ISLAM DOES NOT OWN IRAN

annoying8

what's that........? you said:

"islam is about justice and standing up for yourself...."

Oh really? Is that why true islam is buying suicide belts at wholesale prices? Is that why Islam's treatment of women is appaling? is that why it is OK for a muslim to kill an infidel if he does not conform to his blood thirsty cult? and, his belongings, his wife and everything else will be "halal" to the muslim.

Are you people friggin' kidding me?

For your info., I was born a muslim like millions of others, but at age 15, I wised up!

How about you people use a bit of your brain power to think what Islam is and has done to iran before defending it.

pisses me off.

____________________

IRAN BEFORE ISLAM 

____________________

Niloufar....Thanks for the laughs

 You said:

" i am not a muslim nor do i care for islam or any other religion or god for that matter. "

I was born at night....but not last night. If you feel you need to lie about your motives, then you're a bigger brainwashed moron than I thought.

Are you sure it's not ghazanfar instead of niloufar.

You people are why Iran is the way it is today.

Thanks for nothing.

____________________

IRAN BEFORE ISLAM 

____________________

No surprise in here

If you look at the behavior of liberal idiots in U.S and Europe, you quickly relaize that they suffer with a very big menthal disorder.  They just about praise any body who says some thing negative about U.S! (Kind of like our own impreliast fighter Omani, a good example!)
look at the admiration of these people for killers like Che, mao,stalin and castro.
Look at their love for chavez, saddam, and any two bit despots in any thirld world countries out there. I have even heard former bristish
foreign minister David owen praising Taliban in interview on the radio!!! so that's where we are at.  

Mehraban jan: You're more

Mehraban jan: You're more than welcome.

Vildemose

thanks for the post and link.

Ramin Parsa: Thank you for

Ramin Parsa: Thank you for the comprehesive analysis of Carter's complicity in imposing a medieval Islamic government on our nation. We need to hear and write about the truth so we don't fall victim again to the same trap.

khomeini was not gandi

but he was our leader who had to run a whole country. gandi drawed inspiration from his religion so did khomeini. islam is about justice and standing up for yourself, not turning the other cheek, so it is naturally different. i don't think iranians would have followed an iranian gandi.

Bot Shekan

Which part of Ramin's posts are  drivel. I have read many of them; they are very good. It is a historical fact that Carter betrayed Iran. The actions of Brezinsky are well konw. Heck he even gave an interview with Le Nouvel Observateu admiting it all! 

This is not the 60s anymore where fact could be hidden. All the information is out. If you don't beleive Ramin then go and do the research. Anyone who is not biased will see it. Islam just blinds some people and they  miss the most obvious thing.

ramin jaan....

thanks for the great read....

and again, please ignore the bache akhoonds on this site that staunchly defend the akhoonds...

all I can say is that ANYONE who even thinks khomeini was anything but a ruthless monster has to have their head examined...

it's amazing how many traitors are on the mullahs payroll here in the heart of the 'great satan'  

Thank you ramin

for the rigorous response.  I was aware that the king was admitted to the US through efforts of David Rockefeller who, in my understanding was a friend of his.  I was not aware of the financial troubles at "CHASE" but the tale makes sense.   Moreover,  the fact that Carter himself -in effect- became a pawn rings true as the result of the subsequent election in the US ushered in a long period of conservatism starting with Reagan.

To understand what really happened at the 1979 uprising is very important to me as we hopefully move toward a new chapter of our tumultuous history.   As I would never discount the importance of the will of the Iranian people, it is important for us to stay vigilant to our own national interest and not be manipulated by others to eventually serve theirs.  You have provided a forum for this very important subject that is usually thrown around but rarely tackled head on, for that too, I thank you.

Nusha (Ramin, Mashghassem)

Are you writing all the drivel that you write from your personal, insider knowledge or do you copy from resources which can be publicly accessed?

What about Carter's role?

By the way, much of what I write below is documented in the book, "The Lion and the Eagle," by James Bill, who was an advisor to Jimmy Carter in 1978, who also wrote a seminal paper on the Islamification of Iran for the White House, and had a huge influence as a promoter of "shiite revitalization" in Iran.

As for Carter himself, he was seriously over his head, and yet, exhibited massive delusions of grandeur (much like Carter II, aka, Barack Obama). Simply put, Carter was nothing more than a tool. I don't think the Rockefeller group (Brzezinski, Kissinger and company) cared whatsoever about Carter's fate. To them, he was a sacrificial lamb. Brzezinski had his own motivations to humiliate the Soviets and the Rockefeller/corporate/financial/oil establishment had their own business interests to look after.

