IRANdokht

Rosie's Question

The only choice of government which was listed on the ballot was the Islamic Republic. It looked something like what I've listed below.  98.2% of the eligible voters which were more than 20 million people voted yes for the formation of the Islamic Republic. The total population of Iran at that time was around 34 million. BTW, I was in the 1.8% (What else do you expect from an Idealistic 17 years old) I wrote my choice in which was and still is; a "Democratic Republic".

Farsi - Jomhourieh Eslami: Arii ya Na

English - Islamic Republic: Yes or NO

If anyone was a traitor to

If anyone was a traitor to Iran, it was Khomeini not Shahpour Bakhtiar. Khomeini's agenda was never to take of Iran's interest but to fulfill and implement his personal vendetta against those who had caused him personal humiliation; and he used Islam as a tool to do it.

His main goal in life was seeking revenge and providing 'eternal job security for the clergies' and other illiterate mullahs.

The Iraq war was imposed and forced upon Iranians by the megalomaniac Khomeini. He tried to provoke Sadam and he succeeded. He has his goons sent to Iraq to subvert and destablize Sadam's government. One such incident was the explosion in one Iraq's university by the shi'ite terrorists. For source, use google.

I'm also reposting this information regarding the Iran-Iraq war from another thread in response to anonym7 usual half-truths:

by Anonymous4now on Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:30 AM CDT

You have a distorted view of history. The Iran Iraq war started at the instigation of the revolutionary government of Iran which insisted on exporting its revolution, and in particular into Iraq, during the Carter administration, in 1980. Gary Sick who was on Carter’s National Security Council, chronicles the events in his book “The October Surprise”.

“In the initial rush of exhilaration after the overthrow of the Shah, bands of clerics and other revolutionaries formed teams to export the revolution beyond their own borders.” (p40).

“At almost the same time, but unrelated to the growing Iran –Iraq tensions, President Carter finally broke diplomatic relations with Iran and called for international economic and military sanctions.”(PP41-41)

“One of the most important targets for subversion was Iraq, where Shiites formed the majority of the population, …….

The festering dispute between Iran and Iraq erupted in April 1980. On April 1, an Iranian attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz and Latif Nasif Jasim, two close associates of Saddam Hussein. The attempt failed, but two other Iraqis and the assailant were killed. Immediately the Iraqis arrested Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr, an internationally respected Shi’i clergyman, presumably as a warning to Iran. On April 5, at a funeral procession for those killed in the earlier attack, another Iranian threw a grenade that killed an Iraqi bystander. Two days later seventy Iraqi commandos attacked a western Iranian province with rockets and missiles, and Iraqi officials began deporting thousands of individuals of Iranian origin. On the eighth Khomeini made a speech openly calling for the people of Iraq to “wake up and topple this corrupt regime”.(p41)

Wikipedia has this account of the events relating to the war.

For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and the Iraqi military was forced to retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the areas lost to Iraq earlier in the war. An especially significant battle of this counter-offensive in the Khuzestan province was the liberation of Khorramshahr from the Iraqis on May 24, 1982.A Saudi Arabia-backed plan to end the war agreed to by Iraq included $70 billion in war reparations to be paid by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf on behalf of Iraq, and complete the Iraqi evacuation from Iranian territory - an offer called by some critics of Iranian government as "extraordinarily favorable to Iran."[21] Iran rejected Iraq's offer, demanding the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, the repatriation of 100,000 Shi'ites expelled from Iraq before the war, and $150 billion in war reparations.It is unlikely that anyone in Iran seriously expected that Iraq would accept these terms and only offered them as a way of getting Saddam to refuse peace, thus making him continue to look like the aggressor. In fact, many within the Iranian government were demanding that the war be expanded into Iraq. On 21 June, Khomeini hinted that the expulsion of Iraqi troops would not be followed by a cessation of Iranian attacks, but by an invasion of Iraq. The following day, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi said that the war would continue "until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at the Shi'ite holy city of Karbala and Najaf.". This matched a comment made by Khomeini on the issue of a truce with Iraq: "There are no conditions. The only condition is that the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic."[22]//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

