Pictory

burn in hell khomeini

burn in hell khomeini

One aspect of addiction and

One aspect of addiction and alcoholism shared by everyone is the deterioration of personal relationships. People begin to isolate, as loneliness and depression set in. alcohol treatment

Setiz..

I agree with you as a whole but have my reservations in regards to Reza Pahlavi II at this juncture, but I hope in time these issues will be resolved . As for now I do not see any efforts on his behalf to guide let alone lead the opposition groups outside or inside of Iran which has led to dissent and all around mistrust, the daily hardships in Iran are reaching unbearable proportions not to mention the threat of a nuclear attack by Israel and total Iranian annihilation as was announced today.
//www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/07/israel.t... I for one wish that he would take his rightful place and lead us to a free Iran .

Balouchi...

What you have posed is a very good question and I hope that you come back and read my answer and respond if you wish.

Let's have some historical observations first:

(1) Most people who participated in the revolution in 1979 belonged to one group or other, mostly islamists (of various degrees) or leftists (of various tendencies). All these groups joined to support khomeini (with the exception of a few, likes of bakhtiar who saw what was coming and separated very early on) each with the hope that they would take over iran thinking that khomeini was naive enough to be manipulated and eventually set aside by them. They all accepted, and maybe even welcomed, the initial atrocities of khomeini and his gang without questioning him, since his atrocities were well-aligned with their goals.

(2) First group of people who separated from khomeini were likes of mojahedin once they realized that they will not be running the show.

(3) Second group who separated from islamic republic one by one consist of more moderate islamists who were disfranchised and disenchanted by their lack of influence in the competition for power and control of wealth within the islamic republic system of government. None of these people opposed khomeini any strongly when they were insiders and while khomeini was murdering youth by hundreds per day, yet they turned into human rights activists and reformists overnight when it suited them, as if their standards of morality suddenly changed from suppressor to saint.

Why am I saying all this. There were three fundamental problems with the iranian revolution.

(1) The revolution was based on lies and fraud. The aim of 99% of the revolutionaries was not to change the iranian regime for better but to stage a coup and take over the country. They did not have arms for the coup, therefore they used tools of lies, deceit, and exaggerations as arms of the coup d'etat, and thugs as the army.

(2) Almost all the revolutionaries wanted to take over the country and replace shah, not to improve upon his regime. In other words, their problem with the shah was not the way he run the country, but that he run the country not them. They simply wanted to be the one in charge.

(3) Nobody asked what this new system was that was to be set up. People naively voted for islamic republic without knowing what it meant. All trusting khomeini and hoping that he would voluntarily step aside and act in good faith in setting up a new system. Well that assumption was totally wrong.

So, what should we do now. We should simply avoid repeating the same mistakes. Here is a possible recipe with a better chance of success.

(1) Those who have had direct involvement in the atrocities of khomeini cannot be trusted. They cannot be identified with certainty as opportunists or truly born again democrats. In fact some of them with blood on their hands must stand trial and respond to their participation in IRI crimes for iran to have a viable future based on rule of law.

(2) Whoever leads this "new revolt" should pledge that he would not rule the country. This would remove the possibility of conflict of interest between the rulers and the rule-makers. Otherwise, the leader of the new revolution would set up a system to his own advantage. In other words, the Thomas Jefferson of Iran should set up a system of checks and balances in an impartial way, in a way that is sustainable and for the people rather than for the ruling class. The responsibility of this new leader should end once the wheels of the new system are in place and the first president and parliament is elected.

(3) The system to replace IRI should not develop on the fly, as it will once again deceive people and may turn things in favor of one group or the other. The fundamental issues rotting iran today are rather clear; they can be addressed a priori, with solutions clearly identified and published for comments and refinement.

Now the problem is who is in the best position to lead this effort. There is no effective opposition leader today that would fulfill the above 3 criteria. Each opposition group either wants to take over (mojahedin) or has suspicious past (mojahedin, ganji, baghi) with unknown agenda.

I argue that Reza Pahlavi can function in that capacity as he has:

(a) No dark past record,

(b) His position is the closest to the aspirations of iranian people,

(c) He has more recognition than anyone else inside or outside iran.

