"We Control America." Sharon...

[JDzBrain]

Ok, so you are telling us that the Shah did not oppress the Kurds.

Interesting....I mean given that I have a dozen history books and statements from both Kurdish and Iranian historians saying the exact opposite.

Can you explain why many Kurds backed the revolution, given they were not being oppressed by the Shah?

Interesting, history is written by the victor and OFTEN bears little resemblance to the TRUTH.

Far to many people in this country believe the Civil War was about slavery because of POST war historical accounts too.

NOTHING could be further from the truth!

If some ethnic group in this country tried to form an independent nation inside the borders of the USA...you can bet your butt America would suppress the HELL out of them!

And rightfully so!

Was the Shah a great guy or great leader? May not have been a real nice guy and was DEFINITELY not a great leader, but given the region he was in...he WAS a step up from the norm. And he was an Iranian patriot...ABSOLUTELY!!!

 

[Roudy]

You get hung up on such stupid technicalities.!

They are called facts.

It is a fact that the man is not the king - he is the Crown Prince.

It is a fact that the Shah Snr bitterly oppressed the Kurds.

It is a fact that many Kurds supported the Islamic Revolution....at least initially.

It is a fact that under the Shah, Iran probably had the worst human rights record and the most infamous prison (Evian) and security service in the entire Middle East.

(I'm a journalist, remember - a single wrong fact means I get angry letters from California, and a terse note from my editor.)

Not really facts but misreprentations and contortions. It is also a fact that the people call him shah, it is also a fact that the Shah did not have "the worst" human rights record or even among the worst, that is a fabrication. It is also a fact that the shah was a secular leader that brought prosperity and reforms to his country and was tolerant of minorities and women. And it is also a fact that the current regime in Iran is one of the most bloody oppressive, corrupt and barbaric regimes ever in history. It is responsible for oppressing and persecuting minorities and outrageous human rights and crimes against humanity violations. And has killed and tortured thousands of times more Iranians than under the Shah. Not to mention an exporter of Islamic terrorism and turning Iran into a pariah nation. But of course all of that doesn't really matter because they are the enemies of Israel.

Those are the "facts" to an objective observer. If you are a journalist then I am the Queen Mary, you are a ******* moron.

 

[Roudy]

Ok, so you are telling us that the Shah did not oppress the Kurds.

Interesting....I mean given that I have a dozen history books and statements from both Kurdish and Iranian historians saying the exact opposite.

Can you explain why many Kurds backed the revolution, given they were not being oppressed by the Shah?

Interesting, history is written by the victor and OFTEN bears little resemblance to the TRUTH.

Far to many people in this country believe the Civil War was about slavery because of POST war historical accounts too.

NOTHING could be further from the truth!

If some ethnic group in this country tried to form an independent nation inside the borders of the USA...you can bet your butt America would suppress the HELL out of them!

And rightfully so!

Was the Shah a great guy or great leader? May not have been a real nice guy and was DEFINITELY not a great leader, but given the region he was in...he WAS a step up from the norm. And he was an Iranian patriot...ABSOLUTELY!!!

He was a patriot but he had his shortcomings. In hindsight maybe he did the right thing to leave so quickly, instead of turning his own army on his people and slaughtering them like the Syrians and many Arab leaders have done. In a way it was a judgment against the naivity of his own people who thought things were going to change for the better, and did not show appreciation for what they had.

 

[amir]

amir, Roudy, et al,

Yes, it is a shame; but, only from a western point-of-view. Remember, today, the Rule of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is fully protected, 100% by Iranian Guards and a government of the Iranian === and by the Iranian. If it were true that the Iranian people wanted something different, just as they did in 1979, they can change it. The simple fact is, they are not changing it (tacit approval). We can only assume that the majority of Iranians enjoy the fruits the Supreme Leader has brought to them

Iran - Before and After 1979 - YouTube

This is so painfully true, Roudy.
The cities were sparkling under the shah. Boys and girls wearing fashionable clothes, competed globally with their foreign counterpart, without the fear of being grabbed by some thugs for "immodesty".
even the dreaded traffic motor cyclist officers had class, let alone highly decorated military officers.

