Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Q&A With Iranians Inside & Outside Ian

Share/Save/Bookmark

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Q&A With Iranians Inside & Outside Ian
by Darius Kadivar
07-May-2010
 

Questions & Answers With Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi at Beylux Chat Room With Iranians Inside & Outside of Iran. Broadcast By //epersianradio.com/

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV:

Part V:

Part VI:

Part VII:

Part VIII:

Recommended Readings/watching:

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... By Darius KADIVAR

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

IRANIAN SOLIDARNOSC: Defecting Revolutionary Guard's confession and support to Reza Pahlavi By DK

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Darius Kadivar
 
vildemose

Mamamd: Thanks. Your

by vildemose on

Mamamd: Thanks. Your insightful comments and essays are always appreciated by me though we might not agree on all issues.

Mousavi, to a certain degree has redeemed himself to a great extent by putting his neck on the line and that's good enough for me. Mousavi bashing will not get us anywhere. He can't defend himself right now because he is not free to speak out, period.


Fred

Fallacy of appeal to emotion

by Fred on

Appeal to emotion is a well known fallacy which Islamists use all the times; it is part of their dogma.  The turbaned Islamists use it in their version of ancient history and their necktie wearing dunces utilize it in their everyday presentations in the form of my friend or whoever was murdered so believe me when I lie to you.  

The point about Mousavi is during his eight years as PM many crimes against humanity were committed by the Islamist “government “which he was its chief executive.

It is an indisputable fact that the mass murdering of the thousands of prisoners were ordered by the Islamists’ “Imam Khomeini” and carried out on Mousavi’s watch.

It is also an indisputable fact that not only Mousavi did not resign from his post after the mass murders became publicly known he to this day , some twenty odd years later,  venerates his “Imam Khomeini”  the murderer who ordered those atrocities.

It is also an indisputable fact that both Mousavi and his wife are charlatan Ali Shariati devotees thinking their Islamist Rapist Republic wasn’t Shariati enough and they are planning to fix it.

The nuke lobbyist has another think coming with these Islamist explanations.


MM

we are also members of AI

by MM on

There are plenty of evidence that the 1988 massacres were just a sample of what the Iranian opposition went thru in early and late 80's.  See, e.g.,

//www.rwor.org/a/146/AWTW-iran-20th-en.html

The executions based on Khomeini's death fatwas and the verses of Quran continue even today, although spodatically, e.g. execution of 5 last week, execution of monarchists.......etc.  So, the real numbers are just estimated by many.

Some of the worst atrocities towards the students occured in 1999 during Khatami's reign.  The point is that the executive branch in Iran is powerless for the most part, but they should have the descency to resign if atrocities are committed during their time.  Would I support Khatami?  No, because he is also the better of two evils, just like Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Karrubi, and folks, that is the trouble here.


Mammad

Anonymous Observer and vildemouse

by Mammad on

AO:

Thank you. respectful disagreement is all we want when we disagree, Let me respond to your criticisms. At the end of the day, we can agree to disagree.

Let me first say that I am obssessed with the subject because not only my own immediate family and larger one have lost loved ones to executions by the IRI, but also due to a large number of people from my college years in Iran in the 1970s that were executed by the IRI. I have followed the subject, and have read anything that I can get my hands on, and have talked to many who are better informed than me.

One example is Anoushirvan Lotfi. He attended the same school that I did. He was affectionately called "doktor" by anybody who knew him. I talked to him once during a practice of the Daaneshkadeh soccer team (I was not a member, but we were allowed to participate in the practices and training if we wanted to). He was one of the nicest guys.

After spending years in the Shah's jail (whose security forces claimed in 1974 that he had been killed in an armed confrontation, but that turned out to be a trick), as well as in the IRI's, Lotfi was executed in MAY 1988, but he is universally recognized as one of the leading symbols of those executions.

The executions that we are talking about all happened between May and September 1988, during which close to 4500 people were killed. Unlike what you say, they were never announced on the radio. In fact, many even inside the government did not know about them for some time.

