetic.

Next, regarding Nasrin, don't get overly exited. I know how you felt when you read my remarks. You said: There! I got him now! Nasrin's article was from 1976 and Jamshid claims she is a well known pro-IRI writer. Gottcha Jamshid! How the hell could she be pro-IRI when IRI didn't even exist? Well Qmars, I have bad news for you. The party is over, stop jumping up and down in your overexitement and use of cap letters. There is no gottchas here. You may be too young to remember, but Nasrin was a pro-khomeini writer in the 70s and after the revolution too. Pro-khomeini and pro-IRI are equivalent to me. I disliked her back then and still do now. Sorry to break the news, but you got overexited over nothing.

Lastly, I accuse you of being a hyprocrite with evidence to substantiate my claim. I'll use your own comments to prove my case:

Qmars: "You fascists don't know the first thing about freedom of speech, tolerance or even critical thinking. Reasoned debate or argumentation..."

Now let's see Qmars's version of "tolerance" and "critical thinking":

Qmars: "they are cowards who have no honor, dignity or humanity."

Qmars: "They just as well hide behind their fake names and fake lives..."

Qmars: "theyd smear anyone they want unfairly..."

Qmars: "jamshid is a known asshole shahollahi..."

Qmars: "apologist assholes..."

Qmars: "foam-in-the-mouth butt-kissing Monarchists..."

Qmars: "an embarrassment to humanity..."

Need I go on? You talk about "tolerance" and "critical thinking", while you make these remarks, proving your own "intolerance" and your own lack of "critical thinking", AND your hypocrisy.

What a pathetic hypocrite. 

More Hot News

It is true. I.R. Channel 1 TV just showed a still picture of Alahazrat Homayoun Shahanshah Aryamehr Bozorg Arteshdaran, safe and sound. they also showed Ayatollahel Ozma Ali Akbare Kouseh filling up all his aseman planes with 100-dollar bills, then they showed Ayatollahel Ozma rahbare Moazzam filling up all iran air planes with 50-dollar bills, then they showed Ayatollahel Naa-ozma Seyyed mohamad Katami filling up a bunch of tracks with 20-dollar bills while smiling. Then they showed segtor haddade naa-adel filling up his pockets and socks, and khorjine his bike with 10-dollar bills. It is reported that due to severe shortage of transportation in the country, a large caravan of donkeys is organized to carry 1-dollar bills with Segtor Antarinejad to an unknown destination. The president has however, denied the existence of the caravan of donkeys, stating that they are his own family carrying letters to emam to help him free up ghods. destination of all these ayatollahs are said to be a secret place where tony blair and jack strawberry are both waiting to welcome them with open arms. a boatload of brit bankers with piles of deposit slips are there too to receive all of their money. A carrier is also waiting to accompany ayatollahs and their dollars to the very great britain. No news on the whereabouts of rajavis, they probably on the run or on the sofreye aghd with their new spouses, enshallah mobarakeh. Javid Shah.

Hot News

I.R. radio just reported that alahazrat shahanshah aryamehr bozorg arteshdaran are alive and well, praise the lord, and will soon come out of hiding and free iran from all mullas and comis. Mullas are very worried and are packing their bags to take off with trillions of dollars. Rajavis are also swapping wives and husbands once again to lose track. Akh joon, we'll all be home very soon. Javid shah shahanshah. Please stand by for more good news. I am monitoring all channels and will give you more good news very soon. CNN just had a breaking news on this too.

Kalleh pook, you don't know the meaning of "debunk"

First off "Jamshidd" your frequent name changes "anti-Iran", "face facts" and others are getting a bid juvenile. You sound like a 15 year old desperately clinging to the idea of Santa Clause.

You haven't debunked anything. Try really hard to understand this logic: The quote in question is from MARTIN ENNALS, secretary of Amnesty International. You simply found another person who quoted him (that's not where I got it), and are attacking THAT person in a pathetic attempt to confuse the reader.

The quote you have to dispute belongs to MARTIN ENNALS, not any "blogger." The statement is from Amnesty's 1976 report, it's a FACT you can't dispute. No matter how much you cry.

Second, you say Nasrin is a "well known pro-IRI" writer. What a FUCKING IDIOT YOU ARE. DID YOU EVEN SEE THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE? IT WAS FROM 1976 HARVARD CRIMSON. A "WELL KNOWN PRO-IRI WRITER" IN THE YEAR 1976???

Conclusion: you pulled this BS right out of your ass where you do most of your thinking. Again put your foot in your worthless mouth. Once again, you're caught red-handed just plain LYING. And as much as you accuse me of lying, you have not presented one fact that I lied about.

My suspicion about you was right on. You are a Monarchist who can't stnd the slightest criticism. The fact that you keep denying this to yourself is not my problem. At this point, I feel sorry for you. For your sake, I do hope you stay a coward forever and don't reveal your real name, because you will be the laughing stock of the Iranian community for the rest of your life.

Qmars debunked...