So you see anonym7, the so called “imposed war” was imposed on Iranians by Khomeini and his goons from the beginning, by antagonizing Iraq, and then shamelessly continuing when they clearly could have stopped and started to think about rebuilding the country. Reagan had nothing to do with the sanctions and if anything he was busy making under the table deals with Iran for transfer of military hardware to Iran, via Israel. The world looked the other way because they disliked the grotesque nature of the Iranian regime and were happy to see Saddam remove them from power. The Iranian government had ridiculed and ignored the UN and no country was willing to speak on behalf of Iran. Clearly, after Iran became the aggressor, in 1982, everyone jumped to Iraq’s help because one Islamic Republic was enough for the world to worry about; two could not be tolerated.

Also read this:

As for who started the war, you need only ask yourself why Saddam would take on a country three times the size of Iraq, 60 million to 20 million, without ever showing the slightest intent of carrying the fight to Tehran. When the escalating skirmishing grew into open war, the Iraqi army moved several dozen miles into Iran and stopped, seemingly ready to come to terms. It was the deranged Ayatollah Khomeini, whose followers overthrew the Shah of Iran (a client of the U.S. government in the Cold War), who announced upon his return to Tehran from his exile in Paris, that Saddam Hussein was at the top of his list of enemies... and it was he who called upon his Shi'ite followers in Iraq to change the ...Continue reading below:

//www.antiwar.com/wanniski/?articleid=6065

Also read "who started the war" by Nita Renfrew. This research was published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Warning: not a complete access but you can read some of the abstract:

//www.jstor.org/pss/1148666

Ali Jaan

I've read your comment 4 times sofar,can't get enough of it.One of the best on this blog or any other one I've read sofar.Everytime that I read it,I enjoy it more.

Best Wishes

Kudod to Ali P

Ali p: wow, you deserve an Oscar or whatever the equivalent is for best writing.

I love how you break things down to make it easier to understand by just about everybody including the Basiji et al.

Congratulation on writing one of the most objective,non-ideological, and enlightning gem of writing anywhere in the iranian blogsphere.

Rosie

Rosie T: There was no choice provided on the ballot; Yet, another false representation of the "will of the people".

The ballot only mentioned the Islamic Republic. Perhaps, those who were in Iran at that time can shed more light on this.

p.s. Does anyone know who came up with the wording and issuing of that particular ballot in question? Who was behind constructing this ballot?

deserving Bakhtiar? (to Anonymous77)

Anonymous77 says: "At the time there were many liberal groups, scattered and simply not as organized as the insane right-wing freakheads."

Well said. That truly is the main reason. Shah had only left the religious right alone for many years.....

Ad addendum for Bakhtiar-lovers

All adorers of the last Prime Minister of the Shah are kindly requested to add to their love-laden remarks the fact that Mr. Bakhtiar founded Namir through strong donations by Iraq and Saudi Arabia at the same time when the two countries were actively killing Iranians on the battle front. So, unless treason is a way of saving one's country, I really cannot assign to role of saviour to Bakhtiar.

Clarification: Fair, Jamshid, Kaveh...A Reader, Ebi

Fair you wrote:

The nation's masses and educated faced a choice: support Khomeini and an Islamic government or support a modern secular republic based on the principles of mashrootiat advocated by Bakhtiar (and supposedly JM).

I thought the choice of that referendum was between an Islamic Republic and Monarchy. Can you or someone please tell me exactly how the choice was stated? (English and Persian). And what it meant?

Yes, Jamshid I remember very well you told me you could find common ground with ANYONE but an IRI supporter. (i.e. Q.) Including a COMMUNIST (coming from you that was an UNFORGETTABLE statement..hard to imagine you hanging with Communists... :o)  ) I don't want to inflame anthing here, I'm just sincerely trying to understand--would you also characterize say Soraya or Trita Parsi as an IRI supporter? .It's a SERIOUS question. Could you please answer it.