Mousavi did not learn about the executions 7 months after they happened, as the comment below claims. I have been a member of Amnesty International for 30 years, and am a member of its leadership council now due to my annual contributions. But, the AI is simply wrong about when the executions began and when they ended. If we are to believe the AI, then, we should not include a large number of prisoners that had been executed between May and August. Lotfi is just one of them.

Perhaps that is why AI says 2000 were executed, whereas 4500 was the actual number. Two of my closest friends (and I mean really close, like brothers) lost their brothers in those executions, and I knew both also. The family of one has refused to put a tombstone on the grave of their loved one until the culprits are punished. He had been in jail for 8 years and had been kept beyond his 8 years. And, by the way, my friends whose brothers were executed totally support and admire Mousavi and believe that he had no role in them. So, without meaning to boast, I am extremely informed about this. A lot of claims on this site are made based on "bokhaar-e me'deh!" But, I do the hard research and try to find as much information as I can.

As I explained in my earlier comment, and in detail in the TB piece (see below), Mousavi learned about them either just when they had ended, or just about in September 1988. In addition, it is known widely that right then he went to Ayatollah Khomeini and wanted to resign. I do not know why, but I find it totally plausible that he wanted to resign because of the executions.

Even if we accept the AI's dates, then that means that Mousavi wanted to resign in the middle of it, but could not.

In the TB piece, it is explained that Mousavi wanted to resign several times during the 1980s, but each time he stayed on, simply because, in my opinion, he probably thought that running the country in the middle of a horrendous war was his first and foremost duty. It is easy to live in Los Angeles and pass judgement on what people could or could not have done, but unless one is in the middle of things, one can never be so sure.

Your point about Ayatollah MOntazeri and Mousavi, if taken in isolation, is well taken. But, he also never ever mentions Mousavi once in his memouirs regarding the executions. Why?

Finally, people like me do not have brotherhood pact with Mousavi, Khatami, or people like them. People like me support them so long as, (1) they have not committed a crime against people, and (2) they support people. I am not elevating Mousavi to any level. If Mousavi is guilty, so be it. I do not recognize any expediency when it comes to people who may have committed a horrendous crime, even if they are doing good things now. But, in the absence of even a shred of evidence, innuendoes, guess games, and hollow claims will not do.

The same people who attack Mousavi now also keep saying, (1) it was during Khatami that the Chain Murders happened, (2) it was during Khatami that 150 newspapers were closed. Both are nonsense.

(1) The Chain Muders began long before Khatami, and in fact it was his persistence that ended them.

 //www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/12/the-chain-murders-1988-1998.html

(2) It was due to Khatami's policy that those 150 newspapers and publications began publishing - they did not exist before him - but they were closed by the judiciary on which Khatami did not have an iota of control.

So, you see the insinuation game?

Vildenouse:

Thank you for your suggestion. As you know, there is already a detailed profile of Mousavi on Tehran Bureau Site (the link was given in my last comment). Those who want to learn more can do. For a personal reason, I do not post article on IC.

Mammad


MM

Mousavi won't reject Khomeini's death fatwas & verses of Quran

by MM on

In order for Mousavi to come clean, vis-a-vis the 1988 Iran massacres, he has to denounce the death fatwas of Khomeini which are based on the verses of Quran (See, below).  To do that, will be a death sentense on Mousavi.

In this political atmosphere in Iran, no one expects Mousavi to denounce Khomeini's Fatwas and the verses of Quran, but to say that he was clueless about the massacres is just not acceptable.  When the government does immoral acts, others who do not agree resign. period

..........................

Murdering Fatwa in summer of 1988: Khomeini ordered the following: "Those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain committed to their support for the [Mujahedeen], are waging war on God and are condemned to execution.... Destroy the enemies of Islam immediately. As regards the cases, use whichever criterion that speeds up the implementation of the [execution] verdict."

