Sic Semper Tyrannis

I find The Moron(s)

And AO you are the big one.
As long as illiterates like you are spewing ignorance is not hard to find Morons.
Be happy as Ignorance is Bliss.

Complicity of France in

Complicity of France in propping up Khomeini:

 //www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857

  Khomeini interview in

Khomeini interview in 1978 asking the world to help him for the regime change:

//iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/khomeini-1978

Rouh*** Khomeini

"..I say let Iran burn..let this land burn provided shariaa & ezatto al Arabi rules supreme..." 

He was a Pan-Arab mozdoor just as the Ommatie tribe that openly & passively support it . The burning is yet to come not for Iran but for seeds of Qaadess .

our appointment--->Kiaani judgment day---->dashteh morghaab----> under Kaviaani flag-----> mass justice served.

Amen pilgrams!!! 

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

Great Post AO

Thank you for summarizing the hypocrisy and double standard when it comes to Pahlavi dictatorship and Islamic Fascist dictatorship. We cannot really progress as a nation until we level with ourselves and accept where we went wrong and where we were not fair in our judgement.

This has nothing to do with popularity of the respective players- hypocrisy is hypocrisy whether it is exercised by 1% or 99% of the population.

Just the events of the last 6 months make the Shah's security forces seem like angels.  Shah never went on TV in front of the whole world threaten and declare war on his own people, calling all his opponents in the street enemies of God.  Indeed if Shah had a black turban and Khomeini was clean shaven with a necktie speaking French and English with foreign leaders, things might have been much different.

Just out of curiousity, I was wondering, what is the "left"'s stance on China and Russia today, given their staunch support for murder and rape committing government of Iran? If the US gives diplomatic cover for Israel in the UN, we will never hear the end of it. What about when China or Russia use their veto power to protect Iran, and their silence on human rights abuses in Iran?

Maybe one day we will learn.  But from the comments here, it is clear that some of us have a ways to go. 

-Fair

Abarmard

Khomeini was in Iraq for the majority of his exile.  He went to France only a few months before the revolution.  So, the bulk of his activities took place in Iraq and with the consent and, at the very least, tacit support of the Ba'athist regime.

moronseeker

So, you're saying that Saddam liked the Shah and wanted him back in power?!!!  WOW, what great [revisionist] historian you are. :-)

Hovakhshatare & AO Ignoramus

AO before spewing out Ignorance READ damn history.
Bakhtiar supporters were using BAGHDAD Radio facilities right after Revolution and during the Iraq Invasion along with Monarchists they had back to back programming at 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM everyday for one hour each. If you are so rotten in your head I can not explain better.

Now the other Brainless Illiterate Hovakhshatare
I am referring to Algiers accord between Iran and Iraq not US and Iran, again go read little boy.

Shazdeh: I don't think Q is

Shazdeh: I don't think Q is a leftie. I think he is a true believer of Hojatieh sect Islam.

Wasn't Khomaini in France?

He originally was in Iraq but 1979 he landed with air France. Please try to be careful when presenting "facts"!

Q with his deception again. Shame on Q!

Q. the IRR supporter states:

"I have referred to the over 90% vote that the Islamic Republic received in 1979, in fact in 3 seperate votes (referendum, delegates, final constitution)"

This 90% you refer to Q is total BS. We don't buy it just like we don't buy the following statements made by you below. They are the same lies as the "90%" lie you spread.

Q, do you remember making these statements? Do you still stand by them you IRR supporter? You see how wrong you are? You see the lies you have told for the sake of wining a losing argument? Aren't you embarrassed that you have made these statements? I am sure that you are not because you are an IRR supporter.

Q, YOU HAVE STATED THE LIES BELOW:

1) “So we have to admit, there is such a thing as a continuom...... The system as it is designed currently can deliver much better democracy. For example: if the Guardian Council starts vetting candidates less and less. The Supreme Leader could show less and less initiative. The foreign policy council could be dominated more and more by the popularly elected President (That's Ahmadinejad by the way). The system can move very far toward perfect democracy. “

2) "I believe the revolution gave us "Esteghlal"."

3) "In Iran, the role of Supreme Leader is closest to a "chief justice" since he has no proper legislative functions."

4) "A referendum is not a bad idea, if the people of Iran want it. A majority would have to demand it. But personally I think if even 30% of Iranians go on record supporting such a referendum it would happen and I would support it."