Ebi, please don't say I'm off-topic. First of all I think I WILL address this as my final blog ASAP. (not the individuals concerned, the conflicting worldviews). That was a good idea. But I can't until I understand it better. (And it's been troubling me for a looong time..) Also, for me to try to understand the antagonistic stances people have today as a result of the WOUNDS of '79 is something that honors Dr. Bakhtiar. I hope.

Kaveh. I think you may have been referring in part to me. I praised Bqakhtiar highly throught this thread. When I said I was "with" A Reader, I meant that the poster of the blog did not accept dissent properly. I still don't think she did. She made implicit accusations which I found strange and baseless.

I  didn't agree with A Reader that Irandokht  shouldn't answer her posts on her own thread. That's silly.  So if you were referring to me that's my response. Naturally, no reply needed.

Robin

Thank you for the videos and to those who keep saying that we

didn't deserve him: give me a break and speak for yourselves.

My parents and their friends fully supported the man and so did many others, who couldn't stand the selfprofessed "royals" either.

HOWEVER in the face of highly organized right-wing religious extremism and hysterical slogans, a gentler, flexible, peaceful liberal level-headed political approach which above all needed time, didn't stand a chance.
At the time there were many liberal groups, scattered and simply not as organized as the insane right-wing freakheads.

I feel lucky that we did have such a wonderful statesman who truly was intelligent and loved his fellow countrymen and was exemplary.

my final comment

This blog as so many of you correctly stated was a tribute to a fallen hero who deserves to be remembered and respected.

On the eve of 08/07 my intention was to write a simple note about a patriot who was not appreciated by the people when he stood firm for their well-being and fought to stop the doomed future they were heading towards on the eve of the anniversary of his murder by the hands that have brought destruction and devastation to our beloved Iran.

When I first thanked everyone for helping us remember him, I didn’t expect such magnitude of support and respect from all the members who took the time to write their positive comments.

So to all of you who spoke from the heart and remembered him fondly:

Thank you

Roohash shaad

IRANdokht

To so-called "readers"

One of the primary reasons this particular thread endured as long as it has, and with the level of civility it had until it was sabotaged by the "usual suspects" is the fact that IRANdokht responded to our comments.

That simple act of acknowledgement on her part is an example of what is almost non-existent. It's called CLASS.

There are authors/bloggers who use Iranian.com as their personal venue to create cyber-chaos. They write incendiary articles, post them and then disappear until the next time, never answering, never backing up what they say, never even saying a simple "thanks for taking a few minutes to read my post while especially you're on the clock at work".

I like it when an author responds it's because it opens further lines of communication, a task at which Iranians traditionally SUCK.

Either you're anti-this or pro-that, and then there are those who are neither, who are just so desperate for attention that they have to create conflict out of boredom. To those people, I recommend spending time at your public library or Barnes & Noble or Borders and catching up on some long overdue reading. Or order the upgrade package with your cable provider and watch some reruns of old TV shows. Don't make an issue out of nothing just because you are attention junkies seeking a fix.

Ali P., Rosie, Irandokth

Ali P.

What you wrote was so true and so sincere. People could write hundreds of pages and not yet be able to so elegantly describe the truth regarding those days. You shoud write more.

Rosie,

I once told you that there is no possiblity of reconciliation between the supporters of a brutal and criminal regime and their victims, NONE. Reconciliation between the left, Jebheye Melli, Monarchists, Secular republicans, etc, is definitely a worthy and noble goal, but please keep IRI supporters out of such notions.

Irandokth,

I hope you won't back away because some criticized you for promptly responding to the comments in your thread. I was just beginning to pleasantly learn about another side of you I didn't think it existed.

Q...

You're blogging yourself into an irrelevance equal to that of John Carpenter.

And this particular thread was the LAST place to do it.

Ali P.....

All I can say is "bravo".

Very well put. Damet garm.

