[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Khorshid]

Those of you familiar with this character's posts in SMCCDI will no doubt remember his non-ending self-contradictions, outrageous lies and a conspicuous display of ignorance of Iranian history. As you recall, he first began with praising terrorists organizations which he characterized as "true leftists". Having found no audience eager to be deceived, he changed his tone and began praising JM. "I think that this organization is the best one out of all of them!", he wrote some days ago on this board, adding, "They are truly committed to democracy, secularism and Iran's independence."

Readers who've read even a little about the history of this organization will remind you that it was effectively DISOLVED in 1979, when Drs. Sadighi and Shahpour Bakhtiar, both members of the JM, announced their commitment to a Constitutianal Monarchy, while Sanjabi and Bazargan sided with Khomeini and an Islamic Republic. "Faramarz's" emphasis, elsewhere, that JM "has a long history" is not without reason: It is meant to deceive the reader into believing that an entity calling itself the JM today is a CONTINUATION of what was once a Constitutional Monarchist organization called Jebheye Melli. Why? In one word Mosasdegh. It must claim Dr. Mossadegh as one of its own to aquire some respectability.

As Constitutional Monarchists we may criticize Dr. Mossadegh for his diplomatic errors, but we should DEFEND his name and honor against these political charlatans and opportunists, from the communists (who actually hated him for preventing a Communist coup) to the Hizbullahis who are most eager to hijack his name.

Here's what I recommend you do. Ask yourself, If Dr. Mossadegh was a nationalist, as indeed he was, why would an anti-nationalist, a communist, a separatist, a terrorist, an Islamist, a pro-khomeini organization want to praise his name, when he would stand and indeed stood against them ALL?



Now to this character's above post. Notice that every sentence is a foregone conclusion. It is not an argument and no proof or evidence is presented:

1. "If the Iranian people vote for a Republic, which they probably will, the monarchists may try void the elections and seize power."

----Not only no evidence is provided to substantiate this outrageous accusation, but the author does not make clear how this would even be possible logistically, AND in the persent atmosphere of the Middle East, when the world's eyes are focused on the region.

2. "The British and Americans have interfered in Iran's affairs before like when they overthrew the Republican nationalist Mossadeq and brought in the puppet Shah."

---The Shah was no-one's "puppet", and quoting Khomeini, Islamist and communist "intellectuals", a thousand times here and on SMCCDI, will get you nowhere. Furthermore, if the author's concern about US and British interference is genuine, which as was demonstrated in SMCCDI it is not, then why go back 51 years when the experience of the 79 coup is far more tangible? Is it for any other reason than to smear the Shah? Readers may want to compare our Iran from 1953 to 1979, when our government was ruled by a "puppet", to our Iran from 1979 to the present. Lastly, describing Dr. Mossadegh as a "republican" is a simple falsification of history. As he was making similar baseless claims on SMCCDI, I told this author to rear Dr. Mossadegh's own memoirs. His reply was "I've read some of it!"

3. "America and Britain will do everything they can to bring a monarchy to power in Iran. "

---Why? No explanation is provided. One may want recall the complaints addressed to Radio Farda and VOA against their republican and pro-IRI bias to realize just how far the State Department is eager to "bring" ("BRING"!) the Monarchy to power.

I'm not sure about "America", but Britain will NOT allow a Constitutional Monarchy. Evidence? Read about Britain's interference and aims in Iran's politics for the past 300 years. You may also want to look into BBC's archives during 1979 when an (Islamic) republic was praised as something that the Iranians deserve, to end their pretense to a Great Civilization and to put them in a category, among third-world states such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, "where they belong."



p.s. Before I forget, not long ago this same character, a spokesman of the Iranian people, posted something under the title of "Message of Support for Berlin Conference". It was posted on February 5th.

Remember that the Berlin Conference had taken place from January 8 to 11! The article which was posted by the author on February 5th was actually written on January 9th, only a day after the commencement of the conference! The author's choice of the title and timing (the official title of the article was a simple "NUISG's letter in respect to the Republican Conference in Berlin") implies that the daneshjooyan.org's article praises the OUTCOME of the conference, when this is a deception. They did not know the outcome and if readers here bothered with articles written by republicans themselves, they may have already realized the extent to which this "conference" was dismissed as a sham and a charade.

[blank]

THANK YOU KHORSHID........

[Faramarz]

Khorshid

[Faramarz]

To all

I would just like to clarify something to all of you and respond to the accusation that I would somehow try to deny the Iranian people their choice.