I believe he maybe willing to further refine his position and take the lead, with honest, fair-minded people from all tendencies gathering around him - likes of shirin ebadi and mehrangiz kar for sure. With the knowledge that they will all function as members of a foundational parliament (majles moassesan) only and once a new constitution is in place and voted by the people, they would all step aside and let a separate group of elected officials run the country. This prohibition can best be permanent but can also be for a period of let's say 10 years or so. Only then can they develop a system by the people and for the people, with the full force of checks and balances and transparencies, rather than based on any influence or personal ambition.

Who?

I would like to thank all of you for some interesting reading material but ask yourselves and every Iranian inside or outside of Iran what do they think about the present government and living standards in Iran.
1. Ask the teachers if they have been paid recently
2. Have the factory workers been paid
3. Are College students being properly educated and housed,
4. Equal rights for women
5. Runaway Inflation index and economy in general
6. Rampant Addiction and prostitution
7. Ask the bus drivers if they were allowed to unionize]
8. Mass exodus of eligible professionals (brain Drain)
9. Traffic and over population
10. pollution
11. child labor/slavery
12. Demoralized Military and substandard equipment
13. Being labeled a "Terrorist" by the outside world
14. Nuclear standoff.
These are a few of the questions facing Iran and I would like to know who do you consider a viable candidate to address these issues in a fair and democratic environment. I have only heard of Reza Pahlavi who is trying to make a difference or would you consider MKO or Rajavi to be in contention also.
Who is to lead Iran after IRI?

none of those guys want to lead Iran... Pahlavi suggests it

To question 3 people about there passports when they have no political ambitions to lead Iran is nonsense.

Reza Pahlavi has said he wants to be a Constitutional Monarch in Iran.

When his father died in 1980 he crowned himself.

At the sam time he was an Egyptian passport holder and presently is a permanent resident of the United States. The same United States that refused his father medical assistance during the 444 day American hostage crisis.

Reza Pahlavi is a two faced hypocrite. He is confused. He tries to advocate democracy in Iran. he does not condemn the human rights violations of his father and his grandfather. Both Pahlavis who ruled Iran were anti-semites. This is a fact.

The peacock throne was abolished the 11th February 1979. That is more than 29 years ago. Reza Khan (Pahlavi) ruled Iran for 16 years. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ruled Iran for 12 years without foreign intervention. Those 12 years Iran was occupied by the Soviet Union and England. Iran was in total chaos. The Shah fled Iran in 1953. After the Americans re-installed the Shah in 1953, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was only able to rule Iran for 26 years. Those 26 years were only possible with foreign backers and the secret police called the SAVAK.

In 1979 the majority of Iranians, even the SAVAK and the Army sided with the Iranian revolution.

Regardless of what anyone thinks the Islamic Republic of Iran has lasted longer in power un-interupted than all two Pahlavi kings.

Why is that?

That is because the Pahlavis were a disaster.

Mossadegh's men, Bazargan and Sanjabi sided with Ayat'Allah Ruh'Allah Moosavi Khomayni in 1979.

Johnny = Jammy = Jimmy = ...

Look at your own passport first before criticizing pahlavis for their passports...

Yeah, shah made one big mistake that neutralized all his achievements; that was shah's biggest mistake to not send khomeini to his 72 awaiting virgins immediately when he could in 1963.

John Carpenter and Jamshid Niavarani are 100% Right

The Pahlavis had a lot of problems.

Human Rights Violators.

They are not Iranians.(look at their passports)

They stole money from the Iranian treasury.

Political freedom was not permitted.

The list goes on.

Stop trying to go around the issue.

Jamshid Niavarani and John Carpenter are 100% right.

1925-1979 were dark times for Iran.

JC - JN

All your arguments look like from a 10 year old child. Maybe you are indeed 10 years old, or at least mentally so.

Yeah, Mohammad reza shah was real bad because he had an arabic name. So what? So do 99% of iranians. And so did you until yesterday, who called yourself John Carpenter and claimed to have shenas-nameh with that name.

Shah must have been a really great man if his only short-comings were those that you mentioned: that he had an arabic name, that his wife holds Egyptian passport, that his son has green card, ... What a wonderful man shah must have been that his enemies resort to this kind of stuff to demonize him. May god bless all pahlavis then if that is all that they were short of.

1925-1979

We are talking about 1925-1979.

