TREASON IS A MATTER OF DATES: Constitutionalist Response to a Jomhurykhah Query


TREASON IS A MATTER OF DATES: Constitutionalist Response to a Jomhurykhah Query
by Darius Kadivar

I was asked by my dear Jomhurykhah cyber friend Ari Siletz in his recent blog as to what was Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi’s position on the MEK/MKO Terror delisting development. Here is Our Response ... ;0)








Constitutional Monarchists official position and that of the man we consider as our legitimate sovereign Reza Shah Dovom regarding the MKO is what it has always been:

The MKO are Jomhurykhahs who wish to reform the Republic they helped create 32 years ago but by means of violence. Where as you folks wish to Reform the same Republic ( which in your book and that of your like minds is still legitimate) but through Peaceful Means whilst being raped, tortured, imprisoned and killed in slow fire by the People You folks put to Power  (or morally and politically endorsed) 32 years ago.


In Short that the Predicament of your Former Jomhurykhah Allies is of no direct concern to us ...


For Only Birds of a feather flock together :



REPUBLICAN OFFSPRING: Massoud Rajavi at Tehran University during Presidential Campaign(1980)

REPUBLICAN OFFSPRING: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in Savak Prison (1970's)



All the more that We have our own naughty Offsprings to worry about :


Crown Prince Reza Slams 'Shahollahis'


Or as the French Would Say : « A Chacun Sa Merde » …



Translation: It's Up to You To Take Care of Your Own Troublesome Jomhurykhah Offsprings ! 















When Leaders Meet – Mohamad Reza Shah Dismisses Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh:


The Real Conversation between the Shah and Mossadegh when he was deposed in 1953 for Switching Loyalties





When Leaders Meet - Reza Shah Dovom Meets President Massoud Rajavi On Capitol Hill:


Real Conversation between the Persian Prince and the Persian Zealot Thug behind closed doors on Capitol Hill which the Juvenile Trita Parsi missed to note in his Book Treacherous Alliances simply because he was not present. I was ... (just notice the Fat Guy Sitting in the clip ;0) ... )





After an Unofficial Visit to Camp Ashraf, Crown Prince Reza Calls On UN to Stop Massacre of it’s unarmed MKO Residents:








Oh and On a Last Note by the Way ... 


We Constitutionalists Have Been Accountable for Our Shortcomings ...



ROYAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Crown Prince Reza Praises Mossadegh's Patriotism (ANDISHEH TV)

ROYAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Crown Prince Reza on Torture During His Father's Rule

Have YOU ? ...

pictory:(FOR REFERENDUM BASHERS) Women Punched in Face by Revolutionaries

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Man Chased by Anti Shah Protestors During Shah's US Visit (1977)

"An unemployed court jester is nobody's fool." - DK aka Danny Kaye ;0)




Future Grand Chambellan of the Restored Pahlavi Court


Diary in Exile 18th of July, 2011

Paris, France 


Recommended Readings:

REZA’s CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc by Darius KADIVAR


RESPONDING TO REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc in the Making ... by Darius KADIVAR

Related Pictory:

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

RESTORATION: Shapour Bakhtiar advocates Restoring the Monarchy

TORN APART: How Iran's Revolution Divided Sisters Mahnaz (Afkhami) and Farah

Related Blogs:

PRIMARY COLORS: Reza Pahlavi and Trita Parsi Take a Stroll Down The Political Lane ;0)

YES, PRIME MINISTER: A Step By Step Guide To Mossadegh's Premiership and the Coup of '53 ...

Other Related 'Critical Outlook' Blogs:

Shadi Sadre's Rebuttal of Massoud Behnoud's Endorsement of IRI Constitution

The Exiled Iranian Jomhurykhah's Lesson On Democracy

COMPLAINING JOMHURYKHAH: What Have the Pahlavis EVER Done For Us ? ;0)

Banisadr On Risks and Conditions Of Seeing Reza Pahlavi Restored

SHEKAYAT KOJA ? Akbar Ganji say's Iran has less than 1000 Political Prisoners

DEVIL's ADVOCATE: Mir-Hossein Mousavi 'involved in massacre', says report

DEATH - VERTISING ? Mehrangiz Kar Claims Husband was No More a Monarchist

GUNFIGHT AT OK CORRAL: Co-Starring Fakhravar & Batebi ?