After the fall of the mullahs, there will be a free and fair refrendum which will be monitered by UN and human rights organizations. Whatever the Iranian people choose, I will respect that decision. That does not mean I will necessarily agree with it, but I will not and cannot do anything about it. If the people choose a Monarchy I will respect that. If the people choose a Republic, I will respect that.

But I must warn you that this is lot 1953. Iranians are not going to put up with electoral fraud or rigging of the refrendum. If anyone tries to rig the vote or seize power illegally, we will not hide under our beds.We will arm ourselves and fight for our freedom and independence.

The people of Iran want Democracy. They want independence. They do not want another dictatorship. The people will never accept another dictator. Just keep that in my mind.

[Khorshid]

1. "Can you name the leftist organizations I praised? "

---Yes, I think so: Siahkal and the Fadayeen, both up to their necks in terrorist activities, such as armed robbery and murder, since the 70's, which they, as is the tradition in such organizations, called an "armed struggle for the liberation of the oppressed masses!"

Siahkal is the name of a small town in the jungles of the province of Gilan. In 1970 (or was it 1971) a police station in this town was attacked by members of Organization of "Iranian People’s" Fedayee Guerillas (communists and/or separatists) led by Farahani (ex-Tudeh member). Leftist (and separatist) terrorist organizations mark the day as the beginning of the arm struggle against the Shah’s "puppet" regime. Had he been a Soviet "puppet", turning Iran into a communist satellite, no doubt the Shah would have been praised. The religious and Islamic origin of the term "Fadayeen" did not prevent Russia's foot soldiers from using it.

It will also be remembered that the Fadayeen, generally called "Aksariat", have been the closest allies of Islamist "reformers". This author, who posted a link to their website and praised them as "true" leftists (what a false leftist is was not made clear; in fact not long afterwards the same author, in another show of self-contradiction, due to praising any Tom, Dick and Harry who is against the monarchy, dismissed Aksariat as "Stalinists") did not mention to other members that they were Khatami's biggest supporters in the opposition's center-left organizations. They were even interviewed by NITV where they made their position against "US imperialism" quite clear. Articles on the subject are available all over the Internet, but this Haji must think everyone an idiot.

2. I had written, "Having found no audience eager to be deceived, he changed his tone and began praising JM. 'I think that this organization is the best one out of all of them!', he wrote some days ago on this board, adding, 'They are truly committed to democracy, secularism and Iran's independence.'" He writes,

"That is a lie. I've always liked Jebhe Melli. And I still believe they are 100 times better than anti-Iranian fascists like yourself."

---What I've written does not preclude a previous and ongoing commitment by the author to JM. But JM is NOT a communist organization! If the author is committed to JM, then why praise the communists? The fact is, as I've stated, and as it has been witnessed by other activists, the author praises everyone and anyone opposed to Iran's Monarchy, looking for buyers, without a minimum concern of self-contradiction that reflects a profound ignorance of their respective and peculiar doctrines. In retrospect, this is precisely what led to the Islamic Revolution, which this author also praised as a "good idea". Amazing how much a one-dimensional mind can learn from 25 years of experience!


3. Regarding Dr. Mossadegh I wrote, "As Constitutional Monarchists we may criticize Dr. Mossadegh for his diplomatic errors, but we should DEFEND his name and honor against these political charlatans and opportunists." His reply,

"First, what diplomatic errors are you referring to? I do not think defending Iran from the greed of foriegn powers is an error. "


---The diplomatic errors I refer to certainly do not include defending Iran from the greed of foreign powers for that is not a diplomatic error; that is YOUR usual twisting of other's statement. If you cut down on the sophomoric rhetoric and slogans, and read books instead of spewing misinformation on the net, you may actually come to the realization that it was, primarily, Dr. Mossadegh's own unawareness of the extent of the Soviet threat that led to his downfall. Was it not Dr. Mossadegh who believed in a policy of "negative balance", alarming even alienating his closest friends such as Bagha'i and Macki?

You are far beyond help but others who have some familiarity with the workings of history do realize that there are ALWAYS multiple factors at work. Undue emphasis on one factor while being blind in respect to others, to arrive at or, in your case, to promote self-satisfying accounts, is no serious explanation of historical events.

It was most interesting to read : "I do not think defending Iran from the greed of foreign powers is an error." Yes, you do, for otherwise you would not praise KGB foot soldiers, separatists and an organization called the JM who sided with Khomeini, thus subjecting Iran to the greed of foreign powers, a kind of greed the likes of which only war-torn African countries have come to experience.