What I write is the truth.

The truth hurts.

Let it be known the Pahlavis are not Iranians.

They are green card holding Arab Egyptians.

In January 1979 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi left the country because Khomayni told him to leave.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi moved to Egypt, and became an Egyptian Arab.

What is wrong with that?

Mohammad Reza is an Arabic name.

He is where he belongs.

Don't bad mouth the Egyptian Arabs.

I have great respect for all cultures.

Don't be racist on this site.

And you sir need to see a doctor like Layla Pahlavi did.

Layla Pahlavi was a psychiatric patiant for most of her life.

I have direct knowledge that Reza and Abdol Reza are addicted to powder cocaine.

J.C. = J.N.

Reza pahlavi is bad because he has green card. So what; so do a lot of others, otherwise they would be illegal, i.e., they would be breaking the laws of their hosting country, the good old us of a.

Instead of posting the same non-sense to satisfy your hatred, see a psychologist to help you cure your hatred. You are not worth reasoning with as you are utterly immature and knowledge-deficient, and childish in attitude.

The Pahlavis 1925-1979

1925 Reza Pahlavi is put in power by England
1941 The English remove Reza Pahlavi
1941 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is installed as king
1953 M.R. Pahlavi removes Mossadegh
After 1953 MR Pahlavi installs the SAVAK
1953-1979 The Shah's SAVAK crushes all freedom
Jan 1979 M.R. Pahlavi fled Iran
1980 The Pahlavis become Egyptian Arabs
Today: Egypt has good relations with Khamenei

The Pahlavis were never Iranians. They were in Iran for the money. Reza Pahlavi stored a lot of money in foreign banks. Mohammad Reza also stored a lot of money in foreign banks.

2008 M.R. Pahlavi's son Reza Pahlavi is a US Green Card holder and an Egyptian passport holder (An Arab Citizen). Egypt is a member of the Arab League. Iran is not a member of the Arab League.

Reza Pahlavi who lives in Maryland is not Iranian. He has not been in Iran since he was in his teens. Reza Pahlavi can not speak or write Farsi properly.

Reza Pahlavi has not worked a day in his life. He is living off the money that his father stole from Iran and the Iranian masses.

Reza Pahlavi does not deserve any respect.

Reza Pahlavi is a loser.

AnonymousX

Got it... I see :)

Re: anonymous truthful

Stop attacking John Carpenter's views. I know John at a personal level and I know that he is a good hard working man who wants the best for this world.
.
If you don't believe my claim that he is my aquaintance, then take a look at this picture that I took from him and his cousin in my last visit to his father's ranch. He may look a bit grumpy, but that's only because the photo was taken before his pig-crap shoveling duty:
.
//hoox.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/hillbilly....
.
P.S. Can you guess which one is him and which one the cousin?

Do you understand english?

If pahlavis had or had not done anything at ALL:

(1) The gigantic achievement of reza shah the great was to get rid of sex and opium addicts ghajar. Nothing else mattered in face of ridding iran of those parasites. Nothing else mattered. Of course, no descendant of ghajar would understand that.

(2) Nothing that mohammad reza shah did or did not do matters in face of his failure to stop khomeini and his criminal gang from taking over iran. Of course, no islamic fanatic ever accepts this.

So, if we set aside, the descendants of ghajar and fanatic islamists, Pahlavis (father and son) had one major contribution and one major short-coming. In the face of importance of these two event, nothing else matters for a "nationalist iranian". Achievements of reza shah, as important as they were, and achievements or petty corruptions of mohammad reza shah have been totally overshadowed by these two events. They are all insignificant compared to incompetency of ghajar or criminality if islamic regime.

You are not making sense

What do the Arabs have to do with the Pahlavis?

The only connection is that the Pahlavis all had Arab names.

Reza, Mohammad Reza, Koroosh Reza, Abdol Reza...

Let us deal with Iranian history from 1925-1979.

If we just deal with that, you will conclude the Pahlavis were failures.

The Pahlavis had no control over the country. That is why it was so easy for Ayat-Allah Ruh-Allah Moosavi Khomayni to take over in 1979.

Continue to be wrong again and again...