(COMMENT)

No country is prefect. Certainly Iran was not perfect prior to the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Shah had many faults - as do many leaders. And, the Iranian people made a choice. Today, under the rule of the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian people enjoy the the freedom of choice they made in 1979. It is the nation they wanted. They are very proud of and happy with the improvements they have made under the current dictatorship.

We should not criticize the Iranian for making their choice. That is what freedom is all about - choice. The Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was the first step in the larger Islamic revolution that is yet to come. I am sure that all the Iranians are looking forward to completely shedding that last vestiges of their once glorious heritage as Persians. The Iranian of today, as a people, appreciate the reputation their country has in the eyes of their Persian Gulf neighbors. Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, a descendent in the line of Ali ibn Abi Talib of Mecca, is continuing the change and reenforcing the reputation they hold.

We, as Americans, should be happy for the Iranians that support and protect the leadership of the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei. It is what they wanted and fought to bring forward.

Most Respectfully - Admittedly with some Sarcasm,
R

Rocco, you could not be more wrong. Choice and IRI should not be used interchangeably.
If you see the lasting of the current regime is Iran as legitimacy as you claim the Iranians could change the system the way they did in '79, it only shows the debt of (excuse me) your ignorance.
What choice? Wasn't the slaughter at Tehran University, daily tortures and executions enough strong signal from the mullahs that they don't tolerate dissent? Have you heard of Neda, the young bud that never had a chance to blossom? She only wanted freedom!
And your last sentence, about American happiness and Iranian support of the Grand Ayatasshole does not deserve a rebuttal. FAR OUT

 

[Saigon]

You get hung up on such stupid technicalities.!

They are called facts.

It is a fact that the man is not the king - he is the Crown Prince.

It is a fact that the Shah Snr bitterly oppressed the Kurds.

It is a fact that many Kurds supported the Islamic Revolution....at least initially.

It is a fact that under the Shah, Iran probably had the worst human rights record and the most infamous prison (Evian) and security service in the entire Middle East.

(I'm a journalist, remember - a single wrong fact means I get angry letters from California, and a terse note from my editor.)

Not really facts but misreprentations and contortions. .

Ha! No, Roudy - those are all facts.

And the fact that you simply can not tell the difference between fact and fiction is what really marks you out as such a weak poster.

But damned if it isn't funny to watch"

 

[Saigon]

If you are a journalist then I am the Queen Mary, you are a ******* moron.

Yes, I'm a journalist - why the hell else would I hang out in places like the Congo, the Golan Heights and Liberia?

I publish every so often in the US as well....if you PM me an email address, I can email you a couple of stories. I could post some pics here, too, if you like.

 

[Saigon]

. In hindsight maybe he did the right thing to leave so quickly, instead of turning his own army on his people and slaughtering them like the Syrians and many Arab leaders have done. In a way it was a judgment against the naivity of his own people who thought things were going to change for the better, and did not show appreciation for what they had.

You have to laugh, don't you?!

Why did people hate the Shah?

Maybe it wasn't helped by his blowing $100 million on a party?!

In October 1971, the 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire was held at the site of Persepolis. Only foreign dignitaries were invited to the three-day party whose extravagances included over one ton of caviar, and preparation by some two hundred chefs flown in from Paris. Cost was officially $40 million but estimated to be more in the range of $100–120 million.[95] Meanwhile drought ravaged the provinces of Baluchistan, Sistan, and even Fars where the celebrations were held. "As the foreigners reveled on drink forbidden by Islam, Iranians were not only excluded from the festivities, some were starving."[96]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_and_causes_of_the_Islamic_Revolution

How could the people not show appreciation, Roudy?!!

 

[amir]

. In hindsight maybe he did the right thing to leave so quickly, instead of turning his own army on his people and slaughtering them like the Syrians and many Arab leaders have done. In a way it was a judgment against the naivity of his own people who thought things were going to change for the better, and did not show appreciation for what they had.