Iranian martyr worshipping

Iranian martyr worshipping culture at work in this disucssion. clearly we have not evolved at all in 1000s of yrs.

Ali Jaan that was excellent!

After that analysis and presentation, you can walk as tall as you wish.  You are right on all historical accounts. 

Bakhtiar was a seasoned politician, knew the Shah, knew his country and above all knew the mullah’s and their vision for Iran.  He accepted the position to save Iran from becoming what it has.  He could have taken the easy way out, like the others, and joined the crowd.  But he had the courage of conviction to try and prevent Iran from falling into the abysmal condition he could envision under a mulahtacracy. 

I wish he could hear and feel the admiration and the respect people have grown for him now, because he must have felt betrayed, by friends and foe alike, in those days. 

Thank you Ali P.....

...Beautifully put. I wish there were more people like you.

I was also almost your age during the revolution, and that is exactly how I felt then, and also how I feel now.

Our nation has to take responsibility for the choices it made. Only then can we advance, and yes... walk taller than today.

Nice try Q, ...

....but it won't work. You will not succeed in labelling and discrediting Dr. Bakhtiar.

You are totally entitled to your opinion about Bakhtiar, and his judgement about accepting the position, and opposing him on principle, etc.

But you have no place to call him "nokar-e-bee-ekhtiar" while just saying you don't "approve" of assasinations. This raises some questions about your own judgement. Are you being equally harsh to all the characters? And on what grounds is he a NOKAR? Who was he taking orders from? What evidence do you have whatsoever that he was not independent?

And your analogy of Ganji/Khamenei to Bakhtiar/Shah is totally off. First of all, Ganji used to be loyal to Khamenei, whereas Bakhtiar was never loyal to Shah or any monarchy. Secondly, If today Khamenei was on the verge of being overthrown and on his way out put Ganji in a position of prime minister, many people in iran would at least listen to him and see what he has to say. You would not see millions immediately calling him "nokar-e-bee ekhtiar" as you (and so many others) hypocritically called Bakhtiar, evidently even until today. Just look how many millions in Iran came out and called Khatami (who was never in opposition to the IR) a "nokar-e-bee ekhtiar"?  Even after he himself said that he was!  Bakhtiar in 1979  did not have 1/10 the support that Khatami had in 1997.  The youth in Iran today are a lot smarter and more mature than you were (and still are) obviously.

Furthermore, it seems you are stuck on the monarchists you know. Have you ever wondered what the majority of Iranians inside Iran (who probably want nothing to do with the monarchy) want? Or are you stuck in the past in your own unsetlled conflicts? For how long do you want to do this?

Here is the bottom line. In 1979, the Shah heard the voice of the people and left. The nation's masses and educated faced a choice: support Khomeini and an Islamic government or support a modern secular republic based on the principles of mashrootiat advocated by Bakhtiar (and supposedly JM). The vast majority voted for the former, and Bakhtiar and his few supporters dissented for the latter.

The JM turned their back on him, allegedly for his "crime" of having anything to do with the Shah. But in their own eyes, it was perfectly ok to be aligned with an anti-democratic anti-nationalist character like Khomeini.

And the vast majority did not respect Bakhtiar, NOT because he was a nokar, but because he didn't vote with them.

And today, you do the same.

And then you put down Bakhtiar's judgement?

And when someone like Jamshid answers you, you tell him to not bother and go spend some time with his family?? 

So do you have an agenda? Or do you honestly believe in what you say? In either case, statements like yours make me and anybody reading this forum that indeed Iran has a long way to go.

All I ask is that you ..

be FAIR.

Ali P.

That was a great piece brother. I have always enjoyed your writings even when I disagree with it. This was a great piece. I wish I was also old enough, and supported him as well. a TRUE IRANIAN hero fighting the barbaric savages. May he rest in peace and his memory to live in the hearts of every Iranian.

