Pictory

Dear Anonymous truthful

You left out these simple words from a humble civil servant who used to repeat in 1979 chaos; those who are running wild on the streets do not know how it was during the II world war when people had to starve to death! These people want to see a bazar be burned to the ground so that they can own a piece of clouthe "dastmal"!

to Jesus

Jesus says: "And unfortunate for us Iranians, we have become so miserable, that truly UNFORTUNATE for us that many in the country long for the good old days. There are plenty of people in that category."

hey Jesus, unlike your previous comments (assuming you are the same Jesus) your comments on this article are much better. Anyhow, regarding your statement here, why do you say "we Iranians have become so miserable ...."?
In one of your old comment (again assuming you are the same Jesus) you said "we Iranians are degenerates ..." .
I am asking you this question because I find it paradoxical that you with this level of pessimism spend so much time in an Iranian site. Don't get me wrong I am not saying Iran is perfect (far from that) or you should/should not post here.
BTW you and I generally piss each other off ... maybe not this time!?

Khomeini is NO mystery...

Once history of this period is written, khomeini will neither be a mystery nor controversial. Controversial figures are those whose deeds and misdeeds are in somewhat of a balance (like shah) or we really know little about them to make an educated judgment (like mossadeq). Khomeini will turn into a Changiz type of character, although there are rare few who still praise Changiz as he ultimately caused an expansion of islam into indian subcontinent and beyond. Anything and everything about khomeini is extreme negative, such as:

(1) At best he replaced a half-decent regime.

(2) He institutionalized murder from day 1 of his regime. He never delivered on any of his promises.

(3) His regime has already lasted for too long (30 years) to blame others for his misdeeds.

(4) The age of information technology works against those who praise him by twisted logic. There are so many films and documentaries that cannot be denied that tell the story of his regime, from day one, the proceedings of shah's generals to hangings by cranes, from stonings to oppression of minorities. No-one in his right mind will have any sympathy for his regime in the eyes of history.

Followers of khomeini who have not turned against him have personal agenda that with time will evaporate. At that point khomeini is left with nothing except misdeeds in spite of how much some try to boost the baby steps that IRI has taken, as even those baby steps are more than offset with their crimes against iranian identity and culture. Projects like Sivand dam alone is sufficient for this regime to be cursed for eternity.

None of the defenders of khomeini have any sustaining argument in his favor. They are:

(a) Thugs who will disappear with time.

(b) Those who are financially benefiting from the regime. Those will also disappear with time.

(c) Those who hated shah so much that were willing to embrace khomeini's disaster for the people of iran only for the sole purpose of their personal anger towards shah be satisfied, at any cost to the people of iran. They will also disappear with time, as shah will become one of so many kings who ruled iran, and on balance no worse than an average king. But khomeini was not an average person, his regime was evil in every aspect and from every angle, from day one thru its end day which is yet to be determined.

(d) Islamic fanatics who still believe that he was "ayat of allah". Although this group will continue to exist, their numbers will be diminishing with education and development of a better sense of humanity. Despite, they will not be writing history; they will become part of the same crowd who praise changiz for his expansion of islam or teymoor-e-lang as he is endeared in parts of central asia today.

May curse be upon him and his revolution.

KHOMEINY REMAINS A MYSTERY ...

I would like to read an objective account on Khomeiny's life one day written with the necessary distance and unpassionate approach to evaluate not only his personality but also political and historical legacy.  

I have no doubt that he will remain an interesting yet frightening character in the lines of Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler yet like in the case of the former tryrants he will remain a mystery and probably constant source of fascination and repulsion at the same time.

The bottom line is to understand the real motivations be them personal or collective that drove him to hate the Shah and ultimately bring down one of the most ancient institutions in Iran for more than 25 centuries. Where did that Hate become an obssession and was it only motivated by anger or personal ambition?

GREAT Men are NOT necessarily GOOD Men and Khomeiny certainly fits the definition of the Great Man in Iranian History.

It is impossible to understand what happened to Iran or even evaluate his personal responsability in the crimes commited under his "reign" so to speak if we do not take an objective  interest in the psychology of the man and his entire life before and after gaining power.

This approach has to some degree been done in regard to the Shah in such biographies like Shawcross' "The Shah's Last Ride" or for Abbas Hoveyda in Abbas Milani's "The Persian Sphinx".

It has been less the case for Khomeiny or even Dr. Mossadegh even if there is certainly no comparison between the two from a human or ideological point of view.