You have to laugh, don't you?!

Why did people hate the Shah?

Maybe it wasn't helped by his blowing $100 million on a party?!

In October 1971, the 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire was held at the site of Persepolis. Only foreign dignitaries were invited to the three-day party whose extravagances included over one ton of caviar, and preparation by some two hundred chefs flown in from Paris. Cost was officially $40 million but estimated to be more in the range of $100–120 million.[95] Meanwhile drought ravaged the provinces of Baluchistan, Sistan, and even Fars where the celebrations were held. "As the foreigners reveled on drink forbidden by Islam, Iranians were not only excluded from the festivities, some were starving."[96]

Background and causes of the Islamic Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How could the people not show appreciation, Roudy?!!

***
If you are honest, Saigon, I answer your question.
They (those who) hated the shah because he was non Islamist. Islamic doctrine goes hand to hand with feudalism and he dared to destroy it. He freed the peasants from virtual slavery (slaved by landowners/warlords), he gave "zaeefah" ( weak gender) equality, a no no for Islamists, and the last straw was converting the Islamic calendar to the kingdom (from Mohammad era year 1300 to the year of Persian Empire year 2500)
And as for the anniversary extravaganza, yes, we heard all the criticism, but it was well worth it. The country was refurbished, the Pasargad (Persepolis) became another wonder of the world. When I saw the light show I became more proud than ever before. Besides, all the extras were those who were drafted for a two year compulsory service in the military and they loved it. Being allowed/ordered to grow beard to represent the past and not having to serve in the army.
The celebration worked wonder. It put Iran on the map (in a positive way unlike now that being Iranian carries so much liability)
Bon Voyage!

 

[RoccoR]

amir, et al,

I see this much differently.

Rocco, you could not be more wrong. Choice and IRI should not be used interchangeably.
If you see the lasting of the current regime is Iran as legitimacy as you claim the Iranians could change the system the way they did in '79, it only shows the debt of (excuse me) your ignorance.
What choice? Wasn't the slaughter at Tehran University, daily tortures and executions enough strong signal from the mullahs that they don't tolerate dissent? Have you heard of Neda, the young bud that never had a chance to blossom? She only wanted freedom!
And your last sentence, about American happiness and Iranian support of the Grand Ayatasshole does not deserve a rebuttal. FAR OUT

(COMMENT)

You see this as a repressive regime.

I see this as "Iranians" that are squelching a few dissident countrymen.

The Tehran University events demonstrate exactly what I am saying. Iranians (protecting the Government of the Grand Ayatollah - the Supreme Leader) killed their own. And this was condoned by the majority that did not rise-up and take action against the government. This is tacit approval by the majority.

Your argument is based on the idea that the government is acting against the freedom of the people. But that is (excuse me) a cop-out. It was Iranians acting against the people. The very people that guard and protect the government and give it strength ARE the Iranians. They are not quite the more honorable Persians of the Old Kingdoms and Empires, but they are Iranians the very same flavor as SAVAK; just a different manufacturer.

It doesn't matter, to the Iranian people, if you sever the Imperial Guard of the Shah or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of the Ayatollah, the savagery and dishonorable abuse of authority is exactly the same. One just hides under a Crown while the other hides under the Quran. But the savagery and abuse towards the people is pure Iranian in both instances.

You can argue that they have no choice, but that is a falsehood. The people just don't want to make the effort for change. They appreciate what they have and appreciate the governments slaughter at the University. Otherwise, the people would have mobbed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and dispatched them as they did in 1979. Remember, the Iranian Army is made up of Iranians (they are people).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[bobgnote]

If you are honest, Saigon, I answer your question.
They (those who) hated the shah because he was non Islamist. Islamic doctrine goes hand to hand with feudalism and he dared to destroy it. He freed the peasants from virtual slavery (slaved by landowners/warlords), he gave "zaeefah" ( weak gender) equality, a no no for Islamists, and the last straw was converting the Islamic calendar to the kingdom (from Mohammad era year 1300 to the year of Persian Empire year 2500)
And as for the anniversary extravaganza, yes, we heard all the criticism, but it was well worth it. The country was refurbished, the Pasargad (Persepolis) became another wonder of the world. When I saw the light show I became more proud than ever before. Besides, all the extras were those who were drafted for a two year compulsory service in the military and they loved it. Being allowed/ordered to grow beard to represent the past and not having to serve in the army.
The celebration worked wonder. It put Iran on the map (in a positive way unlike now that being Iranian carries so much liability)
Bon Voyage!