5) "As far as IRI has imposed its ideological supremacy, I fail to understand how a government can do that based on a national constitution that was voted for by 90%+ of Iranians"

6) "IRI has neither occupied ("hegemony" by the definition that is relevant here)nor "forced an ideology through government"

7) "If Iranians want to put their lives on the line, they can remove the government right now"

Q

First off, I don't know what you would call a hostile nation giving refuge to an opposition figure who is actively trying to overthrow a nation's government.  They allowed the guy to thrive in Najaf, the heart of Shia Islam, and to actively get his message out to his supporters.  How is that not aiding him?  Again, the point is that we had a person who was in a long exile in a hostile nation, who became the leader of a revolution.  This is a hostile nation which had huge problems with its own Shia high clergy, but still it took in Khomeini, a fiery Shia clergy with a view of Islamic world dominance.  Doesn't that say something?  Even if Khomeini was exiled from Iran, and had a base of support as you claim, the same situation would be unimaginable today.  Think about this: let say that Mousavi is exiled out of Iran tomorrow, and he ends up in Israel.  Can you just imagine what is said about the guy?  Iraq of 1970's and Israel of today are in the same position vis-a-vis Iran.  In fact, one can argue that Iraq was even more dangerous because it had been at war with Iran already, was amassing weapons and troops and had a long common border with Iran.  How is not considering and criticizing Khomeini's Ba'athist connections not hypocrisy?

As far as the world media is concerned, I did not say that there was a world media conspiracy to bring in Khomeini.  My argument is two fold when it comes to hypocrisy.  The first point is that if an Iranian opposition leader appears on western media a few times, he / she is immediately labeled a foreign agent.  But Khomeini used the same western media at great length, and that claim was never raised.  How is that not hypocrisy?  Also, there were certainly people within the western media, and especially the BBC, who were hostile to the Shah and wanted the revolution to succeed.  Consider these quotes from an interview with Mr. Khonji in a report by Dr. Masaoumeh Torfeh.  Here's the link:

 //www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/diasporas/conference/pdf/history_of_bbc_persian_service.pdf

This is what Khonji himself says about the events in Iran:

 “Those working in the BBC had their own set of contacts. I was

the main link for the National Front and as such my friends would

pass on the relevant news on developments. Improved

communications techniques meant that the BBC could be heard far

better in Europe and through the BBC broadcasts and the Iranian

Diaspora were increasingly involved in the struggle for democracy

in Iran..." (page 25)

" Asked about the opinion of staff at the time prior to the revolution,

Khonji says it was a true reflection of the Iranian society at home and abroad. He claims about 80% of the staff were supporting the revolution and only 20% were against it." (page 26).

" BBC itself was by this time far more open to change and open

broadcasting with more confidence and a far more assertive

position vis-à-vis the UK Government." (page 26).

And of course, what Mr. Khonji says here is "in lafafeh" as we call it. The true meaning of his words are obvious. So, how is not criticizing foreign media's role in advancing the 1979 revolution not hypocrisy? 

rustgoo, I have lived it too

There was no such a thing as 90% of religiosity in Iran; farmers included.

good thing I never said anything about 90% "religiosity". I have referred to the over 90% vote that the Islamic Republic received in 1979, in fact in 3 seperate votes (referendum, delegates, final constitution). Since you lived it, you would remember.

we happen to come across each other on this site you have to remember that I don't insult anyone and I don't tolerate insult either. Keep your smart quips for prince charm you are looking for.

And if you are at all familiar with my writing, you would know that I don't insult anyone except retaliate against those who purposefully attack and belittle other people, most often myself. That is if I consider them worthy of reply. I have not done this to you so I don't understand your lame homophobic comment on this occasion, but I will overlook it.

Look who is agreein with Q.

Look who is agreein with Q. None other than our IRGC goon, sargord Pirouz.

Q

You have read it, I have lived it. There was no such a thing as 90% of religiosity in Iran; farmers included. The most active mosque shortly before Khomeini's arrival was BBC. And on a way more serious note: if we happen to come across each other on this site you have to remember that I don't insult anyone and I don't tolerate insult either. Keep your smart quips for prince charm you are looking for. This will end our discussions.  

Can you imagine what people

Can you imagine how people like Q and Jaleho would behave in a future  secular democracy in Iran?? They would probably form their own Islamist militia against the government.

ahmad_ jan,

I did not see any comment from you on that video where the police pick up trucks ran over innocent bystanders. How come ?

It's obviously because I and everyone on Earth who did not comment, are regime supporters and approve of innocent people being run over. What other explanation can there be?

I salute your excellent detective work and worthy service to the Iranian people.

I think Khomeini was an

I think Khomeini was an insult to humanity. Of course, you revere him to this day.

Q

I did not see any comment from you on that video where the police pick up trucks ran over innocent bystanders. How come ?

You seem to be living here in Iranian.com , didn't you see that?

rustgoo, that's not a fair assessment

It's a very valid question, which has a very simple answer: STUPIDITY.

That is a personal judgement call.

If 90% of Iranians were "stupid" than you realy have to look at who is making the accusation.

There is only one thing that brings respect in Iran and anywhere else in the world: That is power. Rajavi and the Marxists were nice to Khomeini because he was more popular and therefore had more power. The only way for them to stay relevant was to be around Khomeini until such time as they could take him down. This was the reason they embraced Khomeini not because they were "stupid".

vildemose, not shocking at all

The BBC Radio report says that UK weapons companies were afraid that their existing orders would be cancelled by Iran, so they didn't let Shah enter UK. But then, they got word that Iran was interested in buying them. Actually, I don't know if they were ever delivered anyway.