The less mystery surrounding such controversial historical figureheads the less the simple evocation of their names will seem like a threat or danger for they will be brought down from the God Like adoration and viewed simply as human beings with their flaws or strong points. It is then up to people to draw their own conclusions as to whether the ideas they stood for were good or bad, constructive or destructive.

Quick response...

Mamad,

For a period of time, right after the differences between Shariatmadari, and Khomeini surfaced, and the former's political party was banned, every morning, I stood in the yard of my elementary school with hundreds of other kids chanting "death to Shariatmadari". Of course, at the time, I had no freaking idea what the hell, or who the hell the guy was, but I know now! Did you ever live in Iran, or are you just talking like bunch of other peace activists who have never lived a moment in Iran post revolution?
We know that Shariatmadari was a "marja-taghlid", and far higher in the hiarchy of the shia clerical system than Khoemeini. There is no way we could have gone out at the time chanting death to the name of a Grand Ayatollah, unless it had absolute and explicit approval of Khomeini, are you kidding me?

On the question of Independence:

I hear all these Iranian activists, and former revolutionaries sticking their chests out, huffing and puffing about independence as a tax payer of U.S or some western country. Even if you are right, what is this independence that we talk about? What is so tangible about it? other than increase in poverty, humiliation, isolation of the country, and the empowerement of a small clique of clerics?
You yourself don't seem that independent, you are paying taxes to a country (if you are in U.S), or to a civilization(if you are in the west) that you wanted Iran to supposedly gain indepence from. Apparantly, it is ok for people of Iran to be "indpendent" and poor, with the youth having no future, but for people like you, and some of the former revolutionaries, not so important.

Again, as a scientist, and fan of facts, what made us so dependent during the time of Shah? Because our strategic approach happened to align with U.S? And what makes us so independent today? lecturing the world about how good an islamic government could be, or how jews are evil, and holocaust never happened?

I just never have understood the tangible meaning of independence, and the reason is not that I don't literary get it, it is because we never had it, either before, nor now...

Aki...

I have a tremendous dislike for that megalomaniac, and dictator, the Shah of Iran. I particularly despise the way he compared himself to the great legends, and leader of Persia, and in the arrogant tone in which he told Koroush Kabir to "sleep in peace". I hate all the dictators, and I would never wish to compare bad with worse, but since you have done that, I have to say that any fair minded person, with an ounce of decency would know that there is no comparison between the Shah, and Khomeini. This is not to say that we want to go back to the old days, but if we were to compare the two, I take the Shah any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. There is no doubt in my mind that history will judge it so. All numbers would speak to that.
And unfortunate for us Iranians, we have become so miserable, that truly UNFORTUNATE for us that many in the country long for the good old days. There are plenty of people in that category.

Jesus and Anonymous truthful

To Jesus:

First of all, yes, I am a fan of facts, because I am a scientists. Scientists work with facts, not slogans, profanity, emotions, and personal revenge as part of their discussions, as unpleasant as they may be. Science, by definition, is objective and very cold, meaning many do not like its conclusions.

Secondly, I am not an Islamist. If I were, I would not have any problem stating so. I am a practicing Muslim, but believe in a secular republican system.

Third, you misunderstood part of what I said, or at least it appears so to me.

By political independence I meant political independence from OUTSIDE POWERS. No one, in my opinion, can argue with that, for the simple fact that if this regime could be influenced by outside powers, it would behave better. But, these guys are self-righteous and lecture the world about everything.

Your arguments about the influence of Arabs and Iran becoming Arabic do not make sense. Arabs hate Iran and Iranians. No Arab country has any close relation with Iran. Iraq fought with Iran for 8 years, with the support of the entire Arab world. And even the IRI does not like any Arab regime, accusing them of selling out. Yes, some reactionary elements within the IRI have tried to do certain things, like de-emphasizing Nowrooz, but they have failed misreably.

If by Arabs and Arabism you mean Islam, then, yes, the country has become that, since the clerics are the rulers. But, the two are NOT equivalent. After all, we have hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who are not even Arab, and are strong believers in their own cultures, from Indonesia to Malaysia to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, not to mention Iran and Turkey.

Ayatollah Khomeini never advocated KILLING Ayatollah Shariatmadari. Their differences went back many years. Ayatollah Shariatmadari was not a supporter of the Revolution; he only wanted the Shah to be a figuerhead.