4. "Second, it is so sad that some monarchists are trying to claim Mossadeq as one of their own."

---That's interesting. Readers here might have read publications by Hizbullahis and communists, who in order to vilify the Pahlavis or to defend a republic, go so far as to describe all Iranian kings from Cyrus the Great onward as "dictators" and "murderers". When I read some such articles I realize that some of these arguments may have been made without such merciless assault on and the belittling of Iranian history. In other words, one need only be an IRANIAN to praise Cyrus and Reza Shah, and NOT a republican or a monarchist. Thus, it seems to me that a supporter of Dr. Mossadegh would wish EVERYONE to respect and praise him. You do not, and that's most interesting. Claim as one of our own? I know that you're british (you said so in SMCCDI under "Iranshahr"), but can you read Persian? Read his autobiography. In fact read any article on his political career.

5. "Your puppet Shah collaborated with foreign powers in throwing Mossadeq out of power...Your type are the ones who betrayed Iran in 1953. "

---Prove it (CIA's own declassified documents are available in NYTimes).

However, I'd like to see you earn your money: Your PUPPET JM and PUPPET communists (I mention both lest you change your political mask once again) collaborated with Khomeini in toppling the Iranian government of the Shah. Why do you praise them?


The extent of your hypocrisy knows no limits. Again, if your concern about US and British interference was genuine, which as was demonstrated in SMCCDI it is not, then why go back 51 years when the experience of the 79 coup is far more tangible? Is it for any other reason than to smear the Shah? No, it is not.


6. "The Shahis and Hezbollahis both claim to respect Mossadeq even though these two groups were the ones who helped to destroy the Prime Minister. It is not really that difficult to understand. They know that the Iranian people admire and respect Mossadeq. The Iranian people believe that Mossadeq was the only honest leader Iran had in its 20th century history. The Iranian people do not give a damn about the corrupt dictators that these two groups worship."

---Heavy on the rhetoric, light in content, and once again the assumption of the role of a spokesman for the Iranian people. It is my opinion that the majority of Iranians DO respect Dr. Mossadegh, much to your chagrin, for, unlike the people whom you've praised so far (from Bazargan to the communists) he was a nationalist. It is precisely for this reason that you've hijacked his name. Were he alive today, he would be right besides Shahzadeh Reza Pahlavi. [It is to be noted that while the author uses a quote/response style, the response, such as this one, does not address the quote!!! Also, relying on a tested method used daily by Communist publications, he equates what he calls "Shahis" (such as the men, women and youngsters you see demonstrating against the Islamic Republic, and who take pride in their culture and history) with Hizbullahi terrorists. While on the subject, note that communist and "reformist" Islamists refer to Khamenei as the "King." As there is no need to further discredit the mullahs, their venom is directed at the Constitutionalists.]


7. He had written, ""If the Iranian people vote for a Republic, which they probably will, the monarchists may try void the elections and seize power." I replied: "Not only no evidence is provided to substantiate this outrageous accusation, but the author does not make clear how this would even be possible logistically, AND in the present atmosphere of the Middle East, when the world's eyes are focused on the region." He puts my remarks in quotations and replies:

"I was replying to Iranian boy's claim that the Republicans might do the same."

----Reply to whomever you like, but you'll still have to explain your outrageous accusation that the monarchists may try void the elections and seize power in light of my remarks in countering it.


8. You called Mohamad Reza Shah Pahlavi a US puppet. I replied that the Shah was no-one's "puppet". Your reply:

"First, the Shah was put in power by the Americans and British. It is only natural that he would serve their interests."

----As you know, the coup failed and the Iranians managed by themselves. Interesting how you feign ignorance of Khomeinist rhetoric. During the Cold War western-European states served America's interests. Were the leaders of these states "US puppets"? This sort of confusion in which you habitually find yourself is due to your reliance on rhetoric instead of analysis. As it was obvious back then, a powerful and anti-communist Iran WAS in the United States' interest. Was it not in Iran's OWN interest? The communists think not. How about you? (In light of Iran's geo-strategic position and the effects of the embargo on Iranian oil, if someone here, who has actually read on the subject, believes that I'm overstating the Soviet threat, feel free to join this conversation.)

"The year after the coup d'etat, the Shah gave up Iran's oil industry. "

----Can you verify this? I'll particularly look forward to your reply in this regard.