In all of this, Carter was literally used and abused and dispensed with, all too gladly, in 1980. The ultimate goal of this group was much bigger than the fate of the Georgian peanut farmer. Some say that Khomeini was ungrateful to Carter, that he should've been more appreciative of the American president who generously and materially helped him come to power. But Khomeini hated Carter almost as much as he hated the Shah, mostly because of Carter's pivotal role in bringing about peace between Egypt, a muslim country, and Israel. To Khomeini, that was absolutely unforgivable, no matter how much that monumental jackass (Carter) bent over backwards hoping against hope to kiss Khomeini's ass. 

There are those amongst us, a self-serving bunch really, who poopoo the existence of conspiracies (as "fantastical"), even worse, they mock those of us in the Iranian community as having a "dayee Jaan Napelon" complex. By that measure, some 75% of Americans have a "dayee jaan Napelon" complex as most people in America believe that a conspiracy existed in the JFK/MLK/RFK assasinations.

Most coups/revolutions are the result of conspiracies involving homegrown and foreign players (I listed several of them earlier). There's even a book, written by a very reputable author, who's name escapes me (who's not your typical "conspiracy nut"), which puts forward the incindiary thesis that Richard Nixon was actually removed from the White House by the same sinister forces that gave us the 2003 Iraq war, i.e, the "neocons," a euphemism for Jews.

The author reasons that at the very zenith of the Cold War, Nixon was seriously trying to normalize relations with China and Russia, a very bold foreign policy, which did not sit well with the military-industrial complex, who viewed Nixon as a threat to the business of war. Interestingly, the famous "deep throat," who basically destroyed Nixon's presidency, turned out to be no other than a senior FBI operative, Mark Feld, a Jew.

And when you think about it, the whole Watergate scandal started when the police found the phone number to the White House in the wallet of one of the burglars, a CIA agent by the name of James McCord, who was pressured to spill the beans. It's hard to believe that the power and prestige of the Nixon White House, after their massive and convincing victory in 1972, could not impress upon this subservient CIA agent to keep quiet for a large sum of money to be transferred to the agent after a very minimal prison sentence for burglary. Better yet, it's even harder to believe that the wily Nixon White House could not somehow engineer the sudden "misplacement" of the phone number or pressure the local DC police to "lose" the infamous black book altogether? 

The CIA/MI6, the Mossad, even the SAVAK -- these cloak and dagger organizations don't necessarily promote the interests, nor the policies, of the head of state. In reality, they work on behalf of the business/military/financial interests of their respective countries. As such, it is not uncommon to find a secret CIA group/plan within the larger CIA organization, with its own specific goals and agenda.

As Miles Copeland, a very prolific former CIA agent claims, "There were plenty of forces in the country [Iran] we could have marshaled... We could have sabotaged [the revolution]... The Iranians were really like sheep, as they are now.”

In an ironic way, you can say that the same people who were largely responsible for destroying Mossadegh were also out to destroy Castro, and ended up assasinating John Kennedy for not wanting to go to war in Vietnam, character assasinating Richard Nixon for wanting to end the Cold War (talk about irony), and destroying the Shah for not wanting to hand over cheap oil to fuel the worldwide financial/military machinations of this devious group.

Who are these people? The Shah feared they were "Freemasons," the handiwork of the British. Indeed, there were plenty of them in Iran in 1978 -- over 300 within the regime itself, compromised loyalties and all, including the late Amir Abbas Hoveyda. Believe it or not, there are plenty of them within the IRI as well.

Mehrban, follow the money... CHASE MANHATTAN BANK!

asks: "If we accept the idea that the Americans always wanted an extremist government, how do you explain the take over of the American Embassy by the students..."

First of all, they were not really "students," more like paid hezbo goons with a few students in their group. I never said that the Americans were in control of every single event leading up to the revolution. But you raise an excellent question, which is why I wanted to answer carefully.

The November 4, 1979 hostage taking was a huge event in the life of the revolution. In fact, Khomeini called it the second revolution. It was huge for a number of reasons, mainly it did away with the pretend game of a progressive Islamic government and quickly led to the iron fist of the IRI. So, in that sense, some sort of an incindiary event (in the order of Cinema Rex) was necessary to eliminate the "moderates" in the Provisional Government (namely, Mehdi Bazargan, who just a day before, on November 3, had actually met with Zbigniew Brzezinski in Europe, hoping to make a deal with the Americans).