Your statement about Ayatollah Khomeini not doing anything about Refsanjani and Ayatollah Khamenei is not supported by historical facts. Before he was appointed the Supreme leader (AFTER Ayatollah Khomeini's death), Ayatollah Khamenei had a strong reputation as a moderate cleric. This is what a lot of people, even among the opposition inside Iran, that worked with him have said.

The reputed Rafsanjani's corruption has taken place AFTER Ayatollah Khomeini's death, during the time that he was the President.

Quite frankly, I do not buy the argument that Ayatollah Khomeini did not care about Iran. In my view, that is not supported by any hard evidence, aside from that famous "nothing" comment that he made.

To Anonymous truthful:

While emotions are very good thing and an excellent human quality, they are not useful when it comes to discussing historical figures. But, remember, just because a person is a historical figure does not mean that he/she is a good person.

Comparing Ayatollah Khomeini with Hitler is utterly unfair. Hitler started a world war that killed 47 million people and destroyed Europe and north Africa. Ayatollah Khomeini did not even start any war. Hitler's regime murdered millions simply based on religion (Jews) or ethnicity (the gypsies), Ayatollah Khomeini's regime never did that. Same thing about Changiz, and people like him. And, by the way, aside from us Iranians (for the obvious reason), Alexander is considered a great historical man

Regarduing your numbered statements:

1. If people were deceived by Ayatollah Khomeini, whose fault was it? His, or the Shah's regime that eliminated all the secular opposition, political parties from nationalists to leftists, repressed the intellectuals, etc., hence not allowing them to educate people about the danger of mixing the church and state?

2. I agree with you about this. I already had said the same in my original comment.

3. That is subject to debate. No clear-cut conclusion has never been reached by experts (not you and me). Yes, emotionally we would like to think so, but one must go to Iran to see the great amount of work that has been done over the past 20 years for the infrastructure of Iran, from roads, to communication, to health care, to setting up a large number of universities. In my view, the problem with IRI is NOT that it has not done anything for the country; it has. The problem is with its reactionary, bloody nature.

4. Iranian culture is more lively than ever. Witess the great number of Iranian movies that have won international acclaims, just as a simple example and evidence. Besides, if a deeply-rooted, old, glorious civilization and culture like ours can be destroyed by a regime in such a short time, there must be something wrong with that culture and the people who live in that culture. In my view, such emotional, but baseless, statements give more credit to the IRI than it deserves.

5. Read 1 above. It was the Shah's regime that gave us the IRI.

Thank you both.

To: Anonymous truthful

Rest assure that I have no attitude problem. I don’t mean to be rude, but it takes one to know one. having said that, I sincerely apologize for the vulgarity, it was unnecessary. You are certainly entitled to your thoughts and opinion, but I respectfully disagree with your comparison between the two recent periods in Iranian history. The same strangulation atrocious which existed in shah’s time, still exists, and is well carried out by this extremist regime. FYI, I do reside in Iran and occasionally travel overseas, and yes you are correct, things are extremely bad at home and people are resigned in passiveness, but life goes on.

Aki: you have attitude problem.

Show me a better choice than shah, who can run iran, and I'll follow him and curse the shah (excluding dead people with no historical record to argue for or against like mossadeq). AT least when shah run the country, there was room for likes of me and you and a lot of others there; now there is not. I suggest that you talk to someone who has been to iran recently (past 3 months) to see how bad the situation is there nowadays. It was NEVER anything like that during entire shah's regime. If you are in search of truth, then compare the numbers. They tell you that shah was far from perfect but also far far better than khomeini. Use any measure of corruption that you like, but factual and unbiased: numbers killed, stolen wealth, etc. That is all that I am saying.

Don't be like guys who live in their ivory tower with wishful thinking.

Khomeini was such an ugly bitch that no matter how much make-up is placed on his evil face, he is still uglier than anyone else in the indigenous history of iran. If you cannot accept that, then there is a problem with your attitude that, BTW, can be seen from your language. Being vulgar does not make you right, it just shows how difficult it is to govern iran.

On his grave stone

 I shit on his grave stone (Reedam tooy ghabresh), and his mother and his father.

What makes calm and satisfied is that he put the last nail on the coffin of Isalm he so dearly loved.

Khoda-Shah-Mihan

To: Anonymous truthful

“Replacing imperfect but now-considered decent pahlavi regime”
If you believe that shit, then you really got your head in your ass.
Incidentally, are you a fat fellow Iranian? You sound like one. Seems you are still busy worshipping and idealizing your beloved shah mareza. Neither of these bloody assholes were good for Iran. They both in their own ways destroyed Iran. Shah the maniac sold us to Jews and Fuck face Khomeini and his goons have sold us to the Palestinians, Hezbulla and Syria.