Calling those people anti-iranian is perfectly correct

He was right on all accounts, including  calling those people who violated the curfew Anti-Iranian. It turns out many of those became part of the Komitehs all over the country, committing crime, killing and arresting people. It turns out those people supported this govemment which turns out to be the most Anti-iranian government since the Arab invasion of Iran. Actually it is more than Anti-Iranian, they were, and some who support this government are anti-humanity.

For those people calling Q dear, good friend,etc, you have just witnessed his true color. He is just never gone a be a human being. He is void of any values. He has consistenly supported the regime in Tehran here while criticizing someone like Bakhtiar. There is no decency in him. He even dares labeling himself the defender of the "truth" and "fact". He must be talking about IR's version of fact and truth.

Ali P., Damet Garm!

That was one of the best presentations in a nut shell I have ever read.

Very Nice!

Who would YOU relate to?

  For better or worse, I was only 15 when Bakhtiar became Prime Minister. I was too young, and immature to take side.

 But I sometimes wonder, what would I have done, had I been 45...:

The country is in turmoil. Shah's regime is falling apart, and the Ayatollah is remotely leading a revolution, promising eutopia to his followers.

 If I was 45 in 1979, what would be my problem with the Shah's regime? When it came to economic prosperity, women's right, strong army, modernization and national unity, I didn't have a bone to pick with the late Mohammad Reza Shah. I would have to give credit where credit was due.

 My problem would probably have been lack of political freedom, SAVAK and corruption. These were the major source of protests, as I remember now, and as we read the newspapers from back then.

 Now in 1979, two fronts open up: Shah's vision for Iran, and the Ayatollah's:

  I can see myself sitting down with the Shah, having a conversation, disagreeing sharply on ways to make Iran a prosperous country, to make Iranians proud people, and providing a level of comfort for Iranian people, comparable to Europeans. We'd share the same vision, just disagree on how to get there.

  Now I am sitting next to the Ayatollah. His goal has nothing to do with prosperity, democracy, or pride of Iranians:

He's pissed off!

He is pissed off because the 1906 Revolution turned the tide against the Mullahs.

He's pissed off because he can not inject his vision of Shiite Islam into every school kid.

He's pissed off that it is the parliament that makes important decisions, and not some Mullah.

He's pissed off because women have equal rights.

He's pissed off because people , men and women, share the same beach.

He's pissed off because Iran's military has not joined the Arabs against Israel.

 He's pissed off because Bahaii's are not wiped out.

 What do I have to talk to him about??

  Now, the Shah is not the Shah of 1977. If you follow Shah's life, you'll see he could be any of us. At the age of 20, he's deployed to take over for his father, who was sent to exile by the superpowers of the day. The Swiss educated, mild-mannered youngster becomes the Shah of Iran , and everyone likes him. Read the newspapers of that time. Everybody likes him. And there is no reason not to. He is not a dictator. Even those who cursed his father, praised the young Shah. He goes everywhere without bodyguards.

 A turning point in his life is in 1949, when he escapes an assassination. You can't find an unkind word about him prior to that time in any of the then-free press. That changed him.

 He also changed after 1953 when he left Iran with almost no money.

 The last time he changed, was, from what I understand, is when he heard people chanting "marg-bar-Shah", when he had taken a helicopter ride, during the demonstrations of 1977. He knew then, that he was not as popular as he thought he was.

  But still, would I be appointed as prime minister by a broken, ill,changed, finally-had-heard-the-voice-of-your-revolution Shah( the same Shah who appointed Mossadegh as prime minister) who caves in to all my demands,and try to save the country from falling into the hands of Mullahs, or shake hands with the Devil himself, the Ayatollah?

 You know who he is: He is a student of Shaikh Fazlollah eh Noori, and Ayatollah Kashani. You know what he wants for Iran. He's explained it all to us in his book "velaayateh-fagheeh".

  Bakhtiar cured all major complaints in his short time as prime minister. He gave the people, what they legitimately complained about: Disbanded SAVAK, freed political prisoners, freed the media, and started to prosecute the sources of corruption.