I tend to think that the Americans were by-and-large caught off guard with the gravity of the hostage taking affair -- although, and this is where things get very murky, the Rockefellers and other corporate establishment types, through Henry Kissinger and others in the National Security establishment, were actively pushing Carter to allow the Shah into the US for medical treatment. You may think that these people had altruistic motives, when in fact, as per the Chase Manhattan Bank holdings agreement, where over $10 billion dollars of Iranian assets were deposited at the time, there was a clause in the agreement where Chase Bank could suspend and freeze the account, in the case of a national emergency or inciting event causing a national emergency.

If you know anything about New York and Chase Bank in the 1970's, you know that both were in miserable financial trouble at that time -- in fact, the city of New York was bankrupt and Chase had a severe liquidity problem. David Rockefeller was the head of Chase Bank, and a friend of the Shah (so they say). And there is plenty of evidence that he, and his good friend, Henry Kissinger and others, KNEW FULL WELL that if the IRI emptied out Iran's bank account at Chase, it would send the famous bank into a serious, fatal crisis, and they further knew that if the US allowed the Shah into the country, in all likelihood it would lead to an "inciting event" in Iran by the revolutionaries which could trigger the all-important suspension clause in the account.

Carter had no choice -- he had to allow the Shah, who was a 37-year ally of America, into the country. Carter actually didn't want to let the Shah into the US, the dirty swine lefty bastard that he is. But Carter was pressured by Brzezinski, and the Rockefeller group, i.e., Kissinger, to let the Shah in.

And the rest is history. One can propose the idea that Kissinger, Brzezinski and Rockefeller (who represent the exact same group in America: the military/oil/corporate interest) never thought that it would take 444 days to free the hostages. Maybe the belief was that an inciting event would occur, but kept under control, and therefore, Chase Manhattan Bank would not have to pay back the $10 billion, which, if adjusted for inflation would amount to $115 Billion in today's dollars, which Chase did not have, and which the IRI wanted to withdraw in order to pay Israel for desperately needed military equipment.

I do know this -- the David Rockefeller/Chase Manhattan Bank group knew that if the Shah was allowed into America, "something" would happen in Iran -- and the US embassy was an easy mark. All along the embassy had been under tremendous scrutiny. In fact, in mid-February 1979, nine months before the famous hostage crisis began, "student" radicals had overrun the US embassy and briefly held the staff hostage before the Provisional Government intervened to release the Americans. 

Therefore, the Rockefeller group must've known that the embassy would come under extreme pressure (and perhaps subject to extortion) so as to force the Americans to return the Shah.

And there is plenty of evidence (conversations) between Ebrahim Yazdi, and his good friend, Zbigniew Brzezinski (who remain pen-pals to this day), where Yazdi, aka, "Mr. Green Card," tells Brzezinski that if Carter lets the Shah into the US, the Provisional Government will not be able to protect the US embassy. Therefore, Brzezinski, as the National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration, fully knew the risks involved long BEFORE November 4, 1979, so no one can say that the hostage taking itself came as a surprise to the Rockefeller group. 

Ramin Paras: You're dealing

Ramin Paras: You're dealing with CASMII and NIAC groupies who represent the reformers in Iran. They are the strongest force right now in Iran. I think the right move for the  is to influence them through courting not castigating them.

my 2 cents!

NP and others

What is it with you guys about not offending the muslims? Shouldn't muslims grow up? Why do they act as bunch of crying babies? Why the rest of the world has to be so politically correct towards them? They are such babies that they can't take criticism?

I think the way you people think of them is as if they are bunch of retards and nobody should hurt their feelings.

Yeah, oohoo boohoo I'm a baby, nobody likes me, I'm a victim, I wanna blow myself up!

Mehraban and Ramin:

"

Back in the summer of 1979, months before the Iranian mob -- egged on by Ayatollah Khomeini -- seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, U.S. diplomats in Tehran were doing their best to establish a decent working relationship with the revolutionary regime. The newly appointed U.S. ambassador, Walter Cutler, was told by then Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to handpick a team to represent the United States. "We wanted to establish a dialogue. I was to go out there and try to establish some sort of rapport with the new regime, from Khomeini on down," Cutler told me, in an interview for my 2005 book, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. "We had to prove to the Iranians that we were not the Great Satan," he told me. "We had to establish some sort of modus vivendi and make it clear that we were not out to pull down the new regime."