It is funny...

Mamad is a smart Islamist. He tries to argue his point in a "logical", and "discourse-like" manner. He also seems to be a fan of "facts". Let's get to the facts he claims! yet, amusing enough, he lists bunch of his own subjective opinions as "Facts".
Let's go through them:

1- Iran is, or has become politically independent.
There is mixture of opinions here, with neither side having enough evidence to completely win the argument. Economically, Iran is far more fragile than ever. Politically, the system is extremely weak, and must resort to public executions, killings, and torture to preserve power. Those are signs of a government with little confidence. Nominally, we might claim independence, but we are very dependent on china, and Russia to back us up in the world arena. That comes with price, and it seems for Russia that price means the reduction of our share in the Caspian sea region to almost zilch.
Culturally, Iran has been arabized. This is different than having an affinity to a religion. U.S is a christian country, and its nutty president might be considered a "fundemantalist". But he would never advocate speaking aramaic, hebrew, or instituting biblical laws.

2-Khomeini had no vision of system such as one that exists today(this comes mainly from Khomeini apologist, with various version: Another is he was far more open, or that he believed in the power of masses). Again, this argument when looking at the facts on the ground is folly. He knew Khamenei well, he also knew Rafsanjani well, yet he chose to do nothing to establish his own system. He in fact was a big proponent of velayat-e faghih, about which he wrote about early on durin his learning years under Ayatollah kashani.
He advocated the killing of Ayatollah Shariatmaderi, the very man that had saved his life. This shows that khomeini was more of a political animal, rather than a religious man. Throughout his reign, he consistenly showed the traits of a dictator, including the order to kill political opponents on a massive scale. None of these are signs of "mardo salari", what you have claimed.

Worst of all, Iran was never important to him. I don't care if he uprooted God himself, the fact that he was more concernted about the muslim community rather than Iran makes him a traitor. It would be as if I have big slashing wound on my leg, and the doctor who wants to save me cuts my leg off completely. Yes he took care of the old wound, but took away something far more important from me. The dignity, humanity, and reputation of the country, its civility, and history has been under constant attack, and shamefully stepped on for the past 30 years. None of his achievements would ever restore that, not to mention all the innocent people who have died...

Cloaked Fanatics Talk...

Achievements of khomeini:

1. Deceiving people.

2. Committing and institutionalizing mass-murder in the name of a brutal god and a bogus religion.

3. Plundering wealth of the country.

4. Destroying iranian culture and replacing it with arab culture of 1400 years ago.

5. Replacing imperfect but now-considered decent pahlavi regime with a persistent disastrous regime.

Fanatic fools keep fooling themselves with twisted logic and word games, ignoring all fact, and hoping that others can follow to play fool. Khomeini was a bastard murderer, incomparable to any indigenous iranian regime in history in scale of blatant murder, corruption, thievery, and deceit. He can only be compared with Alexander, Omar, Changiz, Teymoor, and Saddam. Comparing him with any iranian king is a blatant injustice and an indication of a foolish and blind islamic fanaticism with arab culture of 1400 years ago.

Shiism and Khomeinism

To sick of Islamists:

Shiism and Khomeinism are NOT the same. There are many leading Shi'ite thinkers, including many Ayatollahs, both in Iran and elsewhere, who oppose Ayatollah Khomeini's doctrine of Islamic government.

There is no doubt that Ayatollah Khomeini was an advocate of Velaayat-e Faghih. However, I believe - based on my extensive reading of his writings - that what he believed in and the system that he advocated are totally different from the present system in Iran. His was far more open. He believed in elections. He constantly said, "the criterion for acceptance of a leader is the vote by people," or, "mizaan ra'ye mellat ast." The present system was institutionalized right before his death, when the Constitution of the IRI was revised.

Ayatollah Khomeini did have several great achievements:

1. He led a popular revolution that overthrew an old and deeply-rooted system of government in Iran. That is a great achievement by any standard, regardless of whether the outcome was good or not.

2. The Revolution brought Iran's political independence, another great achievement.

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.

4. It has been in the IRI that people have recognized the true value and power of their votes. By voting or not voting they have shown their maturity. The amount of political education that people have received in Iran under the IRI far exceeds anything under the Shah which was nearly zero.

These must, of course, be weighted against Ayatollah Khomeini's failures which were too many.