LOST IN TRANSLATION: NIAC Welcomes Hamid Dabashi on Advisory Board

COLUMBIA PRESENTS: Academic Excellence With Hamid Dabashi & Sadri Bros

WOMEN KNOW YOUR LIMITS: The Shah's Post Mortem Apologies to Barbara Walters and Oriana Fallaci

FINALLY GETTING IT RIGHT: Shirin Ebadi say's "I Don't believe in an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights"

IRANICAN MOFTKHOR: From a 1/2 "Pahlawi" EYE-RANIAN Coin to why people resist new theories (sic)

Ebrahim Golestan: "The Shah's Coronation Made Me Wanna Vomit" (BBC)

SATIRE: The Burqa Republic of Our IRANICAN Dreams ;0)



more from Darius Kadivar

Shah and his legacy for hirre

by Siavash300 on

The illetracy rate dropped from 85% back in 50's to 45% by late 70's. That came from Sepah-e-danesh going to remote area of country to educate people. Political education is result of being able to read and write. Yes, we are developing country. No comparison between Iran and modern countries such as Swiss which celeberated 400 years of their university during 70's. Until 1935, Reza Shah the great, established Tehran university the highest level of education in Iran was high school diploma.  
Even though shah and his administration deligently fighted with illeteracry ,  45% of our population were not able to read and write their names back in 70's. Forget college education. 45% means, half of Iran's population couldn't read or write. That number is very competitive with other developing countries such as Syria. The most important aspect of "white revolution" was demolishing relatinship between "Feudal and peasants". In that, any virgin girl should sleep with feudal first night of her marriage. First principle of white revolution banned that practice. Rashed, the clergy, man was talking about that practice all the time in state radio back in 60's.

Democratic Republic of Turkmanistan, Democratic Rep. of Azarbaijan, Dem. Rep. of Tajikistan, Democ. Rep. of ..... and finally Dutch Democratic Rep. DDR in East Germany. Those were Democratic countries in those days back by USSR. Majority of them surronding Iran. Do you see any democracy in those countries. U.S and Brits didn't cheat on those countries and left them to be what you call them democratic. STASI secret police of East Germany knew which men are impotent in their sexual relationship with their wives by listening to their conversation in their bed room by putting wires inside the wallls. Of course that is a joke but nasty, corrupted secret police were putting wire inside people's houses and listening to their conversation.  Now, if any of these coutries who were controlled by K.G.B were really democratic I would have considered democratic view strongly,but unfortunately, thery were not. If TROTSKY with his idea of "social democracy" had some sympathizers inside Iran and advocating social democracy such as what you are saying I would have consider those type of establishment if shah wouldn't return. That claim is just as someone says: if shah wouldn't return in 1953, Islamic Republic would have been established. Do you see how far is this statement from reality ?  The person can rationalize his statement by saying Ayatollah Kashani played a major role. That would have brought Islamic state back then if shah wouldn't return.  This claim is exactly the same as talking about democratic country if shah wouldn't return.  Just look at those countries surronding Iran, Turkamanistan, Taj..... NO comparison between Iran while shah was on power with those poor,deprived countries. How can you compare Iran under smart leadership of shah and our progress in those days with those deprived countries back by Soviet Union? That is reality, not my fantasy. Shah's smart decision in favor of free world during his 3 days staying in Rome and his quick reaction to U.S proposal saved Iran from a grave disaster. That disaster would have been beyond imagination. I can see that disaster by just looking at those countries surronding Iran in those days.... Kazakhestan, Turkmanstan......The same disaster we experieced during last 32 years but with different lable. In 1953  "Democratic Repulic" was a lable. In 1979, "Islamic  Rep." was a lable. Both had been putting Iran in such a mess we are experiencing these days. Both had been against "Free world" and "free nature of human beings". Both had been against idea of westerners and the way they run their countries. The idea that created countries on which everybody wants to immigrate. The countries everybody wants to live there these days.

Shah played a major role in global democracy in the region by supporting "free world" and "free enterprises".  His legacy of "Nationalism in the Shahanshahi army" saved Iran from the hands of bedraggled arabs during 8 year war with Iraq. His great contibution to Iran's history will never be forgotten.


hirre too many if's in your comment

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

The best thing for Iran and the world was the shah and is still the shah.

That is not romantizing that is fact and based on history.  His period was extraordinary for iranians in terms of freedom, progress and development.