"The Shah loyally served the interests of the United States first and Iran second."

---Saving Iran from communism and dismemberment was primarily in America's interest and only secondarily in Iran's interest!!?

"He was no nationalist."

---Anyone and everyone who knew the Shah considered him a nationalist and a Mihanparast. I need not remind you that the list includes severe critics of the Shah, including myself. What is interesting, again, is that while you accuse him of not being a nationalist, you praise genocidal maniacs who sided with Khomeini!!! You are very disingenuous in your concern. Would you like me to show you pictures of your "republican" colleagues of the 'Berlin conference' fame visiting communist Chinese dignitaries?


"Second, could you please show me where I quoted Khomeini or Islamist intellectuals? This is really interesting for me to see."

----Yes: Your anti-Pahlavi rhetoric in general, accusing him, like your Imam Khomeini, to have been a "US puppet" and a "brutal dictator." One may also note the rhetoric on the poster and compare it to the type of meaningless gibberish of Al-Khomeini.


9. "Are you aware that when the Shah fled Iran, Mossadeq was considering turning Iran into a Republic. His own foreign minister Fatemi called for the end of the Pahlavi dynasty. After the traitorous coup d'etat, Mossadeq was condemned to almost total isolation and depression by the Shah. In 1953, Mossadeq became a Republican and anti-monarchy. If you have any evidence against this, I would like to see it."

---You begin by stating that Mossadegh was a republican because he gave republicanism a thought when the Shah left Iran (late 53), but you end by saying that in 1953 he became a republican and "anti-monarchy"!

"If you have any evidence against this, I would like to see it."

Like I said, I'll make you earn your money. It was YOU who suggested that Mossadegh was a republican. You will therefore provide me with the evidence.

"His own foreign minister Fatemi called for the end of the Pahlavi dynasty."

---And that makes Mossadegh a republican? Incidentally, since you mention it, Fatemi's son, Dr. Shahin Fatemi is now a "traitor" monarchist (according to you) fighting the Islamist regime. Talk about ignorance!


10. "I think it is obvious. If a revolution were to happen right now, a democratic nationalist government would most likely come to power. Once the people of Iran take control of their country, they will not obey the wishes of any foreign power."

---Where did you buy your crystal ball?

"The US, along with the other western powers, want to install a puppet government that will serve their interests."

----Let's for a moment assume this hypothesis to be true. (The reader will note that this is connection with his statement that "America and Britain will do everything they can to bring a MONARCHY to power in Iran.") Nowhere is this character's anti-monarchist prejudice as clear as in this instance. If the US desired to install a puppet regime in Iran, could it not be republican puppet regime? I recommend that you go through some of your own leftist pamphlets to see just how many republican regimes all over the world are dismissed as being "US puppets".

11. "Have you read about the history and effect of imperialism on Iran?"

---I'm not as well-read as you are, but I do know a little.

"The same thing happened in other countries. In order to control a country, the imperialist powers would find some sell-outs among the native people that would serve the imperialist power."

---I agree.

"In 1953, it was the Shah..."

---The Shah was a "sell-out" while communist guerrillas trained in Libya, Iraq and Lebanon, and JM who collaborated with al-Khomeini have Iran's interests in mind!


12. "There is one thing that I agree with. Historically, Britain has not allowed Iran to become a Constitutional Monarchy. Like in 1921. The Qajar ruler, Ahmad Shah, wanted to turn Iran into a Constitutional Monarchy. When the British found out about this, they brought Reza Khan to power. Another example happened in 1953 when Iran was a Constitutional Monarchy. The British helped to destroy this government and bring to power an Absolute Monarchy."

----If you're going to re-write history, I'd rather you disagree with me. "When the British found out about this, they brought Reza Khan to power."??? What are you talking about? Reza Shah took the matter into his own hands out of a deep sense of nationalism, a rare quality among the incompetent or ineffective Qajars if you happen to know your history. Do have any other motive to belittle this Iranian hero by accusing him to have been a British puppet than to besmear the name of the Pahlavi family?

This Haji's falsification of Iran's history is effectively exposed for what is by a well documented book focusing on this very subject. It is by Cyrus Ghani:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1860646298/qid=1078229790/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-5435355-3248039?v=glance&s=books


13. The Pahlavi Shah on the throne and monarchist rulers in power would be very beneficial for the United States."


---You have the advantage of me!

[blank]

Very good, Khorshid.........Thank you again.