Ayatollah Khomeini is a historical figure and, therefore, will be judged by history. That will happen in 20-30 years. I believed that the judgement will be mixed, although I know many who comment in this column do not like or believe this.

Anonymous 8: Are you related

Anonymous 8: Are you related to Khomeini's grandson?

Some people still idolize the SOB

Khomeini was a sophisticated Charlatan who used people of iran, as well as international community, from IRA to AM, for his own objectives, to take control of beit-ol-male-moslemin. He perpetrated a pyramid scheme of fraud called revolution upon people of iran using two groups of people: thugs and naive fools. Most of the naive gradually got the message, but some are not truthful enough to admit their mistakes yet. The cost of his deceit has been tremendous in blood and money for people of iran: 500,000 deaths, $1 trillion wealth of the country, 30 precious years of lost time, and iranian culture under seize.

Those who were screaming for years about corruption in shah's regime still do not realize that shah has turned into a saint compared to khomeini; as shah's corruption was nowhere near that of khomeini. Khomeini killed more in one single day in 1367-68 than shah killed in his entire reign. Khomeini shipped hard cash to arabs only more than shah was accused of stealing in his entire reign, etc. This is not novel; it is all based on IRI's own records.

anonymous 8 how much do they pay you hourly !!!!!

Ey Shayton Haji khanom Needs a new chador!!! and you have to work over time to pay for it,that is why you are asking for a battle of words.You have no intelligent answer to atrocities of khomeini.

MARG BAR KHOMEINI!!!!ops he is already dead!!!!

Q for Massive Balls

Got a question for the one with massive balls; were your balls same size at the time of your birth? Did the gynecologist had to cut your mama’s vagina canal to allow room for your balls to depart? Any idea what was the size of your brain? Based on your comment it appears to be somewhere in retardation chart. Am I correct to assume that you are a supper mother fucker? Go play with your mother’s tits.

Khomeini was a great revolutionary and a historical figure

by the standards of all revolutions, he was great. The entire Iranian system would be different had it not been for the 8 year war against Iraq. This caused much damage to Iran and slowed down (nearly killed) our democracy movement. We are still paying for that today. The revolution, for which he was most responsible, was great progress for Iranian independence.

I admire Khomeini, taking the good with the bad. Most Iranians were with him when he returned to Iran and stayed with him until he died. There is no question about his popularity to this day.

People who reflexively attack and insult him are out of touch with most Iranians. I would be glad to stay and answer all of your concerns. I actually love to hear more insults and foul language. Let's make this item "the most discussed item" on the front page!

Come on, we can do it!

A Description of Omid The

A Description of Omid

The men and women whose stories you can read on this page are now all citizens of a silent city named Omid ("hope" in Persian). There, victims of persecution have found a common life whose substance is memory.

Omid's citizens were of varying social origins, nationalities, and religions; they held diverse, and often opposing, opinions and ideologies. Despite the differences in their personality, spirit and moral fiber, they are all united in Omid by their natural rights and their humanity. What makes them fellow citizens is the fact that one day each of them was unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. At that moment, while the world watched the unspeakable happen, an individual destiny was shattered, a family was destroyed, and an indescribable suffering was inflicted.

//www.asre-nou.net/1386/shahrivar/6/koshtar/m...
//www.abfiran.org/english/memorial.php

Holy Crimes of

Holy Crimes of Khomeinism:

//holycrime.com/default1.asp

Bahram: What you call

Bahram: What you call bravery and courage is called sociopathic impulses emanting from a vengeful and hate-consumed, devil possessed and diseased brain.

Yes, Evil is very powerful and cunning. History has seen many evil leaders such as this psychopathic monster.

Mammad what the Islamic

Mammad

what the Islamic Republic calls Shia Islam is actually not Shia. It's Khomeinism. Khomeinism is not Shi'ism. Khomeinism is like Nazim. Millions of Germans were devout nazis who believed in their dogma and conviction and elected Hitler democratically in an election too.

Khomeinism and Khomeinists will suffer the same fate as Nazim.

what you have missed!!!!!

. Go on and call me every names in the book however that wouldnt change the contemporaliy history of my land IRAN

sure whatrever you say,after all these are nothing but words, the history wont change its direction by words, it will take some real man with courage and bravery to change it, look up on the begining of the page u will see one.

is to to give the leadership

is to to give the leadership to so-called sons of Ali who happened to be all Iranians, it was a religion to fight back the occupation by turks and arabs, dont forget the king promoted and cemented two thing in iranian history first the shia faith and second the shahnameh and persian language. these two hae been the pillars of Iran since 600 years ago.