Nothing shocking about this, nor does it say anything about "Khomeini involvement with Brits".

What is this supposed to prove? That UK was so weak that they kissed Iran's hand to sell weapons?

I don't know what you get out of this kind of sensationalism but it is an insult to the truth.

Q & Co.

"Please! Why would someone who is NOT a supporter of Khomeini want to come to the streets to greet him? If they were just "opposing the Shah", but not for Khomeini they would not want to give Khomeini more"

 It's a very valid question, which has a very simple answer: STUPIDITY.

Some of us were that STUPID.   MKO even went as far as giving him security blanket and bodyguards; the Tudeh party even started advocating the similarities between Islam and Marxism, providing him with intelligence; it's a long story. Forget it. There is always a "next time", even after one's lifetime. We try to do better then. Stay safe, or at least try to; my friend. 

Hovakh, wrong again

You realize honorable people usually do admit when they make mistakes right?

You are twisting like the wind, my friend. The more you deny it, when its so clear for all to read, the more you make yourself like a twisting hypocrite.

what you claim now is this:

Your truthseeker cohort was referring to my mention of the accord

What you replied to was this:

Likewise Iraq and Iran had signed Algiers treaty in 1975 and were at peace with each others only after revolution Iraq attacked Iran

"My cohort" is not referring to your mention of "the accord." He's talking about the 1975 treaty with Iraq, as anyone who can read can attest to.

I'll be gald to further explain in detail if you still don't get it.

AO: Great compilation of

AO: Great compilation of hypocrisy among the usual suspects. If Shah wore a turban, things might have end up differently for him.

 Khomeini's involvement with the Brits.

From BBC Radio 4 discussing the 1979 Secret UK goverment papers recently released which includes dealing with Iran.

//www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pg52f

You need to get to 22 minutes into the programme for the Iran part. Shocking stuff!!!

There is more on this in the Times too:

//www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6970837.ece

Also from the comment section of that thread:

""please read the witness by rafiezadeh, if you want to know the extent of the involvement between cia and the mullahs.  he was killed shortly after the book came out.""

 //iranian.com/main/blog/nabarz/1979-secret-uk-goverment-papers-recently-released-including-dealing-iran

Q, please take your ignoramus twisting somewhere else

and your irrelevant comments. Your truthseeker cohort was referring to my mention of the accord and I clarified it. I know even you can google and copy here.

Hovakh, don't embarrass yourself

Iran signed a treaty in Algiers in 1975 and another one in 1981.

This is not a playground for kids, whateverseeker you are. Think or read before you babble.

Yea. Why is it those most eager to lecture others are also the biggest hypocrites on the same advice?

And it is not Algiers Treaty and was not in 1975

It is Algiers Accord or agreement and was signed in January of 1981 between U.S. and IRR.

This is not a playground for kids, whateverseeker you are. Think or read before you babble.

Wow

[non]truthseeker, I kow you were excited to leave a comment, but did you really have to do it three times?!!!  As far your comment itself, well, you had me at "zionist lover"...And yes, Al-Bakr and Saddam were singing kumbaya (misspell) after the 1975 Algeirs agreement.  They weren't arming Iraq to the teeth with weapons in preparation for an attack on Iran.  That's why Shah had put up early warning radras on the border and was nvesting heavily in military hardware, which Mr. Khomeini called "ahan ghorazeh".  And yeah, right, "monarchists" and "nationalists were broadcasting out of Iraq.  Give us a break!!!!  The fact is that Khomeini was in exile (30 years or 15 years) in an enemy nation which gave him refuge so that they can use him later on.  And thst's a fact that no Islamist loser can get away from.

Sargord: I will only respond to your comment when you respond to this question that I have posed to you twice, to which I have not yet received an answer: //iranian.com/main/blog/anonymous-observer/police-joining-people

Q & others: I will respond to you later, as I am in a rush. 

You are the only one hallucinating Truth Inventor

I hope you have finished with the SUBMIT button now. They say good things come in two and you have proved that rubbish comes in even greater numbers.

You want us to believe that after Sadam ripped the peace treaty in front of the journalists prior to the attack, IRI was pinning its hope on Sadam to be a good boy? Monarchist and Nationalist were broadcasting from Iraq? Really? You seem to be far more relaxed with inventing the truth than seeking it.

Before Starting This Hallucination

Get Your Facts Straight. Khomeini was not in Exile for 30 years. He was send to exile by great defender of Democracy The Mad Man Pahlavi in 1964 that makes it 15 years. I am sure Monarchists Losers and Zionists Lovers can count this simple Math.

Likewise Iraq and Iran had signed Algiers treaty in 1975 and were at peace with each others only after revolution Iraq attacked Iran at that time both Monarchists and so called Nationalists were broadcasting from Radio Baghdad Persian programs to Iran. That is the fact which you find it not convenient to state.