If pahlavis had done absolutely NOTHING but for getting rid of those sex and drug addicts ghajar, one of them father to 34 children, that would have been more then ENOUGH for ANY nationalist iranian to praise them, IRRESPECTIVE of any other deeds or misdeeds that pahlavis have done; BUT of course not the western-residing iranian wanna be's. Any curse from those wanna be's is a further justification of praise for pahlavis, specially the honorable savior of iran, Reza Shah the Great, from the ancient land of Tabarestan, the sacred land whose citizens were most defiant to the invasion of arabs.

Pahlavis gave up rights to BAHRAIN

The Pahlavis gave up the rights to BAHRAIN!

YOU ARE A LIAR.

This is written in Queen Noor of Jordan's autobiography.

Queen Noor, a very good friend of the Pahlavis has stated in her book that the Pahlavis were self destructive and led to their own over throw.

Had the Pahlavis listened to Imam Musa Sadr an Iranian Shia Priest in Lebanon and talked directly to Ayat-ALLAH Ruh-ALLAH Moosavi Khomayni... maybe the Pahlavis wouldn't be asylum seekers.

As I said before the topic is not the Qajars...
Everyone knows the Qajars weaknesses.

The topic is the "COMPLETE FAILURE" of the Pahlavis.

One Pahlavi was arrested in Beverly Hills after the Iranian revolution for possession of illegal drugs.

Another Pahlavi committed suicide in England.

Is that what Iran needs, crazy people and drug users to run the country?

I say, "to hell with the Pahlavis". They are a bunch of Mazandarani villagers (Dahatis). By the way, Savaad Kuh is the worst village in all of Iran.

Still wrong....

If reza shah and his son had done "nothing", absolutely "nothing" for iran except for getting rid of ghajar, they are to be celebrated by any "nationalist iranian" within iran, but not necessarily those living in the comfort of their western homes, as having or not having ghajar has no impact on their lives.

In other words, 58 years of pahlavi regime, whatever it was or was not, was "well worth" getting rid of those ghajar addicts who lost a third of iran so easily. Pahlavis never lost an inch of iran. Indeed, Reza shah recaptured separating khuzestan, and mohamad reza shah recaptured separating azarbayejan. Even IRI (who has cursed pahlavis continuously) is trying very hard to hang on to the treaty that shah signed with iraq without losing an square inch of iran.

May god bless pahlavis for getting rid of ghajar and for maintaining the geographical integrity of iran. Their other deeds and misdeeds are controversial indeed, but they deserve immense praise for (1) getting rid of ghajar (2) maintaining integrity of iran. No "iranian nationalist" can dispute these. Of course islamists may dispute these saying that these had nothing to do with shahs and were acts of god or maybe anybody else would have done the same, without offering any proof.

The Qajars

The subject is not the Qajars.

I agree the Qajars were useless.

That being said, the Pahlavis were also useless.

The system of Monarchy is useless in Iran.

Iran needs a "Republic".

Similar to the USA, France, Germany, Italy...

The Monarchy was just not reasonable for a developing nation like Iran.

The question that must be answered...

"How can the Iranian masses go from a Theocratic Republic to a Democratic Republic".

What if the office of Spiritual leader, "Rahbar" was abolished and all powers given to an elected President. Would Iran change then?

Does Qom/Mashad need to get special status in Iran like the Vatican in Italy? When will this happen?

Will the Spiritual leaders role be just for advice in Qom and Mashad?

Shouldn't there be a dialog in order to promote this logical step forward?

Just think about it.

In Conclusion, the Pahlavis were the worst.

Wrong...

On two counts: despite all that pahlavis (father and son) did or did not do, that you like or dislike, no iranian nationalist should dispute the following:

(1) The biggest deed of reza shah was to get rid of ghajar addicts who lost a third of iran to pay for their european trips and their french whores. Reza shah should be praised for this even if he had done nothing but for this.

(2) The biggest misdeed of shah was to not stand up to khomeini and his anti-iranian gangsters. Mohammad reza shah should be cursed if he had done nothing but for this.

(3) I bet that satan, devil, and all the evils in hell would collectively want to get rid of khomeini from hell. They are all afraid that khomeini may screw them all in hell! This SOB khomeini is too much of a nasty character, even for the hell, and even compared to the devil himeself.