“The historical justification of the massacre has roots in the epoch of the Prophet Muhammad when he came up with the idea that it is perfectly legitimate to kill “unbelievers” --the teaching of the Koran confirms it: "Those who resist Allah and his messenger will be humbled to dust”: the Koran 58-5. Or: "I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”. The Koran 8-12.”  This verse is also the justification for the murder of Muslims who do not believe in the system and who do not repent.


Anonymous Observer

Mammad

by Anonymous Observer on

As you know, I like and respect you and your opinions, even though I may disagree with you on some issues.  And on the issue whether or not Mousavi knew about the executions, I will have to respectfully disagree with you.  

First, let me say that the choice for the next leader of Iran should come from within the country as part of democratic process.  I personally have no objections to Mousavi being the next president of Iran if that is what people inside of Iran freely choose.  I think that most people on this site will agree with that position.  I think what everyone here is trying to do is to provide information and discuss the matter.  After all, who are we to impose our will upon 70 million Iranians?

But I think that this whole notion of Mousavi not knowing about the executions at all is a bit far fetched.  The executions were no secret.  A lot of them were announced on the radio every morning.  Names of the victims were published in newspapers. It will be a serious stretch to say that Mousavi, as part of the government, did not know anything about these atrocities.  A better argument would be that he probably knew what was happening, but in that environment, he was powerless to stop it. One might even argue that in the killing orgy that was taking place at the time, he himself may have become a target if he had spoken out.  So, one can also argue that he was afraid for his own safety--and even his own life--and that is why he never spoke out.

Next, the fact the Montazeri took Mousavi's side after the fraudulent elections last summer may have been a matter of expediency.  Perhaps he thought that Mousavi was Iran's best choice for progress and moving beyond the IRI regardless of his past.  We will never know.

Three last points: first, we should NOT elevate politicians who we like to the level of infallibility. We should support who we like, but also take into consideration their flaws, and discuss those flaws.  Otherwise, how are we going to be different from those who blindly worship Shah or Khomeini.  Second, "not knowing" about a crime that is committed in a system of government which the person is a part of--even if that is the case--has never been a valid defense.  Example; the Nuremberg trials.  Third, as I said above, if the people of Iran want to choose Mousavi as their leader--knowing about his background--and in essence "forgive" his involvement with the regime at that stage, and move on, then that is their choice, and we should all respect it. But I doubt that a mafia organization like IRI will EVER allow a democratic process that will lead to that choice.  


fooladi

Good point MM.

by fooladi on

The least Mousavi can do at this point of time is to publicaly accept and apologise for his role and responsibility in the mass murders of the best and brightest of young Iranians in 1988, hence depriving an entire generation of democratic, secular minded political leaders. This should , in my opinion commute his sentence to something lesser. Alas, I doubt he would. He and other "reformists" have very carefully been avoiding even slightest mention of this massacre. I think the reason is pure and simply an ideological issue and barrier they are facing......

I am looking forward to the day of reckoning, when every murderer and his accomplice in the islamic regime, from the "conservative", to "reformist" have to answer back for their crimes, in the court of Iranian people. 


MM

Mousavi was clueless about massacres for 7 months?

by MM on

"Starting in August 1988 and continuing until shortly before the tenth anniversary of the Islamic revolution in February 1989, the Iranian authorities carried out massive wave of executions of political prisoners – the largest since those carried out in the first and second year after the Iranian revolution in 1979. In all between 4,500 and 5,000 prisoners are believed to have been killed, including women."

//www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/118/2008/en/f59e0311-6de3-11dd-8e5e-43ea85d15a69/mde131182008en.pdf

As the 3rd ranking officer in IRI, Mousavi did not know about the massacres until they ended 7 months later?  Mousavi also did not know about Montazeri's letter to Khomeini?  I guess it is nice to be the VP in IRI!

The fact is that although the buck stops at Khomeini for the 1988 massacres, people like Montazeri objected while Mousavi appeared to collaborate (a passive participant), and Khomeini is still Mousavi's hero and someone he looks up to!


vildemose

Ic=Iranian.com

by vildemose on

Ic=Iranian.com


Mammad

Vildemose

by Mammad on

What is IC?