But Senator Jacob Javits of New York had other ideas. Against Cutler's advice, Javits introduced a resolution in the U.S. Senate that denounced Khomeini. "I urged him not to attack Khomeini personally," said Cutler. To no avail. Khomeini reacted angrily to the Javits resolution. He refused to accept Cutler as the U.S. envoy, who never took up the post. Relations between the United States and Iran spiraled downwards from there.

This week, Representative Howard Berman is taking up the Javits wrecking ball. For months, Berman has sat on a piece of legislation, HR 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Act, that would give the president enhanced power to impose what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls "crippling sanctions" against Iran. According to the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which opposes the bill, it would "expand unilateral, extraterritorial sanctions and target companies exporting refined petroleum to Iran or helping to develop Iran's oil refining industry." Sensing that the talks with Iran are not moving forward, Berman -- pushed hard by hawks, neoconservatives, and the Israel lobby, from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to J Street -- has decided that the time is right."" Much more at link below:

 //www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/12/opinion-the-wrecking-ball.html

Cost

Writes:  "if Islam and this government are so good, why aren't you back in Iran rooting for them?"

Perfectly put, this question should be put to every Hezbollahi living in Southern California.

Hypocracy!

And uber deceit, greed, shameless treachery, etc., etc. These are just a few tools of the trade when it comes to Hezbo Iranians.

CoP (out!)

too bad for your amateur attempt: i am not a muslim nor do i care for islam or any other religion or god for that matter.

don't you clowns ever get tired of your silliness? it's either a 'lefty' or a 'muslim' or some such like, as if these terms are insults! don't you see how your lack of objectivity and reason only results in insulting large numbers of people (over 1 billion muslims and even more 'lefties')? don't you have anything constructive to talk about? oh and i bet you think you believe in democracy too. lol!

joyful hate-monger:  reading your claptrap is like comic relief! thanks for the 'therapy'!

niloufar & the Rest of the Apologist Crowd

Stating the fact about khomeini and the anti nationalist government he is responsible for creating in Iran is NOT hate mongering.

All of you folks who pretend to be defending the "truth" are in fact defending Islam. Admit it - the excuse being this is not true Islam, BUT it friggin' is, only you can't see it. Now that's upbringing and religious fanatism (at its core).

You people need to put Iran before Islam. If you do not, your beloved relgion will finish us off- what it had intended from the get go!

It is ironic that you have chosen Parsi as your username - You sound anything but.............Oh, and if Islam and this government are so good, why aren't you back in Iran rooting for them?

____________________

IRAN BEFORE ISLAM 

____________________

Mehrban and Parsi

Mehrban -- I will answer you shortly.

Niloufar Parsi -- go see a therapist, you need help.

re. a joyful hate-monger (to: ID & KM)

ID jan, am afraid not. one day perhaps. u should let me know if u visit europe.

re. this hateful character who rather ironically calls himself 'ramin' (literally means 'joyful') and everyone he disagrees with 'despicable', what do you reckon? poor self-esteem or mother issues or what? ;) 

kharmagas: did i beat you to that one?!

ramin, how do you explain

If we accept the idea that the Americans always wanted an extremist government, how do you explain the take over of the American Embassy by the students and the initial disagreement of Khomeini and his subsequent aquiesence.  It was mostly over that event that the falling out with the nationalists started which lead to radicalization.  At the time of hostage taking Khomeini was in Qom and not Tehran.

you may have missed my first post on this. 

the only good things about the Ayatollah Khomeini

is he achieved room temperature on 3rd of June 1989 and is now tasty food for worms....

Khomeini ain't no Gandhi and never will be one

He sure fooled many,

I have read about Gandhi, watched documentaries about him, and more importantly, heard how Indians adore him.  Well Mr. Grand Ayatollah, you ain't no Gandhi and never will be.  The only resemblance there is that you are also gonedy now.

bot shekan

That's rich -- a conspiracy denier by someone who has most likely benefited from the grand larceny. Go stick your head in the Arabian sand, you shameless parasite. You're just like your Hendi mullah Khomeini, aka, Ayatollah BBC, trying desperately to peddle misinformation. By the way, they gave him that moniker for a reason, Mr. Cheswick.