A SICK MAN

He was seriously sick in the head.

wake up JOHN CARPENTER III

Pahlavis were anti-semites and the Akhond shepeshos like Khamenei and Ahmadi-nejad are not????
Whom has invited KKK members to Iran? Shah or Ahmadi-nejad?

Hey Jack Carpetbagger......

For someone who is proudly stating his name and puting III at the end you sure know how to Write the fuck face Ayatolsatan's Title and his name . You have said before that you are very knowledgable about what really is going on in the power structure and the truth behind all, so answer this jack. Are you sitting in some ofice in the IRI and kissing some akhoonds balls while you are typing this stuff or are you in love with all fuck faces. JAVID BAAD IRAN. MAARG BAR KHAMENEI. MAARG BAR IRI. TO THE HELL WITH FUCKHEADS LIKE YOU.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK, KHOMAYNI

AYAT-ALLAH RUH-ALLAH MOOSAVI KHOMAYNI DID A GOOD JOB IN ABOLISHING THE PAHLAVIS FOR GOOD.

GOD BLESS HIM.

THE PAHLAVIS WERE ANTI-SEMITES.

Re: Mammad

Shame on the commentators? Or shame on you? You keep repeating, like a parrot, the same thing again and again"

1. "Ayatollah Khomeini led a popular revolution that not only overthrew the Pahlavi.... "

How many times should you be reminded? That the 1979 revolution cannot be considered "popular" because it was based on lies and deceits. It is analogous to a beast taking advantage of the naivity and innocence of a 13 years old girl, seduce her to get her consent, then do her. Then you jump in and defend the offender claiming that "... Oh but it was "consensual"... Shame on you.

2. "Ayatollah Khomeini allowed many crimes - too many to count..." Then you agree that he was a criminal? What do you then think about a revolution that was led by a criminal? That it was free of lies and deceits? That Iranians knowingly made a criminal popular? Shame on you for offending your own countrymen and women so easily.

3. No comments since we both are against a war.

4. "... he thinks that just because Milani published a book, he has said the last word on the subject..." What about your references? How many times had you in the past used "books" as a way to justify your opinion? Oh! I forgot! It is ok for you to do it, but not for others. And if others do it, then the author must be a "nokar". How convenient! Shame on you for your arrogance.

5. "Some of you say that the days of the IRI are numerbered.... why don't you go to Iran and fight, in order to speed up the process?"

Why don't YOU? Is it because deep inside, you are a supporter of the IRI? If not, is it because you yourself don't have the guts to do it? Then you accuse others of the same? Shame on you for your hypocrisy.

6. "He (khomeini) threw out you so-called patriots, believers in pure Iranian culture, anti-Islam, "modern" and "forward thinking" pseudo-Iranians."

Just who the hell are YOU to so easily discard and dismiss so many Iranians who happen to be as patriot as you, if not more, and who happen to be modern and forward thinking and who also may want to change Iran's religion?

What do you have to say about those who changed Iran's absolute majority religion of Zoroastrism to Islam 1400 years ago? You know, Ali, Hossein, Salman, and many of your other "heroes" who forced Islam onto Iranians? If that was ok because Zoroastrism had become corrupt in the hands of its clergy, then why isn't the same true about Islam today?

Why shouldn't a Zoroastrian or Bahai or a Christian preach their religion freely in Iran without fear of prosecution? As Moslems are doing in the Western countries without being persecuted. The likes of you Mammad, immediately jump in and say "Oh... but you are "disrespecting" Iranians by preaching other religions... We won't allow it..." Then you go on persecuting them. That's how weak the foundation of Islam is.

If you call them pseudo-Iranians, then I call you a pseuda-human and pseudo-scientist wanna be, who takes any opportunity to run to the defense of the IRI who is brutalizing its citizen. And don't hide behind the mask of "but my relatives were punished by the IRI", as you once did in another thread. You lie Mammad, you lie through your nose. If you are not liying then you are a "bi gheyrate be tamaame ma'na" for defending the IRI while your countrymen, including your own relative, are being brutalized by it.

How Sad.

Mammad claims that he is a scientist and a practicing moslim; and it shows how he twists things "scientifically" to accommodate his religious fanaticism. It is really sad to see there are still people like him, praising a bogus religion formed around a brutal god and imposed on iranians by IRI executioners.