[Guest]

[Faramarz]

Khorshid

I don't know what type of person you are. You may be a Shahi intentionally spreading lies about nationalists. You may be a Hezbollahi trying to discredit democratic nationalistic Iranians. You might be a CIA agent for all we know. All I know about you is your obvious lack of intelligence and vicious and dishonest character. The fact that you are well aware of your lies hasn't escaped me.

Do not think for 1 minute that we Iranians will go through this crap again.We were frightened by a dictator in 1953. We were frightened by a dictator in 1979. This time, we will not be frightened. We have had enough of this crap. Take some good advice. If you want to commit yourself to Iran's well-being and a democractic and secular government, you have every right to be involved in Iranian politics. But if you want to become a stooge for some dictatorial ideology or a foreign power, I suggest you stay out of Iran's business. We have enough of anti-Iranian traitors like yourself.

btw, the above post is mine, as you probably know already.

[Iranian Boy]

keep such posts for your JM forum

[Saman]

What is it with Faramarz's rethoric that labeles those iranians who belive in a CM as non-Iranians?

[Khorshid]

"When you talk about murder, I presume you are referring to their gun battles with the Shah's military and secret police."

----I'm referring to their terrorist activities against IRAN.


"An organization that wages armed struggle against a brutal dictatorship should not be automatically labeled a terrorist organization."

----The Khomeinist/communist "brutal dictatorship" characterization is yours. Any organization that engages in terrorist acts is by definition a terrorist organization and will be automatically labeled as such.


"I know that they killed many soldiers and many of their members were killed by SAVAK."

----Yes, people do die in wars.


"If Iran were a democracy, then they would [NOT] have been terrorists. But Iran was not a democracy. "

----Iran was not a democracy yet, but was well on Her way. However, you have no reason to believe that they would not have become terrorists had Iran been democratic. For one thing, the Fadayeen were not democrats; they were communists who called for a dictatorship of the proletariat! Furthermore, the alliance of a democratic organization with Khomeini, Bazargan and murderous Hizbullahi does not reflect well on that organization!


"The Fadayeen have fought against both the Shah and Khomeini and they lost thousands of their people. "

----They lost "thousands" of their people to their ally Khomeini, not the Shah. Your sentence is very deceitfully composed, for it implies that the Shah was an accomplice in the deaths of "thousands" of Fadayeen.


"This doesn't necessarily mean that I am totally in agreement with their ideology, as you implied. I am not a Stalinist nor have I ever been one. I posted these articles because I thought the analysis was good and Marxist analysis is often very good.

----I did not imply your "total", as you put it, agreement with this or that group. However, I stated explicitly that you rely heavily on everyone and anyone opposed to Iran's Monarchy, resulting in numerous instances of self-contradiction, which is a reflection of a profound ignorance of their respective doctrines. Stalinist or not your ideology does not interest me; it is none of my business. Lastly, I cannot remember "these articles" which provided analyses, let alone "Marxist" analyses.


"Also, I do not think they would have been glad to see the Shah become a Soviet puppet. From what I have heard, the Fedayeen were independent from the Soviet Union."

----The communists (as you know, I did not confine myself to the Fadayeen only) called the Shah of Iran a "US puppet". Had he been a communist of their own ilk, you think they would have continued to label him as a "puppet" or some other derogatory term? Also, the Fadayeen, who had split from Moscow's Tudeh, were the SECOND largest terrorist or "guerilla" organization after the MKO. Independence from Moscow may be difficult to establish, but alliance with other foreign governments to wage war against Iran's government is hardly less treacherous. I say by way of passing, as this relates to what I'm about to say next, that the Fadayeen were themselves split into two organizations, "Aghaliat" and "Aksariat." It was the latter which realigned itself with TUDEH and threw its unconditional support behind the Mullahs.


"Also, they [Fadayeen Aksariat] are not aligned with the reformists as you claim."

----I did not say they ARE. I said they WERE. I'll just have to write what I said in bold letters and will wait for an explanation for your inability to read it:

It will also be remembered that the Fadayeen, generally called "Aksariat", have been the closest allies of Islamist "reformers". This author, who posted a link to their website and praised them as "true" leftists...did not mention to other members that they were Khatami's biggest supporters in the opposition's center-left organizations. They were even interviewed by NITV where they made their position against "US imperialism" quite clear. Articles on the subject are available all over the Internet.

Nevertheless, I feel the need to add, for the sane readers here, that organizations which supported the Islamist Republic until very recently do not deserve the slightest respect or credit . The recent reversal of policy in AKSARIAT and JM to boycott these last elections is not to their credit, but to the credit of the Iranian people. The Iranian people left these opportunists no choice.