There lies the pathology of the whole state of affairs. Abused people turning into abusers using a more violent version of what abused them in the first place. This is classic and a perpetuating cycle of fatalism and defeatism embodied in shia mentality.

Sodomize Hezbollah and their bosses

Once Iran is free again from the IRI thugs we should really put a check on the extremist and their Hezbollah thugs. This time around we will not take any chances and we will make sure they will never rise again.

We will make sure they never leave their ghettos until they have enough education and understanding to do so. Until that point we will put them in quarantine.

There is nothing more iranian than religion of shia

It was invented and promoted through the history by real patriotic Iranian like king Ismael, the idea is to to give the leadership to so-called sons of Ali who happened to be all Iranians, it was a religion to fight back the occupation by turks and arabs, dont forget the king promoted and cemented two thing in iranian history first the shia faith and second the shahnameh and persian language. these two hae been the pillars of Iran since 600 years ago. It had its ups and downs. today we are in very good shape , growing and expanding against the will of once occupiers of Iran and their seasonal allies like Us and UK. Go on and call me every names in the book however that wouldnt change the contemporaliy history of my land IRAN

Shame on most of you "commentators"

Let's see what the facts are:

1. Ayatollah Khomeini led a popular revolution that not only overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty - for good - but also the mornarchy forever.

2. Ayatollah Khomeini allowed many crimes - too many to count - to be committed under his rule and in the name of Islam.

3. Ayatollah Khomeini left Iran with an awefull political system.

Now, let's see how most of you commentators have reacted. Practically nothing that most of you has said has anything to do with the culture of the Iranian people living in Iran, even though you claim to be true Iranians.

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!

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.

How come you people think that there is such a thing as the American "culture" - even though it is only a figment of your imagination - after only 250 years, but we do not have Iranian-Islamic culture after 1400 years? Just because you want something does not make it so. The Iranian-Islamic culture exists and will exist for the foreseeable future, whether anyone likes it or not. Get used to it.

2. Some of you Iranian "patriots" had hoped that Bush, a war criminal, would bomb Iran. Bombing Iran, aside from any other aspect, would only prolong the life of the very regime that you seem to despise so intensely. To me, that only goes to show that you do not give a hoot to what happens to Iran and Iranians living in Iran. You just want to see blood and destruction in order to feel better.

3. Since some of you have lost hope that Bush would bomb Iran, now you are trying to find a new "hope," the sicko, narcissist, unstable McCain, whose only solution for every problem in every corner of the world is war and destruction.

Any Iranian who wants war and destruction in order to feel better not only does not have any b..... - massive or small - but also is nothing but a thoughtless man.

4. One of you had referred us to Abbas Milani. It seems that he thinks that just because Milani published a book, he has said the last word on the subject. This is aside from the facts that, Milani was a Stalinist-Maoist, a SAVAK collaborator, and now a stooge and puppet of the neocons who have the blood of 1 million Iraqis on their hand.

5. Some of you say that the days of the IRI are numerbered. May be, and hopefully, so, but why don't you go to Iran and fight, in order to speed up the process? Yes, it is easy to live in the West, and issue "fatwas" that, Aay mardom, do this or that to get rid of the mullahs, so that we can come back to you (which I bet you won't anyway) and enlighten your lives with our presence.

6. Some of you, whose loud shouts of being a "modern" Iranian, anti-Islam, believers in "pure" Iranian culture, and so on are so deafening have used some of the worst profanities that anyone can use. My eyes were ashamed andimmediately closed when they saw such words.

So, come to think of it: Ayatollah Khomeini did accomplish one significant thing, aside from leading a popular revolution: He threw out you so-called patriots, believers in pure Iranian culture, anti-Islam, "modern" and "forward thinking" pseudo-Iranians.

I have two words FUCK HIM,

I have two words
FUCK HIM, his face make me sick

Reply: Disgusted

Hey buddy, who are disgusted! Do not assume, instead try to read in the lines and comprehend the words! Compiled by an Arab does not make an Arab a sub-human. That is your assumption! Not mine! This clip is aimed at stirring Arab Islamic feelings, that means this clip was never meant for Iranian audience, perhaps Hezbollah in Lebanon is behind this clip? Get it! Secondly, do not talk about probabilities as if the 500 of the Shahs men or 10000 of MKOs or Communists as you mention them, were sub humans! And to you, I am not some guy, I am Mr. Fatollah.