First of all, science and religion do not get along well. And therefore, as a result most of what Mammad says read like non-sense of a struggling fanatic fascinated by the scheme of fraud called iranian revolution staged by a sadistic man named khomeini. It is an insult to compare him with any person, including the half-decent shah.

If 1400 years of misery is all we have as a reason why we should follow islam, then 2500 years of monarchy, 1000 years of which brought prosperity of a first-world country, can be a better reason to embrace monarchy. Had pahlavi regime survived, it was practically "impossible" for iran and iranians to be in such a disastrous situation some 30 years later, even if the pahlavi regime did not go thru any evolution and did not improve.

How sad it is that our self-proclaimed scientists are so self-serving and naive. They should first apologize to every single iranian for marching after a psychopath like khomeini, replacing a half-decent regime with an indecent regime who has done absolutely nothing except for focusing on murdering iranian youths, plundering iranian wealth, and destroying iranian culture with no end in sight.

His writings only shows how religious fanaticism can blind someone into accepting all sorts of twisted logic to imply that the word of the so-called god is superior to that of man and therefore iranian revolution and IRI is legitimate and promising. I wonder if his sources are any but the popular series "Left Behind" for Christianity.

Mammad

You wish to logically argue the case for Islam in Iran, by engaging in an argument on accepting Islam, and Shiism in particular, because a Monarch, namely Shah Ismael, believed it was the best way Iranians would remain independent of Ottoman, Sunni, influence.  You are making the same argument about Islam, too.  Since it has been with us for 1400 years we should come to grips with it and accept it.  

“1. Some of you deny that the culture in Iran is Iranian-Islamic, because Arabs invaded Iran 1400 years ago. You people seem to forget that Shah Esmail Safavi and Shah Abbas "Kabir", who were glorfied so much in the history books published by the Shah's government, were most responsible for consolidation of Shi'ite branch of Islam as a potent political force. Hello monarchists!” 

Why should we believe what was done by 1400 years of neglect and defeatist attitude of people like yourself, in the face of resistance and struggle, in all forms, to be reason enough to accept this injustice?  I’ll refer you to a post here //iranian.com/main/2008/neo-con-assetpage4 (2nd post down after the article) to see how Iranians have resisted and struggled against this cult of the nomadic Arabs.  Perpetually arguing that is has always been this way doesn’t make it right.  

If in a hundred years from now, someone, like yourself, would argue that Khomeiniism has become accepted as a tradition because it has been with us for so long that the culture of stoning and cutting limbs off has become our heritage, should we accept that argument?  Would that person be justified in making this next comment? 

“Whether anyone likes it or not, and regardless of whether it is good or bad, the vast majority of Iranians living in Iran firmly believe in Islam. So, you so-called supporters of freedom, especially freedom of thought, opinion, and worship, should stop insulting people's religious belief. You have every right to believe in anything you like, but not the right to insult.”

 “3. The revolution led by him brought into the population at large the concept of republicanism (jomhourikhahi) and a republican system. That is why I believe that monarchy will never be restored in Iran. That, in my view, is another great achievement.” 

Which part of republicanism did he succeed in implementing?  A system of the velayateh faghih who dictates and governs for life and mandates who is qualified to vote for?  Last time I looked up the definition of Republic, that wasn’t it.  

“4. It has been in the IRI that people have recognized the true value and power of their votes.”

How?  By finding out their vote is inconsequential? 

“The amount of political education that people have received in Iran under the IRI far exceeds anything under the Shah which was nearly zero.”  

 This is another one of your blanket and biased statements.  The IRI has had no role in proliferation of knowledge and in fact they have altered history and release selected information to suit their needs.  The fact that people are more educated (politically) is due entirely, to the information age and availability of information, which the IRI has tried to suppress, unsuccessfully.  

Allah o abkar Rahbar Imam Khomeini

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKNMdRR6Vkg

Dear Fatollah

What can I say, you are so right. We did it to ourselves, out of ambition, greed, ideology, blind religious fanaticism, and misguidedness; none having anything to do with long-term progress of iran or prosperity of iranians.

But the good news is that history cares about none of that and lacks any emotions, and once it is written, I have no doubt that the cursed shah will end up being so far ahead of the praised khomeini in positive deeds.