"They are calling for a revolution against the regime. If you visit their site, you will see that they call the Islamic Republic an "imperialist dependent" regime."

----I am concerned with substance, not appearance.


"Honestly, do I actually have to prove that the CIA and MI6 brought the Shah to power?"

----Honestly, if you can do any better than Kinzer, then yes by all means.


"If you want, you can go and read the declassified documents yourself. I am sure you will find some interesting facts."

----I've read it. If you like to read, it is, as I said, available in the NYTimes website.


"Second, Jebhe Melli made a mistake by trusting Khomeini. They did the same thing that millions of Iranians did. However, you are trying to make us believe that it was Jebhe Melli that brought Khomeini to power. Do you really think the Iranian people would have listened to Jebhe Melli if they had stopped supporting Khomeini?"

----I don't see how this is a reply to my question as to why you praise them. Because they shared that "mistake" (which before you called a "good idea"!!!) with others and destroyed Iran they should be excused
on that ground? Drs. Shahpour Bakhtiar and Sadighi knew that it would only lead to disaster and destruction and stood besides the Shah. What makes you believe that it was a mistake ON THE PART OF JM when grown men like Sanjabi and Bazargan knew EXACTLY what they were doing?


"The US and Britain did intervene in 1979. They knew that the Shah was finished. They knew that a nationalist government might come to power if the Shah was overthrown. So they worked to prevent this. This is why they brought Khomeini to power."

----They intervened long before 1979. As you know, an SOB Democrat called Kennedy wanted to overthrow him. The US and britain did not decide to intervene overnight; there was, naturally, much planning to guarantee the desired outcome. It was they, along with France, who "finished" the Shah. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by...they knew that a nationalist government might come to power if the nationalist government (what your ilk commonly call "the Shah") was overthrown. Also, you neglected to reply why someone genuinely concerned with foreign interference has to go back 51 years, just in order to delegitimize the Shah, when the experience of the 79 coup is far more tangible.


"First, I did never praised Bazargan."

----Yes, just as you've never praised or appologized for terrorists, anti-Iranian communists and the JM.


"I remember talking to Spenta about this. She said that Bazargan had ordered the massacre of the Kurds in 1979. I denied this and posted a link showing that it was Khomeini who took command of the armed forces and massacred the Kurds. Spenta didn't reply after this."

----Spenta did not say that Bazargan "ORDERED" the massacre of the Kurds. You are falsifying her charge in order to refute it, for as I and others saw with our own eyes, you provided nothing in SMCCDI, although she did make you work overtime, to refute the fact that as Khomeiniye Dajjal's "Prime Minister" he was an accomplice to the Kurdish massacres. Would you like ME to produce a document showing Bazargan praising an international Islamist terrorist for taking care of the "Kurdish problem"? EH, YOU SHAMELESS LIAR?


"Second, I again find it interesting that you, a Shahollahi, would praise Mossadeq. Your type are the ones who have been calling him a Communist, Soviet puppet, traitor and Islamist for the past 50 years. Now that you realize that Mossadeq is loved by so many Iranians, you are suddenly changing your tune and praising him. That is pathetic."

----What is a Shahollahi? Is this a term you republicans use to equate nationalists with Islamists to discredit the opposition for your own benefit? I won't respond to your slogans and violent display of idiocy. I will only remind you that it was you and your type who sided with the genocidal Khomeini when the nationalists, who've always respected Dr. Mossadegh, sided with Shahpour Bakhtiar and Iran's Monarchy. What IS pathetic is your baseless and shameful generalizations.



"I know that you have a deep hatred of Mossadeq that you are trying to repress. I can easily tell."

----Fine.


"One moment you praise Mossadeq, the next moment you say that he would have brought Iran under Soviet domination."

----I think that he would rather have died than to see Iran brought under Soviet or british control. The Soviets, given TUDEH'S influence, would have brought themselves into Iran.


"Almost everyone knows that Khomeini was much worse than the Shah."

----I'm not sure what you mean by "everyone", but in my opinion they are incomparable.


"One could also say that Hitler was worse than Mussolini, even though we know that both were very bad."

-----Charming analogy. And you complain why you've been called a backward Hizbullahi.


"The Shahis want a Monarchist dictatorship..."