Mammad


vildemose

Mammad: Thank you for your

by vildemose on

Mammad: Thank you for your response to Jamshid. Very infomative. Would you please write a short blog about Mousavi on IC if you have time just to clear things up for some? thanks.

 


Darius Kadivar

Food for Thought ...and Contradiction

by Darius Kadivar on

Interviewed in a luxurious setting of a British mansion ( his Home ?), Filmmaker Ebrahim Golestan confesses that watching the Shah's Coronation made him to literally "Vomit". Don't know how to qualify this interview ... do you ? 

GAUCHE CAVIAR: Ebrahim Golestan interviewed by Massoud Behnoud (BBC Persian)


Shazde Asdola Mirza

Is it just me, or the other 3000 visitors also saw IAN?

by Shazde Asdola Mirza on

DK dear: please correct the title to show IRAN and not IAN.


Mammad

Jamshid

by Mammad on

Although I usually do not respond to you because if the debate continues you start calling me names at some point (in your last comment directed at me, before this one, you called me vaghih), but because you asked good questions, here are my thoughts.

First of all, Mousavi wanted to resign in September 1988 (this fact is well-known and beyond dispute). When was that? Right after the executions had ended, or just about when they were going to end. As explained in this article,

 //www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/08/the-bloody-red-summer-of-1988.html

they had started in May 1988, hence refuting the claim that they were done because the MKO had attacked Iran. 

Mousavi did not say he found out years later, but found out sometime after they had ended. Why did he want to resign? I do not know. But, given what is known about him,

 //www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/02/the-political-evolution-of-mousavi.html

it is plausible that he wanted to resign because he had found out about the executions. I am not claiming that this is definitive, but I find it totally plausible. Ayatollah Khomeini asked him to stay on, and he did for several more months, and then left politics for 20 years.

Why does he still have Ayatollah Khomeini's picture in his site? I do not know. What I do know is that some of the most sincere reformists, such as Mostafa Tajzadeh and Mohammad Khatami, who have played no role in the crimes that have happened, still respect Ayatollah Khomeini. I am not saying this is good, but that the point is, Mousavi is not the only one who does that. I also know that if Mousavi does what you say, he will be attacked most savagely, way beyond whatever attacks that have been staged against him.

Quite frankly, although I agree that Ayatollah Khomeini was responsible for many crimes, at this point in time, 21 years after his death, removing his picture from Kalameh site is not important to people like me. Our problem is Ayatollah Khamenei and the IRGC, and Mousavi has been absolutely courageous in confronting them. His statement regarding the execution of the five was utterly courageous.

//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/05/capital-punishment-capital-fear.html

And his latest speech in which he said that, "The Green Movement does not care about the idelogy of the people," hence making it all encompassing is fabulous. Mousavi was having a quiet life full of arts. He came back only because of his patriotism.

Mousavi has been threatened (just a few days ago the IRGC threatened him with death and Elham called him Mohareb), his wife has been physically attacked, his nephew was assassinated, and all of his aides are in jail, yet he continues his resistance. Politically, he has grown tremendously in one year at the age of 68. That already says a lot about the man. I have the deepest admiration for him, and my admiration for him is not new. It goes back to the first time I got to know him through his articles in the Jomhouri-ye Eslami daily. 

Mammad


jamshid

Q

by jamshid on

"There was a time where you pretended to "quote" me (and when I caught you twisting the quote, you would get angry and accuse me of being an IRI agent)."

Based on your own arguments in this site, I believe you support the regime, but I have not claimed anything about your being an "agent".

To counter my argument, you wrote:  

"[you are] lying, deceitful and dishonest hypocrite... you look petty and delusional... your hate blindess... serial character assassin... anything that your hateful heart wants ... you and people who think like you are delusional... projecting whatever evil hate you carry around in your heart... Your psychological condition is beyond even my considerable abilities..."

Is the above your best counter-argument for what I have said? If it is, then I rest my case.