The Shah was a western-style despot, supported by a 1953 coups, which was supported by MI6 and the CIA, after the Iranians tried to nationalize their oil industry.

British Petroleum was also founded, in the wake of all this.

When US Zionism persisted, and the CIA also supported the rise of Saddam, in Iraq, the Shah was doomed. All your minor concerns about Islam are interesting but tactical, only, in light of strategic flaws in the Shah, who was a dying, western-tool, in 1979.

 

[amir]

If you are honest, Saigon, I answer your question.
They (those who) hated the shah because he was non Islamist. Islamic doctrine goes hand to hand with feudalism and he dared to destroy it. He freed the peasants from virtual slavery (slaved by landowners/warlords), he gave "zaeefah" ( weak gender) equality, a no no for Islamists, and the last straw was converting the Islamic calendar to the kingdom (from Mohammad era year 1300 to the year of Persian Empire year 2500)
And as for the anniversary extravaganza, yes, we heard all the criticism, but it was well worth it. The country was refurbished, the Pasargad (Persepolis) became another wonder of the world. When I saw the light show I became more proud than ever before. Besides, all the extras were those who were drafted for a two year compulsory service in the military and they loved it. Being allowed/ordered to grow beard to represent the past and not having to serve in the army.
The celebration worked wonder. It put Iran on the map (in a positive way unlike now that being Iranian carries so much liability)
Bon Voyage!

The Shah was a western-style despot, supported by a 1953 coups, which was supported by MI6 and the CIA, after the Iranians tried to nationalize their oil industry.

British Petroleum was also founded, in the wake of all this.

When US Zionism persisted, and the CIA also supported the rise of Saddam, in Iraq, the Shah was doomed. All your minor concerns about Islam are interesting but tactical, only, in light of strategic flaws in the Shah, who was a dying, western-tool, in 1979.

***
Another Internet Scholar

 

[RoccoR]

amir, et al,

Please note that I did say, I was being "sarcastic."

We, as Americans, should be happy for the Iranians that support and protect the leadership of the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei. It is what they wanted and fought to bring forward.

Most Respectfully - Admittedly with some Sarcasm,
R

And your last sentence, about American happiness and Iranian support of the Grand Ayatasshole does not deserve a rebuttal. FAR OUT

(COMMENT)

But there is a grain of truth (albiet small) in this.

The entire concept of "liberation" is centered on the idea that the indigenous population be given the opportunity to choose their own destiny.

It is the case that it seldom works-out well when the liberator is freeing a country from itself. Saving a country from itself is a very tricky thing; one needs only look at Iraq or Afghanistan to see how complex it can become, how much blood and treasure is requires, and how much time it will take. And even then, it may not be successful.

If, as you say, the Iranian people believe they have no choice, then they don't value the freedom as much as their lives. Whoever said --- "It's better to die fighting for freedom than to live life in chains" --- you can bet it wasn't an Iranian.

The "No Choice" defense is merely a rational to hide cowardliness and apathy.

But as Voltaire said: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

If you are a journalist then I am the Queen Mary, you are a ******* moron.

Yes, I'm a journalist - why the hell else would I hang out in places like the Congo, the Golan Heights and Liberia?

I publish every so often in the US as well....if you PM me an email address, I can email you a couple of stories. I could post some pics here, too, if you like.

Journalist for whom? Al Queda Times? Ha ha ha! Perhaps you are interviewing your clients while servicing them? If you are a journalist then I am Donald Trump.

 

[amir]

Rocco:
amir, et al,

Please note that I did say, I was being "sarcastic."
***
In this case my apology, I guess I get too emotional when fighting keyboard warriors.
I also regret typing debt in the place of depth. dam forayners huh?