 As he said" there are those who have a legitimate cause to rebel, and then there are those, whose mission is to pull this country into turmoil."

  He told someone- someone who was asked by him to join his cabinet-"I have 3% chance to win this." So he knew his chances were slim. To me, that's what character is all about: Going with your conscious, even if you know you are going to lose.

 I so wish, I had been old enough, to have supported him.

29 years later,...I would have walked tall .

Much, much taller than I am, today.

Ali P.

This Blog is being Hijacked

By people who have decided to elevate
their narcissistic egos by deliberately insulting Shapur Bakhtiar
just to prove that who ever had any contacts with the Shah and did
not join the revolution was some how not deserving of the type of
respect that this Iranian hero truly deserves.

This Blog was civil – unusually
civil- until people started attacking an Iranian hero, murdered by
the IRI terrorists, for their own personal gratifications.

It is Sad.

Dear Q

This is not a touchy subject for me, as I am not a "Bakhtiari" so I give you
my idea as a short note before saying shab bekheir :

I do not share your idea on many point syou just mentioned, but will only respond to the last one :

" Had he publically refused Shah's offer and joined the revolution, he would have had a much better chance of his vision influencing the new government and events may have taken a radically different course."

Through what happened to the other politician who did try this strategy, we can say that wouldn't come true. We all know what happened to Sanjaabi, Bazargan, Bani Sadr.....and so on, not to mention Rajavi who came to the scene later but they were first alienated with the regime.

I still see Bakhtiar as a "last man standing" who was independent and people must trust him, but they didn't give him a chance. Now, why he couldn't have his own cabinet and why the Army betrayed him and why the revolution has
been accelerated , right after Bakhtiar got the position, it's another question mark.

With all due respect for you Q aziz..

Q,

You wrote:

"When Bakhtiar was discredited publically, it wasn't just him, the person who was discredited, it was to some extent his ideas on democracy secularism too. Had he publically refused Shah's offer and joined the revolution, he would have had a much better chance of his vision influencing the new government and events may have taken a radically different course. But we will never know now."

Are you referring to the same "chance" that the rest of the National Front members and members of other organizations got for siding with the revolution?

P.S.
This will be my last comment on this blog!

Jamshid

Jamshid says: "Don't you have a shred of decency Q? How low are you willing to sink in the sweage of your all-consuming oghdeh? Although it must be "too little too late" for you to ever wake up, but still I sincerely hope that some day you succeed in crawling out of your lie-hate-fear dugout and see the light for once."

Jamshid, I cant quantify Q's decency level, however I know it could not possibly be lower than yours. Do you think we have forgotten the words you used before some checks were put in place in iranian.com. Do you think we don't see you calling those who disagree with you "mozdooor" .. etc.

Dear Irandokht and others,

I can see how this is a touchy subject for many of you. Irandokht speaks with the voice, pride and conviction of a Bakhtiari member. Years ago when I had a similar debate with another Bakhtiari, I got the same treatment.

Irandokht, if you truly have been a "fan", you would know that my respect for truth, no matter the size of the point, is absolute and I find it hypocritical to make exceptions based on who my fans, friends and who they have chosen elevate to untouchable levels.

I consider it a sign of respect to engage in a discussion with respect to truth and logic working to advance our collective understanding. A sign of disrespect, reserved for people I consider beyond hope, is what I gave Jamshid.

Ironically, I seem to only find former fans only as their knives are plunged firmly in my back!

It is really counter productive to "take offense" to somone's opinion, let alone historical fact and truth.

In my opinion, Bakhtiar was no hero. I was not sold on his "vision" and program. Millions of others like me were equally skeptical of someone hand-picked by the very dictator they were trying to overthrow. Like I said, it would be like the anti-IRI crowd to trust someone hand-pickd by Khamenei. large masses shouting the "Nokare bi ekhtiar" slogan is a historical reality we can't wish away. To be sure, he had his supporters. "Bakhtiar, Bakhtiar, sangareto negah dar" was also a slogan shouted by people. But ultimately the Shah connection discredited him.