Mammad

Q

by Mammad on

I did not mean, of course, that you do not know about what I talked about. I know you are extremely well-informed. It was meant to emphsize your points. 

And I agree with you regarding why these guys do what they do. The reason is exactly what you say.

Yeah, the "real" leader has lived all his adult life out of Iran, living comfortably with the wealth that his father stole from the Iranian nation, has not achieved anything, is totally out of touch, cannot even deliver well the speech that his handlers write for him, and his greatest fans outside the small circle of shahollahies is the ultra-right Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Some leader! 

 

Mammad


jamshid

Mammad

by jamshid on

"Anyone who says that Ministry of Intelligence was controlled by Mousavi is either ill-informed, or uninformed, or a fabricator. The Ministry was never under Mousavi's control. "

And who suggested the above? The comments are all intact. Read them and tell me who said that? But since this might be your response to what I wrote further down about Mousavi, then again I reiterate:

Mousavi was not a decisoin maker in reference to the massacre. But he was the prime minister, and if not all, many organs of the Ministry of Intelligence was under his supervision nevertheless.

As such, he must have found out about the massacre at some point in time not too far from the time of the massacre. Do you deny this?

Anyone who wants to claim that Mousavi found out about the massacre years later, or anything to that effect, is either ill-informed, or uninformed, or a fabricator.

The whole point here is what do you do with that knowledge after you found out? Montazeri did something about it. I am sure there are other IRI officials who also after learning about the massacre criticized it.

And what have Mousavi done about it? MM just posted a comment on that. He is mute. Not only that, he still has Khomeini's picture in his website the last time I checked it. He still has Khomeini's photo next to him in his interviews.

What does that tell us? That he is still attached to one of the greatest murderers of our time. Is this the person who wants to lead the reforms? The first step of any reform would have been to remove anything "Khomeini" from his surroundings.

The fact that he hasn't done so speaks volumes about his turning a blind eye on the massacre and other crimes khomeini had committed.

And if you say that if he speaks, his life may be in danger, then I ask again, would his life be in danger if he doesn't have khomeini's photo in his interview?


Q

PS. (To Mammad)

by Q on

the conclusion is that Mousavi must be destroyed simply because he is not one of them, although I would bet they would destroy even one of their own, which they have many times in the past. In this respect they are allies of the hardliners, exactly like the Neocons and others who did everything they could to help Ahmadinejad stay in power. Will of the Iranian people, even millions at a time, is only important if it can be abused for their own purposes, not otherwise.

Like I said, I'm grateful that the Iranian nation is simply shaking its collective head on these clowns and moving on with its priorities.


MM

IRI bulldosed mass graves - ca. 5000 confirmed - Mousavi connect

by MM on

"Last month (2009???), the Iranian authorities began bulldozing the site of 1988 mass graves in the district of Khavaran in southeast Tehran, planning to turn it into a public park." 

//www.irantribunal.com/English/EnHome.html 

Why?  Is IRI affraid that their 1988 atrocities will be revealed and eventually they will be held responsible?

...................

AI report of the 20th anniversary of the 1988 Iran massacre: //www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/118/2008/en/f59e0311-6de3-11dd-8e5e-43ea85d15a69/mde131182008en.pdf

The Amnesty International also reports that many prisoners either committed suicide inside the prison or after they got out due to the tortures they were subjected to in the prison.

The number of known names of murdered prisoners according to families of those who disappeared during this time is around 5000, but no one knows the final numbers until the murderers are brought to trials.

The world is watching IRI.  As I said before, 7th century desert mentality does not work in 21st century civil society.

...................

Iran : Students grill Moussavi about the 1988 massacre of political prisoners

//ncr-iran.org/content/view/6314/1/

Wednesday, 06 May 2009

"On Monday, one of the students asked Moussavi about kangaroo trials that issued judgments in the span of a few minutes and led to the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988. The student added: At the time, you were the prime minister. You were the third most powerful person in the country. What do you have to say now about your silence back then when all this was taking place? Was your silence a sign of endorsement? We want to stress again that you should explicitly respond to this question.  However, Moussavi refused to address the question directly, and as he was leaving the arena, students chanted, “Mirhossein, give us an answer about 1988.” Students also shouted slogans against other regime officials, in addition to Moussavi."