----What is a "Shahi"? Is it a particular small faction of the monarchists or do you mean all monarchists in general...SUCH AS these compatriots:



----Faramarz, the little girl looks like Eva Brown does she not?!!!


"As I said, Iranians are fed up with dictators. We are fed up with violent and hateful ideologies. I am an Iranian who wants a Democracy. What do you want?"

----Democracy, independence, development, and a socialist cabinet under a constitutional monarchy.


"Also, it is ridiculous to say that those protesting against the Islamic Republic are Shahis. "

----It is, IF we do not specify to which protests we are referring!!! BTW, I'm only ASSUMING that by "Shahis" you mean monarchists, for am not familiar with Hizbullahi, thug lingo.)


"Haven't you seen the pictures of Mossadeq that they carry? Haven't you heard those students who call Rafsanjani "Akbar Shah" and call Khameini the Shah? "

----I've seen many students carrying Dr. Mossadegh's pictures. Are they by that very fact anti-monarchists? Did you know that carrying Reza Pahlavi's poster would land the students in EVIN? Did you know that the mass printing of Mossadegh posters is LEGAL making it widely available, while the printing of MRP or Reza Pahlavi's posters is ILLIGAL?


"Haven't you heard those students who call Rafsanjani "Akbar Shah" and call Khameini the Shah? "

----I cannot help not hearing it, as reports about these students are the most publicized of all in Islamist and communist news organs.


"Don't you know that Shahis are probably less than 5% of the population of Iran? "

----No. Where did you find out?


"Even if it is true that there are a few Shahis that demonstrate against the regime, it doesn't mean much."

-----Well, is it true or is it not true? Make up your mind.


"Mujahads also demonstrate against the regime. Should we say nice things about them?"


-----If by "nice things" you mean praise, and by “Mujahads” you mean the Mojahedeen then Yes by all means. Funny how I should TELL you that.



"First, I suggest you ask Iranian boy the same question since he was the one who posted the topic. You are very hypocritical by only asking me this question."

----This is his reply to my comment below:

...You'll still have to explain your outrageous accusation that the monarchists may try void the elections and seize power in light of my remarks in countering it.

My earlier remarks were, of course:

Not only no evidence is provided to substantiate this outrageous accusation, but the author does not make clear how this would even be possible logistically, AND in the present atmosphere of the Middle East, when the world's eyes are focused on the region.

----It's quite laughable that you think it 'hypocritical' of me to address the question to you. It was YOU who made the remark!


"Second, there is a legitimate fear that the monarchists will try to seize power illegally. They did the same thing in 1953. They ruled undemocratically for 26 years. They have a long history of acting against the will of the Iranian people and this goes back to the Constitutional era. The monarchist leaders know how unpopular they are. They know that the Iranian people would never vote for them. There are only two ways they can get in power; a US invasion or a coup d'etat."

-----You're just REPEATING what you've said a hundred times already. You are not providing any evidence to back-up your claim. "They,"..."the same thing"...."a long history of"....can you at all write clearly? You can't because LIES, if not shrouded with such vague and abstract use of words, can easily be seen for what they really are.


"In case you weren't aware, the coup did succeed and the Shah came to power. That is why we are in this mess today."

----I'll wait and see if you can do better than Kinzer and then I might just be convinced. "Mess"? You call genocide a simple "mess" and put a smiley next to it? I don't think that YOU are in this "mess", as you've demonstrated that you enjoy eating your own LAJAN. However, next time you reply, here's another thing you'll have to explain AND EXPLAIN GOOD:

THE SHAH OF IRAN IS TO BE BLAMED FOR THIS "MESS" WHEN YOU AND YOUR KIND SUPPORTED KHOMEINI AND THE COMMUNISTS IN THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION? THE SHAH IS TO BE BLAMED FOR THE SALE OF IRANIAN GIRLS AND WOMEN IN THE ARAB SHEIKDOMS? THE SHAH IS TO BE BLAMED FOR 50,000 DEATHS IN BAM? THE SHAH IS TO BE BLAMED FOR 4.5 MILLION IRANIAN REFUGEES ABROAD? THE SHAH IS TO BE BLAMED FOR THE LOSS IF IRANIAN TERRITORY IN MAZANDARAN? THE SHAH IS TO BE BLAMED FOR 6 MILLION DRUG ADDICTS AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PROSTITUTES AND RUNAWAY KIDS?



"Here is one source. "

----Source to what? Care to point out what constitutes GIVING AWAY Iran's oil industry and where in this article your claim is substantiated?