Shah would have created a democratic republic had it been a true possibility, but it was not and has never been. He more than anyone helped create a free, educated, skilled and prosperous country which could with time have become democratic, but the forces against iran were united and greater than his.


The problem

by hirre on

The problem is that a few people still want to romanticize the shah even after we have all the facts on the table. No matter of what you say, they will counter it with speculations our claiming that the facts are wrong...

The only reason some people still are attached to the late shah is because the current regime is more disgusting and the fact that themselves (or their parents) most probably had a rather good life before the revolution.

However, if the republic created in 1979 would have been a democratical republic then most probably over 5 millions iranians would not have lived abroad and only a very small percentage of the iranian people in general would still want a const. monarchy... If we remember the events that took place before the revolution the shah was actually willing to give more "power" to the people, but the people rejected it because it came too late and the fact that there was no trust left.

What can be said about the actual situation in Iran is that people will never ever (not a chance) want a const. democratical monarchy if the choice is between that and a truly democratical republic (which the green movement is all about). The reason is simple: fear. Fear of history repeating itself one way or the other. Middle-east and kings don't go well together when looking from the people-perspective. Someone always ends up paying the bill... Iranians don't want to see a symbol of being ruled, even though the symbol lacks actual power. Other than that there won't be any shah-candidates left in the future (only distant relatives), hence it becomes a really silly display.

Putting things in perspective really helps sometimes...


The MEK (Mojahedeen-e Khalq) .....

by R2-D2 on

May be forgiven by God, but "Never" by the Iranian people ..... !

Period .. End Of Story :) !




One of your best, DK

by Rea on

In other words, monarchists are saying: 

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".

PS. Love the title od the blog. So true, profound.



by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Sorry DK, just went down a rabbit trail as MKO have been guilty of treason.

Anyone here want MR and Mrs Rajavi as president?

Well me neither, but I got a feeling we are either going to have to bend over and accept her as our future president...

unless enough people can unite behind reza pahlavi after akhoonds fall, which they will fall for sure eventually.




by R2-D2 on

The problem with the Shah was that everytime he ran into a significant problem, he Fled Iran:

Back in 1953, when he had the problems with Dr. Mossadeq, he fled to Rome - While there, he was seriously contemplating the option of becoming a gentleman-farmer in Connecticut, U.S.A.

However, the British and the Americans rescued him, and by setting up a coup against Mossadeq, brought him back ..... !

A similar situation happened in 1979, and the Shah fled to Panama instead - But this time, there were no Americans or British to rescue him -

The Western Powers  had already decided to replace Shah with Khomeini to stand up to the Soviet Communism back then - Their faith in the Shah had been shaken by the crazy statements that he was making in the 1970's (Go to YouTube, and see the Shah's interviews with Barbara Walters, Orianna Fallaci, Mike Walters, etc.) -

I hope everything is clear now - I know that some Monarchists like to re-write history - But these are well-documented facts, and are available both in Print and Other Media ..... !











R2D2, not sure I agree with you that shah's problem was just

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

on the idea that shah's problem was just the clergy.

I think that was part of it only.

His problems were:

1) All his allies in the west were united that shah must go and islam is god for iran, the middle east and north africa.

2) The main stream media in the west expertly assasinated him.

3) His allies funded irans fundamentalist opposition and provided weapons and training

4) The White house denied Iran the sale of water cannons, bullet proof vests and most importantly plastic bullets, plastic trunchens and tear gas to peacefully break riots.

5) Iranians believed bbc and western media above the Shahs people... to the point of being enraged with the Shah.

6) He and several of his top leaders were dying with cancer, prime minister alam, speaker of the parliament, his personal doctor.

7) no parent had ever taught their child what happens when you are free and you use that freedom irresponsibly.  Freedom was totally a new thing and did not really occur for society as a whole until after 20 years of shah coming to power, 1966.  That will take a few tries to learn as a society.  Iranian irresposibility was the worse factor of them all, from standpoint of a person who spent his entire life helping deliver freedom, because such a person could not then take it away, if so why did he create it in the first place.

Darius Kadivar

By the way this blog was supposed to be about the MKO ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Thank you for staying focused ...

If you can that is ... 


You have a point about his father

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Not saying that force would not have had results either.  It certainly did in the positive sense for china during tianiman square.  

But he was his own person and not the kind to kill large numbers of his own people, which he spent his life serving.  The people of Iran were free to chose and they did so irresponsibly.  So they are the ones that have to live with tyrany in place of freedom.