Also, see

//reroad.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-tuesday-students-of-qazvin.html

//iranian.com/main/news/2009/05/06/students-grill-moussavi-about-1988-massacre-political-prisoners

 


Q

Dear Mammad,

by Q on

You're not telling me anything I don't know. I have repeated most of your points below in arguably less eloquent form. This is what set off the mob in the fit of rage and anger to begin with.

I would humbly add one point here:

Given that Ayatollah Montazeri, or anyone else for that matter, never ever mentions Mousavi as a culprit, and given that Dr. Abbas Milani - an ardent foe of the IRI - said in his recent profile of Mousavi that he finds Mousavi's claim to be credible, I do not know why people try to attribute something to Mousavi in which he was not involved.

I know why. I know exactly why. Mousavi represents the biggest danger to date to the fossilized exile "opposition". Mousavi and the Green movement are the very embodiment of what they have cried for years would never happen. Jamshid for example, used to go on for hours talking about how people of Iran are not ready for change and this will be a gradual "long term" process, etc. etc. The reasons are not rocket science. These people are delusional. They think of themselves as the "best" of Iran, and cannot fathom any other social movement that rejects their own ideology and their own methods. They're running around blaming the Greens (tens of Millions of people) for "creating division" within their minuscule numbers.

That's why here in LA, this crowd was chanting "Marg bar Mousavi" during the election (and a few days before they showed back up with "where is my vote" signs) and tried to co-opt the movement.

This is a serious do-or-die moment for the out-of-Iran opposition establishment which had claimed to be true representatives of Iranians for years. Everything they said about what Iranians want, the methods they want to use, and the values they hold has been shown to be a lie. If Mousavi succeeds, these people are out of business. It's completely understandable.

It reminds me of a quote I heard from one of the regular clown Prince worshipers here, right after the election crisis broke out. He said: "The best thing now is if they kill Mousavi so we can provide the real leadership."

That's the kind of close minded fossils we are dealing with.

Stay safe.


Mammad

Q

by Mammad on

Let me add a few points to this debate:

1. The most reliable estimate of the number of executed in 1988 is around 4500, based on a lit of names. Ayatollah Montazeri put the number between 2800 and 3800, but conceded that it could be higher. Several years ago, a leading human rights advocate told me the same.

2. Anyone who says that Ministry of Intelligence was controlled by Mousavi is either ill-informed, or uninformed, or a fabricator. The Ministry was never under Mousavi's control.

3. But, even aside from that, the main culprits behind the executions aside from Ayatollah Khomeini himself who was directly responsible for the executions, were not even in the Ministry, but in the Judiciary. The head of the judiciary was Ayatollah Sayyed Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardabili. He was the one who first asked Ayatollah Khomeini what to do with the political prisoners, as the war with Iraq was winding down. Others, most notably Raeisi and Mobasheri from the judiciary played the leading role. Pourmohammadi was involved because Ayatollah Khomeini had ordered the formation of a committee in which the MI was supposed to have a representative.

4. Ayatollah Montazeri named several people who were the culprits. Mousavi is not mentioned even once. In fact, even Ayatollah Khamenei was not aware of the executions, at least when they had started. I do not see why Ayatollah Montazeri would not name Mousavi, if he were somehow involved. He, in my opinion, was an utterly honest man. He and Mousavi were never close. After the war, Mousavi left politics. The very fact that after last year's rigged elections Ayatollah Montazeri threw his full support behind Mousavi is very telling, in my opinion. I find it impossible to believe that he would have done that, if he knew Mousavi was involved in the most important event in Ayatollah Montazeri's life. 