No doubt he was preferable to the Shah himself. But the vast majority of the public just didn't trust him, or didn't want to take a chance. This is the same public that had gone through the 1953 scam, so they were understandibly suspicious.

If you watch that second video above about this 22 Bahman memoires, he's describing how he had ordered the Military to harshly deal with the breakers of the military imposed curfew. When the military informed him that they have taken a neutral stance this is what he said:

"netural between what and what? Between law and lawlessness? Between Iranian-ness and Anti-Iranian-ness ?"

Calling the protestors outside "anti iranian" and wishing for the Military to squash them is not my idea of a "hero." There was an uncomfortable level of "red baiting" and fear mongering in his whole attitude. The revolution wasn't going to be reversed because of "fear" of the unknown. Abusing the nationl military for any kind of civil policing action is anti-democratic in itself.

Suppose he got his wish and the military tried to arrest and push back all the protestors on 22 Bahman by force? Does any one seriously think that would have helped the situation or ultimately benefited anyone?

So, as I said, I did not buy Bakhtiar's benevolance. I'm sure he had conviction as many here have pointed out. But everyone had conviction, on all sides. Just because he was sure he was right, doesn't mean he was.

But let's say he was a benevolent democrat who was just a victim of bad timing. Let's say his ideas were good and beneficial for Iran when implemented. Now we must ask ourselves if such a person would be considered responsible to those same ideals if he willingly accepted the PM position from the Shah of Iran.

Either he really did not realize that he would be instantly stygmatized and completely ineffective after accepting, OR he did know in which case he was irresponsible to those very ideas.

Many of you look back with the benefit of hindsight and blame the revolutionaries (that had support of the vast majority of Iranians) for Bakhtiar's inability to implement secularism and democracy. But you are being one-sided even in your Monday-morning quarterbacking.

When Bakhtiar was discredited publically, it wasn't just him, the person who was discredited, it was to some extent his ideas on democracy secularism too. Had he publically refused Shah's offer and joined the revolution, he would have had a much better chance of his vision influencing the new government and events may have taken a radically different course. But we will never know now.

So, if it's hypotheticals we are "debating", there is more than one way to hypothesize.

My dear friends please...

Baa Ehteraam Va Talabe Puzesh :

Some of you are"Playing the Sornaa from the wrong end!!"

1-This blog is dedicated to late Dr Bakhtiyar,it is not for your personal battleground.

2-Right or wrong ,Irandokht was the one who reminded us all of the anniversary & she never claimed to own anything!! ,so it is very rude of you(the masked unregistered) to tell her to sit back, let others write & not comment back.

3-Dear Rosie,please if you want to bring peace between our friends ....& ....as a friend I humbly ask you to write a blog about it & donot let this blog be derailed from its original subject( Dr Bakhtiyar is a part of our memories,good or bad).I know you won't get offended by me asking you,since you know I only ask as a friend.

4-I also humbly ask our other friends to stop attacking each other & stick to the subject,give your comments regarding " Dr Bakhtiyar".

Let's respect his memory.

I hope I've not offended my fellow Iranians on this site.

Best wishes

Ravaanash Shaad.

A great leader

He was a great man. We did not deserve him, what we have now in Iran is exactly what we deserve. We wanted it! and now we have it!

Q,

Are you trying to be cute? Are we supposed to laugh?

Why don't you, for once, deal with the issues raised, respectfully? Is it that difficult for you to be polite?

You insult Dr. Bakhtiar and then moan and groan, like a senile, about Jamshid using insulting language.

What a shameless hypocrite you are!

Why such gentle language when it comes to the brutalities of the murderous regime in Tehran?

Aren't assassinations carried out by the regime in Tehran, acts of terrorism?

The Rulling Terrorists have already murdered tens of thousands of Iranians, how many more should die before you called them, murderers and terrorists?

You are, as you have done on numerous occasions, trying to hijack and derail this thread and when you are confronted, you resort to what you know best, buffoonery!