Parsa (Arzu) and Mash-Ghassem

There is a direct link between Ramin Parsa (formerly Nusha Arzu) and Mash Ghassem of Daijaan Napoleon fame. Unlike Daijaan who had been in at least one or two of the battles of Kaazeroon or Mamasani, Ghassem had only heard about them and never had any first hand experience. So he recreated himelf as a Daijaan no. 2. Now Ramin (Nusha) has only heard something about CIA, MI6, BBC, and IKEA,  playing a part in Iran's revolution and just like Ghassem is retelling the same BS like new revelations.

babam jan ta gabr aa, aa, aa

Q

If you were in charge in Iran in 1989 before khomeini died, would you have had him prosecuted for treason and other atrocities he committed? If yes, what punishment do you think would have been fit for this despicable traitor and criminal?

Just curious.

Kharmagas

Point taken, regarding "yavASH Ramin." I apologize if I went a little postal on her. No hard feelings.

"Although I consider myself much more guilty than an average Iranian in bringing in Khomeini ...."

What the hell does this mean, you son of a b with an itch?

Slaughterhouse IRI

Vildemose writes: "The problem of this line of questioning... is that it takes the focus off what WE THE PEOPLE did and take the responsibility for what WE did... But as you know, 90 percent of people did participate in the fight against the Shah."

My whole point with this blog was as a sort of a cautionary tale (Bijan's "lessons learned"), to remind people how our movement for more basic freedoms was hijacked in 1978, because  from January 8, 1978 when the infamous incindiary article was published in Etelaat, which critized Khomeini and called into question his affiliations with the British, which gave rise to protests and shootings in Qom, all the way up to the Cinema Rex fire on August 19, 1978 (the 25th anniversary of 28 Mordad), the masses were not clamoring for the destruction of the monarchy.

By the way, a pretty good sign that the Cinema Rex fire was not the handiwork of the regime was the day on which the fire was set -- August 19 was a day of celebration for the monarchy, why would they intentionally turn it into a day of mourning?

Even up to mid-September 1978, the movement was still fluid and could have gone in a different direction, one which included a role for the monarchy, as per the dictates of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution.

But the Black Friday incident changed the nature of the movement and it was without a doubt a manufactured incident (100%), with Palestinian sharp-shooters brought in by the mullahs, for the all-important task of spilling the blood of innocents, which Khomeini had (publicly) requested for his "revolutionary tree" to grow.

Add to this Khomeini's BOGUS populist message (free water, free electricity, free bus fare, a share of the oil profits, etc.). These fraudulent promises heightened the mob mentality, in that the masses didn't want to "miss the boat" on all the goodies offered by Ayatollah Khomeini.

In other words, the masses were NOT jumping up and down for an "Islamic Republic" and a system of "Velayat-e-Faghigh -- no way, no how! Even with all the antagonism against the Shah, and even with all the damaging publicity by way of Savak, the "masses" (middle-class) were not revolutionaries at the start of 1978  -- no way whatsoever!

To get them there, several incidents were artificially manufactured(Cinema Rex, Black Friday, Jame Mosque fire, etc.) to raise the nation's temperature, which was further spiked by damaging foreign propaganda day-in-and-day-out in 1978, i.e., the BBC's daily broadcasts.

Add to all this, the Carter administration's irresponsible statements, which further gave the sense that the Americans had abandoned the shah, which further emboldened the masses and the Islamic terrorists on the payroll of the wealthy Bazaaris.

Certainly, all of this created the impression that the movement was widescale, indigenous, and virginal, purely homegrown and justified, when in fact, we were manipulated at every turn, and ultimately, herded like cattle toward the promised land, Slaughterhouse IRI.

In the final analysis, one can say -- YES, the people of Iran were disenchanted with the Shah in 1978, but they were not revolutionaries at the start of that year. Thanks to external machinations (a crucial ingredient), the people were treated to a production (fireworks and propaganda) and were gradually softenend to the idea of regime change, with the promise of a world of goodies -- only if the Shah were out of the picture.

Khomeini was Iran's catastrophe. Ghandhi was India's glory!

Ghandhi? Give me a break! The Western press, especially the BBC, were painting Khomeini as Iran's Ghandhi on the eve of the  (D)evolution, but we all know how that story turned out...

Ghandhi and Khomeini shouldn't be used in the same sentence let alone compared.