"This brings me again to Mossadeq. Just a moment ago, you praised Mossadeq as a nationalist. You are implying that he would have brought Iran under Communism and caused its dismemberment. Your hatred of Mossadeq and his legacy has been exposed."

-------!


"The only thing the Shah saved Iran from was Democracy."

----If you had said that Iran under the Shah was not democratic, I would have agreed. However this statement is FALSE for it means that the Shah did not serve the interests of Iran IN THE LEAST. Was this not in fact a Khomeinist accusation hurled at him?


"For the first ten years of his rule, the Shah was supported by the mullahs..."

-----But not the Iranian people? The Shah replaced his father on the Throne in September 1941. From 41 to 51 he had all kinds of supporters. Why do you single out the Mullahs?

"...including Khomeini."

-----Here you put your foot in your mouth. Read a biography or two of Khomeini. He met the Shah, for the FIRST time in 1945, a meeting which Mullah Tehrani himself described as "hate at first sight"! Khomeini hated the Shah as he did his Father Reza Shah the Great.


"Remember that the mullahs had helped bring the Shah to power."

----No dear; he sat on the Throne without needing permission or help from the Mullahs.


"For these ten years, secular nationalists and leftists were the main opponents of the Shah. They were calling him a brutal dictator and US puppet long before Khomeini became popular. By saying this, you are implying that anyone who thought the Shah was a dictator is a Khomeini supporter."

----You know, I've just noticed something: You seem fully ignorant of the fact that the Shah's reign began in 41 not 53!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"When the Shah betrayed him, Mossadeq became a republican. That is a fact."

-----You see what I mean by circular arguments? (This from someone who states that Mossadegh was a republican because he gave republicanism a thought!)


"It appears that you have been indoctrinated with monarchist propaganda. Everyone knows that the British brought Reza Shah to power. "

-----Hizbullahis and/or communists like you are not EVERYONE, and those who do are mistaken. I just gave you a link to the best-documented work on the subject. Buy it, or borrow it from a library, and tell me what it is you disagree with. OK?


"This does not necessarily mean that I considered him to have been a terrible ruler. I am undecided on this issue. He did some good and some bad. "

----What was "bad" in your opinion of whom you do not "consider" to have been a "terrible" ruler? "Not terrible!"


"He wanted to model Iran on the Ataturk's Republic in Turkey. The Iranian mullahs knew what happened to the mullahs in Turkey and they prevented Reza Shah from doing this. Reza Shah became the king because he thought he needed the support of the mullahs at the time."

----True.

"It's bad enough that your calling me stupid names, it seems you can't decide which ideology I follow."

---- If you have an ideology it is of no interest to me, Haji.

[Guest]

[Faramarz]

Once again, the above post is mine.

Khorshid

We'd better keep this little debate short. It takes a while to reply to these long posts of yours and I'm sure you feel the same way. You have your opinions and I have mine. If you don't like my way of thinking, that is fine. If you knew me better, you'd see that I am fairly tolerant of other's point of view. If others show respect towards me, I will respect them. I would enjoy these debates much more if you weren't so focused on personal attacks. It's ok to attack my ideas. Just don't attack me. later

[pahlavi]

The king will return and you can nothing do about it damn anti_patriots!
His Majesty Cyrus Reza Pahlavi II will return!
Mosadegh was a ghgar prince and that was why he was anti_pahlavi but in spite of all still the prime minister of Shah!
If the support wasn t included,Mosadegh would never be able to sack british out of Iran and the profits of Iran!
Mosadegh never wanted the Republic but the constintial Monarchy what his majesty Cyrus Reza Pahlavi II believe in!
You have proved the Republic in Iran with the nasty as Islamic Republic and it s enough!
The one who will be sacked this time are Anti-King Cyrus the great
Ou way is the way of King Cyrus the Great,Babak and Dariush........;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shahineazadi
_________________
I am babak Khoramdin

[blank]

You are now claiming that I am a Haji? Just a while ago, you were calling me a Communist, seperatist, Jebhe Melli supporter and some other silly labels. Now you claim that I am a hezbollahi, having absolutely nothing to back up this ridiculous claim.

It's bad enough that your calling me stupid names, it seems you can't decide which ideology I follow. At least have some consistancy and pick one. You sound like an idiot. later [/quote]

Guest are you the same as Faramarz??......your dogma sound exactly the same, sort of ignorant and confused anything that is againt Pahlavis is good, repeating the same crap he does........or maybe you are his "student".........