Qmars please stop your uncontrollable urge to lie. I read your post and you have made self-invented claims that are not substantiated by any evidence. You can't just invent lies to make your case.
/
I looked at the one link you provided and it was written by Nasrin a well known pro-IRI writer, filled with spelling and grammar errors. You call that evidence? Is that the best you can do?
/
I googled another one using text directly from your post. I am refering to this text from your post: "In 1976, Martin Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International, described Shahist Iran as having the “highest rate of death penalties in the world..."
/
Guess what? I did find it! But guess what else I found in the same article? Here is a piece I found in the same article that describes the Evin prison under the IRI:
/
"Iran recently opened up Evin prison to journalists. Instead of the nightmare that AI describes, “inmates were seen swimming in an open-air pool, cooking meals and studying for university exams”.
/
Dear readers, Evin prison under IRI is demystified for you. Gee, don't you all want to go to Evin too and relax in there?!!! For those who think I am joking, here is the link that Qmars extracted his "proof" from:
/
//stephiblog.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/amnesty...
.
Just search for the text "shahist" and you will find his claim. But also search for the two words "Evin prison" and you'll find that the Evin prison is a paradise under the IRI.
/
Is this the best you can do Qmars? Are these the best "proofs" you have? How pathetic and desparate you must be. Now go do your prayer as you said in your previous comment. I am sure the god that you believe in does accept prayers from treacherous liying animals like yourself.
/
Jamshid

Qmars, you are an arrogant idiot

You idiot wrote and entire book in your post against me, the evil monarchist, all the while defeating yourself by just one simple mistake. You MORON, I am not a pro-monarchist. This ALONE proves what an idiot you are. I rest my case.

anti-Iran, You are the fascist here is why:

- You can't stand the slightest criticism of your clear pro-Monarchist position.

- Your standard response is to attack your opponent as "pro-IRI" or whatever the hatred in your heart comes up with, with absolutely no proof you can point to. This has nothing to do with the subject or any argument. In fact this is a mechanism to shut up opponents and suspend thinking: classic fascism.

I'm secure enough in my beliefs to laugh in your face about this, so go ahead and make up whatever lies you want about what I really believe. Fascists usually like to dehumanize their opponents as to justify violence and that's exactly what you are doing. But people reading will see right through your fascism.

- You are unwilling to accept proven facts and reports by authorities. You are arrogant enough to think your own word is superior to evidence.

- Your love for the Monarchy is such that you are unwilling to accept it's permenant loss in Iran and like many other Iranians continue living in a 70's world of make-belief that never existed.

- Your stupid link does not do any comparison with other counties, like the one published by Amnesty in 1976 which said, and I quote directly: "

------------------------------------

>In 1976, Martin Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International, described Shahist Iran as having the “highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.”

------------------------------------

- Below you (or one of your fake buddies) tried to argue that in 2006 Iran had 177 executions. A tragedy to be sure. But this number is TOTAL EXECUTIONS of ALL CRIMINAL who are tried in court. Now consider this from the Harvard Crimson in 1976:

//www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=120260 

------------------------------------

>More than 100,000 people currently are imprisoned in the country for political crimes, and, in the first four months of 1976 alone, the government executed more than 80 political prisoners.

------------------------------------

80 POLITICAL EXECUTIONS (not criminals) in just the FIRST FOUR MONTHS of the year when IRAN HAD ONLY 36MILLION PEOPLE!!!

This is rate is far higher than the numbers cited below. There are 3 possiblities either

1) you don't understand math; or

2) you are so brainwashed that your midn just can't accept that the crimes of your beloved Shah could be "comparable" to the IR today; or

3) you are purposefully lying when you make false statements like "there is no comparison"

I continue to call you anti-Iran because I know for a fact that real Iranians are much more open minded and objective than you.

Now get lost, I'm bored with you.

What a bunch of fascists...

What am I saying? It's probably just angry Jamshid and his Mom posting as all these names (within a minute of each ther!) You fascists don't know the first thing about freedom of speech, tolerance or even critical thinking. Reasoned debate or argumentation? You don't even know the meaning of the words. I showed you AI evidence saying Iran was the worst in the WORLD, and you can't counter with anything as bad. In fact there were more executions during Shah's time, but you're not worth digging up the info.

As is been demonstrated on this thread already several times, you are incapable objective thought. Just listen to yourselves, an embarrassment to humanity. I feel sorry for the poor Americans who will be forming their opinion about Iranians by reading your trash.

Face it losers, the Iranian Monarchy is gone forever, and no amount of bullshit from a bunch of cowards hiding behind fake names is going to bring it back! Live with that!

SnitchDetector: you make me laugh. It's just like you people to think you're so damn important for any government to spend a dime trying to "snitch" on you? How stuck up are you exactly? You don't even have the "tokhm" to use your real name and you want to meet me in real life? Just like grade school right? Get over yourself, loser.

Now if you excuse me, I have to wash up for prayer.

Qmars bacheh akhoond

jamesh kon bacheh akhhond. Everyone knows that IRI's human rights violations cannot be even compared to the shah's period. For crying outloud they are stoneing people in Iran! They are hanging children!
.
Your masters and you are plundering Iran's wealth, developing Iran's cemetaries, torturing the opposition with the most horrific and barbaric methods, hanging people by the dozens ON A DAILY BASIS, stoneing women to death, executing 16 years old children and violating every human right in the book. Your crimes are not just against Iranians, but against humanity itself.
.
You have freely chosen to be against the people of Iran and their struggles for freedom. Shame on you.