5. Mousavi has said that he was not aware of the executions. Given that Ayatollah Montazeri, or anyone else for that matter, never ever mentions Mousavi as a culprit, and given that Dr. Abbas Milani - an ardent foe of the IRI - said in his recent profile of Mousavi that he finds Mousavi's claim to be credible, I do not know why people try to attribute something to Mousavi in which he was not involved.

6. Mousavi does have a moral responsibility of stating his opinion of those executions.

7. I challenge anyone to bring in a piece of direct evidence  - a quote from a credible source or a quote from Mousavi himself anywhere (not hand-waving arguments, fabrications, "opinions," or "interpretations") that indicates that he was aware of the executions, and did not oppose them.

Mammad


jamshid

Q

by jamshid on

"my reasonable request..."

This is your reasonable request:

"We shall kill, massacre and commit atrocities. We shall make people "vanish" into thin air. We shall bury the bodies of the victims in mass graves. We shall destroy evidence. We shall intimidate and silence the families of victims."

"And then we shall make a "reasonable" request from those who protest our deeds to either present the "exact" number of people we killed, or to shut up."

Your request is collectively denied by morality, justice and rational reasoning.

The proof you demand was presented to you in my comments below along with links and references that could be used to further learn about the massacre of 1988 and its implications. Those like you who turn a blind eye on facts and evidences shall remain in the dark where they belong.

And no amount of "hochi gari", safsateh and diversion by you or others can change the facts nor lower the number of the victims.

May their souls rest in peace.


Q

LOL, yes, I "lack" "conscious,"

by Q on

so much so, that my reasonable request to "prove what you claim" is not even considered repeatable for you!

What can I say? A delusional person only hears what he/she wants to hear, twists it and ignores the rest.


jamshid

Q, Let's examine lack of conscious

by jamshid on

Let's analyze your response to me. You wrote: 

"the delusional characters I deal with are so boring... it's actually kinda funny... in a tragic sort of way... don't take it personally... You haven't said anything new in years... you can be very amusing... bullshit pretense of politeness by hypocrites... too good for your own advice... those numbers are BS... you have no idea... violated by hot-headed emotion filled haters..."

That was your response in a nutshell. You have nothing more of substance to present in your counter-argument, except for diversions through personal attacks.

Shame on you and all others who lack conscisous.


Q

Let's examine "hypocrisy"

by Q on

One of the many things Jamshid and assorted haters, regularly accuse me of.

for example when someone says:

stick to the subject

followed by:

Q, discuss the "associations" of those who lied about the numbers during the revolution, e.g., 10,000 killed in Jaleh square vs 97, or 600,000 killed by the Pahlavis (khomeini's cassette) vs 5000, or 300,000 political prisoners vs. 3000, etc.)

One has to laugh.

next example:

Also discuss why lying is the right thing to do under certain cicumenstances, while it is a despicable thing to do under others.

Yes, Jamshid, I said "lying is the right thing to do", and of course this was the subject all along! Thank you truth loving honest reporter for this observation!

Do you see now why the words delusional hater are particularly applicable here?

Did you steal this right out of the Shah's government spokesman during his last years of his reign?

Yes, that's where I stole it from. Is this a good time to interrupt your laughable ego trip to remind you to follow your own advice as far as "subject"? Or.... is that just for other people to follow?

Briefly describe why corruption is a bad thing under the Shah, but it is just a mere flaw under the IRI which we must only hope to reform.

Yes, I said corruption is a "mere flaw" and fully acceptable under the IRI. Also, I said that Arabic is better than Farsi and that Khomeini was much better dressed than the Shah. Also, Ferdowsi was a loser.

What can I say, Jamshid, I am in awe of your fair and ethical points and fact based argumentation.

Why would anyone ever call you a liar or a serial exaggerator? This is not possible! Why not take your "personal speculation" as proven fact? I now understand and apologize to you fully!

anyway. If the sarcasm is too difficult to understand for you, let me spell it out: not everyone thinks and acts like you. Just because something bad, or a vicious accusation can be said, it does not mean you should say it, particularly as compensation for factual shortcomings.