Shahs mission was to transform Iranians, if you look at it from the standpoint of raising peoples collective wisdom and shinning light on the elements of society that based on deceit have been harming the spirit of iran for centuries, there is no doubt his actions were and are beneficial.  He can only do so much, that he did it with decency and as honestly as possible  does ot detract from him, but undermines his enemies.

After all the USA used to propagate about Shahs savak torturing innocents, its clear for the whole world to see today after guantanemo, abu ghraib, afghanistan etc etc who the real tyrants with the black hats are and who the good guys with the white hats were.



Poor comparison between shah and Reza shah

by Siavash300 on

"The Shah never knew how to effectively deal with the Mullahs " R-2, O2

That could attributes to two factors.

A. Reza Shah belong to era that was distinctively different with shah. His idea of modernization of country countered with a lots of resistance among shia clergies. Reza shah had to overcome all those shia clergies resistance to improve the country. He had to fight with every single of them for modernization. Majority of people couldn't even read or write. Reza shah established Tehran University in 1935. That means the highest degree of education was high school diplom till 1935. Shah era was complelety different.  Shah didn't have that resistance. Majority of shia clergies admired shah and they were pro -shah. some of them receiving monthly income from monarch. Many of them praised him for his smart leadership. No reason for shah to be against them. Shah belong to all sections of society. That includes clergies as well. 

B. Shah personal believes and habits was distictively different than Reza shah. Shah was like any other iranians had some relgious believe that made him different than Reza shah. He went to Haj once if I am not mistaking. He used to visit holy shrine of Imam Reza once a year. Like thousands and thousands Iranians. After all shia had been Iranians primary religion.(93% of population are shia).  




by R2-D2 on

In all due respect, your comments below are nothing but Excuses :) !

The Shah's father, Reza Shah, knew how to deal effectively with the Mullahs, and indeed, did so - A great deal of progress was made in Iran during Reza Shah, including freedoms that were made available to women -

Many of the things Reza Shah did were opposed by the Mullahs - Including the freedom for women - However, he stood his ground, and ultimately prevailed -

The Shah never knew how to effectively deal with the Mullahs - He thought that he could appease them by building a huge number of Mosques, etc. during his reign -


As I have said, everything that I have mentioned above are well-documented - Both in Print And Other Media :) !





Maybe my views are skewed, a possibility no doubt

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

I formed many of my views by the answers the shah gave in his interviews, but have you ever thought if the shah's answers were true, just how skewed everyone elses point of view is on the Shah.

Logically speaking Shahs testimony makes more sense to me, unlike the views of those that fall into the category of the blamers.  We all know that it is almost  impossible for the assertions made to be true, that everyone else was perfect, iranians were flawless and the only person to make a mistake was the Shah and if it was not for him/had he not erred, all would be fine.

That explanation is people attempting to defend their own character, which history has now proven to my satisfaction is indefensible and sadly do it at the expense of a peaceful leader that abhorred violence and injustice and brought more peace and cooperation for iranians than any other leader in iran since the advent of islam.



R2 D2 Shah not fighting mullahs was the right thing to do

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

He made it very clear a leader can not use the peoples weapons on them.  That is because he was no dictator as the world media disingenuously portrayed him.

He also made clear that if he were an iranian citizen that was not the head of state he would have stood his ground and fought to defend his freedom and the constitution that provided it.  I don't feel the generals protected the constitution well, which was their job, and instead wrote and signed a declaration that the army was neutral, with absolutely no support or acceptance by the Shah, in fact in direct oppositon to the orders that had been sent to uphold the law and constitution in anyway necessary. 

Later it was discovered that none of the top generals with the exception of gharabaghi who was given the order to pass it to the others, knew of it's existence.  That act was itself an act of treason, misleading the military, for which he received the french medal of honor and was the only general to leave iran for a good life in the west.