 

[Roudy]

. In hindsight maybe he did the right thing to leave so quickly, instead of turning his own army on his people and slaughtering them like the Syrians and many Arab leaders have done. In a way it was a judgment against the naivity of his own people who thought things were going to change for the better, and did not show appreciation for what they had.

You have to laugh, don't you?!

Why did people hate the Shah?

Maybe it wasn't helped by his blowing $100 million on a party?!

In October 1971, the 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire was held at the site of Persepolis. Only foreign dignitaries were invited to the three-day party whose extravagances included over one ton of caviar, and preparation by some two hundred chefs flown in from Paris. Cost was officially $40 million but estimated to be more in the range of $100–120 million.[95] Meanwhile drought ravaged the provinces of Baluchistan, Sistan, and even Fars where the celebrations were held. "As the foreigners reveled on drink forbidden by Islam, Iranians were not only excluded from the festivities, some were starving."[96]

Background and causes of the Islamic Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How could the people not show appreciation, Roudy?!!

Do you laugh at yourself a lot? On the bright side thanks for providing us with free entertainment, due to your desperate attempts to cover up your stupidity and lack of real knowledge.

 

[Jos]

Roudy is a Queen, Queen Mary

 

[Roudy]

If you are honest, Saigon, I answer your question.
They (those who) hated the shah because he was non Islamist. Islamic doctrine goes hand to hand with feudalism and he dared to destroy it. He freed the peasants from virtual slavery (slaved by landowners/warlords), he gave "zaeefah" ( weak gender) equality, a no no for Islamists, and the last straw was converting the Islamic calendar to the kingdom (from Mohammad era year 1300 to the year of Persian Empire year 2500)
And as for the anniversary extravaganza, yes, we heard all the criticism, but it was well worth it. The country was refurbished, the Pasargad (Persepolis) became another wonder of the world. When I saw the light show I became more proud than ever before. Besides, all the extras were those who were drafted for a two year compulsory service in the military and they loved it. Being allowed/ordered to grow beard to represent the past and not having to serve in the army.
The celebration worked wonder. It put Iran on the map (in a positive way unlike now that being Iranian carries so much liability)
Bon Voyage!

The Shah was a western-style despot, supported by a 1953 coups, which was supported by MI6 and the CIA, after the Iranians tried to nationalize their oil industry.

British Petroleum was also founded, in the wake of all this.

When US Zionism persisted, and the CIA also supported the rise of Saddam, in Iraq, the Shah was doomed. All your minor concerns about Islam are interesting but tactical, only, in light of strategic flaws in the Shah, who was a dying, western-tool, in 1979.

Notice the lunatics always veer off into "Zionism" and Israel. No matter what.

 

[Roudy]

Roudy is a Queen, Queen Mary

And you are a Hezbollah pig, Hezbollah pig boy.

 

[Roudy]

If you are a journalist then I am the Queen Mary, you are a ******* moron.

Yes, I'm a journalist - why the hell else would I hang out in places like the Congo, the Golan Heights and Liberia?

I publish every so often in the US as well....if you PM me an email address, I can email you a couple of stories. I could post some pics here, too, if you like.

Ha, the JOURNALIST, said the Islamist Regime is "possibly" worse than the Shah's regime. Possibly, it's a toss up, like 50 / 50. Com ci, com sa. Oui Oui. The famous writer for the Torah Borah Times is posting on this board! What an honor. Ha ha ha!

 

[Roudy]

Roudy -

Just because you would never have the balls to go anywhere, doesn't mean other people don't.

It's how people who are informed, get to be informed.

Jesus, this time next month I'll be in Liberia - the month after in Benin!

How do you know I don't have the balls to travel anywhere? Hah? Again you ass u me, no? How many times do I have to bitchslap your sorry, lying, ignorant ass in public to cause enough humiliation and shame for you to stop posting your garbage? First come back to Earth and then we can talk about all the imaginary "trips" you keep telling us about.