A little rational self control is a good thing, once in a while.


Q

Jamshid, spinning like "ferfereh" just like I said?

by Q on

You keep saying "yawnn" and "lol". Make up your mind.

What can I say, the delusional characters I deal with are so boring, it's actually kinda funny, in a tragic sort of way. Anyway, don't take it personally, You haven't said anything new in years, but you can be very amusing. :)

Try for once to speak politely, Q. Where were you raised?

Somewhere where people are taught to recognize bullshit pretense of politeness by hypocrites who -- as usual -- are too good for their own advice! Also known as Kordestan.

Based on the available evidence, 8000 is my own best approximation for a conservative number of victims in the massacre. As I said, the number is more likely more than 10,000, but conservatively speaking it could be said it is around 8000.

And as I said, both those numbers are BS because you have no proof for them. Its quite simple really.

If you really want to know the exact number (all of us here do as well), instead of arguing with us

First, thanks for admitting (for once) that you have no idea as to the number. Second, I will take your advice after you agree to do something which is completely reasonable by the standard of any argument: don't use any facts that you can't prove. Fair?

I hope you and your friends can see how reasonable this request is, yet how often it is violated by hot-headed emotion filled haters who couldn't care less about the real world.


jamshid

Vildemose, Anonymous Observer

by jamshid on

Dear Vildemose: Welcome!

Dear AO: Good points on Khomeini's exile status before coming to Iran (not to mention that he couldn't speak Farsi with proper Farsi grammar. He always misplaced words according to Arabic grammar.)


Iraniandudee3

Islamists terrified of Reza Pahlavi?

by Iraniandudee3 on

Whenever I see a post about this man or the Pahlavi dynasty in general on Iranian . com I always see Islamists and leftists spamming the pages about how bad this man was for Iran, blah blah blah, even though most Iranians disagree with them about the Pahlavi dynasty.

 

It just shows how scared shatless these islamist are of Reza pahlavi and the Pahlavi's  gaining power more and more amongst average Iranains both in Iran and abroad as time passes. 

 

Now any islamists in denial, and I know all of you paranoid vermins live in a another universe, this man must be doing something right to make you islamists explode in anger and frustraition to spam and bark on every article about him like a bunch of low-lives.

 

Btw, I'm no shahi, but I would again rather have this man in power than anyone else for now.


Anonymous Observer

Jamshid

by Anonymous Observer on

I actually have a partial answer to your inquiries.  You ask:

Q, discuss the "associations" of those who lied about the numbers during the revolution, e.g., 10,000 killed in Jaleh square vs 97, or 600,000 killed by the Pahlavis (khomeini's cassette) vs 5000, or 300,000 political prisoners vs. 3000, etc.)

The answer to this inquiry is simple.  It's called hypocrisy.  What was perfectly justified during the 1979 devolution is frowned upon today. I wrote a blog about it a few months ago.  Here's the link:

 //iranian.com/main/blog/anonymous-observer/hypocrisy-good-1979-bad-2009

Imagine this for example: Khomeini lived outside of Iran for almost two decades.  He lived in a country that had declared itself the enemy of Iran and had actually gone to war against it.  He led the devolution from France and flew into Iran when everything was pretty much done and Shah had left.  Now can you imagine if today, an Iranian opposition leader, who resides in another country with which there is a threat of conflict with Iran, like let's say, in Israel, tries to lead a revolution in Iran and fly in on American Airlines when everything is  said and done?!!!  Can you just imagine what this crowd would say?!!!  They're already discrediting any opposition leader outside of Iran.  Just imagine the scenario that I just described.  

Hypocrisy has no bounds. 

 


vildemose

"you were caught lying in a

by vildemose on

"you were caught lying in a fit of anger... this is your way of fixing it after the fact... I'd love to share more opinions about you... you are a deluded self-centered and absolutist extremist... you have a pathological need to assert your half-baked theories... you seem to be mentally stuck back in grade school... you have a serious anger management issue...

Classic example of projection bubbling up on the surface of his/her psyche.