No King based on Irans Traditions can unleash war on his own people, if he had, he would have been among the worst kings in Irans history, along with the qajars and a tyrant, not the best king which is how he was essentially forced to leave the deceived people of iran.  Many know the truth, with time those that know are slowly becoming a majority.




by R2-D2 on

I don't know how old you are, but apparently you have a very skewed view of history -

I remember distinctly the events surrounding the 1979 Revolution - When the Shah fled Iran, I want to repeat that: Fled Iran, his Generals were one by one arrested, and subsequently executed -

I have discussed this very issue with the blogger here on a number of previous occasions  - If the Shah was a true leader, and a brave one at that, he should have staid in Iran (and Not Fled), and fought these Bastard Mullahs with his armed forces and Generals -

But again, he chose to flee, and it was after he Fled Iran, that his Generals: Khosro-dad, Rahimi, etc., were one by one arrested, and subsequently executed -

P.S. I know that some of you Monarchists Do Not Like facts that undermine your arguments - However, I would like to encourgae you to go to the archives of the newspapers of the time, or even better, video clips available on the internet, and see all the documentation for yourself -

Everything That I Have Mentioned Above Are All Quite Well Documented - Both In Print And Other Media ..... !




Aynak.. Let me make it very simple for you

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

and the many many others that are in agreement with you and in need of the light of truth to be shone on their remorseless and shameful thoughts that have lead to misery for Iranians


Pahlavi Shah's were the best thing for Iranians and the peace of the world.

IRI were the Worst thing for Iranians and the best gift for the USA and west which has used them as a pretext to dominate the entire middle east.

Mossadegh was a good Iranian, upto the point he and his foreign minister chose to openly betray the Shah in the pursuit of power.

Darius Kadivar

I see so you rely on Foreign Documents to shape your opinion

by Darius Kadivar on

I see so you rely ONLY on Foreign Documents to shape your opinion on a domestic issue of National and Historical interest ? ...

I always thought history was about confronting versions on a given event in order to get a Full Picture given that nothing in history is Black or White but includes levels of Grey in between. Any student in History will tell you that history is Not Rocket Science. 


You call it a Coup, others call it a Counter Coup:  


THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ?


Former Diplomat Parviz Rajji, and Historians Mashadollah Ajoudani and Abbas Milani on the Shah's role in the Coup of 1953:

Video Here

NOTE: Also See Related BBC Interview of Mashadollah Ajoudani on the Iranian Intellegenstia and the Coup of 53 Here ) 


As for Treason  ...


Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"?


SEPARATIST TEMPTATIONS: Don't Let It Fool You ... Treason Exists ... 



Well I guess we don't have the same definition of Patriotism ...


FOR KING AND COUNTRY: Farzan Deljou's interview with General Bahram Aryana (1981)

FOR KING AND COUNTRY: Vice-Admiral Kamal Habibollahi Press Conference after Tabarzin Takeover (1981)

You are entitled to yours Don't try to define mine !


R2 D2 Not saying Mek did not commit treason

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

MEK is a dictionary definition of treason, aiding a foreign national enemy at time of war.

My point was to the parents of all those who lost children as young as 12, as well as to the people of Iran which supported IRI in favor of shah and those tolerating it today in favor of shah.

I say you are just as guilty based on non islamic iranian values of being gutless traitors committing the highest treason of all and you put irans children in a position of paying for your gutless crimes.

The war was started because of your treasonous  movement which lead to the betrayal and murder of hundred of top loyal iranian genrals and almost the entire airforce and the innocent children of these officers.

By betraying Irans best you made the likelyhood of a war possible, where as before their murder without trial, ther lives would have made an attack on iran suicide and would have been repelled in weeks.

With little left of a trained air force and no military command of experience the self inflicted costs were high.

Even worse, the traitors leading iran for the last 32 years know it was they who extended the war by 7 years after iraqi's wanted to stop, with nothing what so ever to show for it.  

The truth must be told to each and every Iranian famly of how and why their children died NEEDLESSLY and who is responsible, passing the blame to the shah worked in the 70's and it is that act above all which is the most treasonous, gutless and disingenuous.


Treason is not a matter of dates, it is a well defined concept

by aynak on

Because of the prevailing despotism orginiating from a one man-rule (Shah or Valeeh Fagheeh, really the same), it has been customary to try to --redefine-- even the most basic concepts like --treason-- to fit the mold.

Based on well documented history, and as I gave example in CIA files, Shah's action amounted to treason.    No amount of circling around, spinning, trying to find excuses can change that.





Darius Kadivar

You mean the irresponsible & cojoneless parents of these kids ?

by Darius Kadivar on

SARBAZ: Fereidoun Farrokhzad helps child soldiers of Iran Iraq War


Whose parents did not have the "cojones" to fight themselves on the frontlines but accepted to see their kids be sent to clean the minefields in exchange of a plastic key for paradise with the full endorsement of the Founder of your Republic who did not have the "cojones" himself to fight in the line of fire.


But then I guess it takes a great deal of "cojones" to show off about ones offsprings having been martyred: 


Ahmadinejad Meets Martyr's Family



all the more that the family of those poor brave kids can benefit from government subsidies for their son's contribution in defense of the Republic they never chose in the first place (but imposed on them by their clueless parents ) which sacrificed their youth and continues to eat it's children to this day all the way through college and higher education when they can afford one:


tehran university crackdown Video Exposed (CNN)

Some claim Not without my Daughter was exaggerated and only aimed to satisfy an Anti Iran Israeli Propaganda... I don't think that's entirely true ....



These Ebrahim Yazdi Like Green Card Fanatics ready to sacrifice their own Kids and family happiness as well as that of others by blind Romantic appeal towards a Revolution they misunderstood only because they were a bunch of frustrated ANN TELLECTUALS were not unique in those days. And these were amongst the 'educated elite'. I knew a few of these characters back then too amongst my classmates parents. I bet some of them have even become NIAC members since with the encouragement of some Columbia Academic ... LOL ...

Now imagine the far less educated parents lured into this IRI Propaganda to sacrifice their kids. At least they had an excuse ... Misery and lack of social and economic opportunities. Not these ANN TELLECTUALS ! 

Lucky for Betty Mahmoudy she only had a daughter in those circumstances. If it were a boy the father would have sacrificed him eagerly.


If God and Heaven Exists ... These Young Heros who sacrificed themselves for their country won't need a plastic key to open Heavens Gates. It will be open for them eternally ...


Unlike for that 'Cojoneless' Ayatollah who is probably rotting in hell as he deserves to ...


Rowan Atkinson Welcome in Hell


At least he won't be lonely ...  I'm Sure With some luck he will be joined by those spineless ANN TELECTUAL academics which endorsed his Revolution in the first place. 







An obvious treason by Shah

by aynak on


 Straight forward definition of treason is the one done by Shah, here he took the interest of another country, ahead of his own.   According to CIA's own document:

--The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful
of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written
royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's
twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the
father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to
keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before
the coup succeeded.--

//    (see item#4)

This clearly shows, that even Shah knew he is committing treason but as the document states, gave in, in favor of foreign interest/pressure and  against our young democratic and indepenet movement.   



ایران برای همه ایرانیان
رای ایرانیان - دولت ایرانیان
نه ولایت وقیح نه پادشاه سفیه







by R2-D2 on

During the Iran-Iraq War, over 500,000 Iranians  (some say closer to 1,000,000) were killed or maimed by the armies of Saddam - That included the use of 'Poison Gas' on them -

As I have indicated below, MEK fought this war siding with Saddam's forces -

Go and present the argument in your comment below to the fathers and mothers of those who were killed or maimed by forces of Saddam, and see what they say to you ..... !!

P.S. I'm sure they are in a much better position to respond to your comment below than I ever would be !! ?




Treason can be committed by many. R2-D2.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

Though usually only a few ring leaders are punished, does not mean that those that folled them were not also guilty of treason.

When the entire crew replaces it's captain and officers.  They are all guilty, but usually only a few get the main punishments.

Consider 1979, that was a national treason carried out by many.

You would have to look up the dictionary definition to know without a doubt I am right on. 

Just because you win, does not make it any less treason, just means you escape judgement for a while, until your experience the seeds you sowed.

A greater Shame is not on MEK, but the people of Iran ad the leaders of the IRI, that gave rise to the Iran Iraq War as a direct result of the treason they committed in 1979 and the generals and officers who harmed no one that they executed without a trial.  That is a far greater treason (being the enemy of your own people) than what the MEK did (siding with the enemy of your people).

Hope that clarifies a little.






"Treason" .....

by R2-D2 on

Is indeed a very harsh term that is reserved for a treacherous few, to be used cautiously, and indeed rarely ..... !

Having said that, although we "All" despise IRI, nevertheless, the fact that MEK (The Mojahedeen-e Khalq) sided with the despicable and evil Saddam during the 8-year Iran-Iraq War, qualifies them unambiguously, without any reservation, and in the eyes of a large majority of our brothers and sisters in Iran, as "Traitors" .

IF MEK's actions during the Iran-Iraq War do not qualify as "Treasonous", then I don't know what actions do ..... ?? !!

Shame On Them ..... !