"We Control America." Sharon...

[Roudy]

Amir -

I doubt you will see anyone on this forum claim that the Mullahs who replaced the Shah were in any way an improvement. Certainly not from me.

Notice the ignoramus Stromfront VIP now backtracking from the lies and misrepresentations it just vomitted a few posts ago.

Ha! If you are goibg to lie - and let's face it, it is the only option you have on most threads - perhaps lie about sonething that people cant check by scrolling about 3 posts up....!!

What i posted was "it is just a shame that Mullahs who replaced the Shah turned oit to be no better - and possibly worse."

Is that difficult to understand?

Possibly? The Mullahs were POSSIBLY, not definitely worse? Then you went about trying to prove how bad the Shah was? And you wonder why those who know better call you an ignoramus? The Mullahs were possibly worse? Seriously. Give it up, you just got check mated. Maybe you can hire one of your Holocaust denying buddies like Tinmore, Jos, or Sunni man to throw in the white towel for you when you're getting pummeled like this.

 

[Roudy]

. The last thing the Shah was known for, was "oppression of the Kurds". .

Ok, so you are telling us that the Shah did not oppress the Kurds.

Interesting....I mean given that I have a dozen history books and statements from both Kurdish and Iranian historians saying the exact opposite.

Can you explain why many Kurds backed the revolution, given they were not being oppressed by the Shah?

Read my explanation again. I am all for a comprehensive plan involving 5 countries, for the Kurds to have their own state. The amount of territory that Iran would have to give would be minimal but it would have to occur. The Shah did not oppress minorities, in fact under both father and son, minorities thrived as they had not for hundreds of years. You have nothing but lies, misrepresentations and bullshit factoids that are not indicative at all of who the Shah was. You are a sad pathetic person trying desperately to impersonate somebody you are not.

 

[Roudy]

. The last thing the Shah was known for, was "oppression of the Kurds". .

Ok, so you are telling us that the Shah did not oppress the Kurds.

Interesting....I mean given that I have a dozen history books and statements from both Kurdish and Iranian historians saying the exact opposite.

Can you explain why many Kurds backed the revolution, given they were not being oppressed by the Shah?

Kurds aspired for statehood, and they saw the Iranian revolution as an opportunity. The Shah did not oppress minorities, that was my claim. That is a fact. The testimonies of the minorities that lived under his reign and mourn his loss are a testament to that.

My work has provided the honor and opportunity to meet and be friends with the current leader of Kurdistan and his family. Now there's a factoid douchebag didn't know.

 

[Artevelde]

I think the Shah was known for oppressing just about everyone. That doesn't mean that the ones that replaced him were better (they have proven to be much worse). But it's silly to make the Shah's regime into something it wasn't.

 

[ima]

True...but it's not often we see posters wishing them back when they're gone.

C'mon, who doesn't wish that the Shah of Iran was still in power.

You somehow think you're funny, but humor requires at least a modicum of intelligence and you just as cleary aren't funny.

Why are you so jealous of me?

 

[amir]

Notice the ignoramus Stromfront VIP now backtracking from the lies and misrepresentations it just vomitted a few posts ago.

Ha! If you are goibg to lie - and let's face it, it is the only option you have on most threads - perhaps lie about sonething that people cant check by scrolling about 3 posts up....!!

What i posted was "it is just a shame that Mullahs who replaced the Shah turned oit to be no better - and possibly worse."

Is that difficult to understand?

Possibly? The Mullahs were POSSIBLY, not definitely worse? Then you went about trying to prove how bad the Shah was? And you wonder why those who know better call you an ignoramus? The Mullahs were possibly worse? Seriously. Give it up, you just got check mated. Maybe you can hire one of your Holocaust denying buddies like Tinmore, Jos, or Sunni man to throw in the white towel for you when you're getting pummeled like this.

Roudy, I bow to your patience. I give up. Every five year old knows that the shah didn't oppress the Kurds. They wanted independence and he wouldn't cave in. Would the US grant any state that wants to secede from the union?
Comparing the shah, an educated progressive patriotic leader who spoke several languages fluently and piloted fighter jets to these little stinky ayatollahs, mullahs and unwashed and unshaved semi Arabs who currently are in charge speaks volume of how much our
"political experts" know.......Zilch.

 

[bobgnote]

On their way to compromising the US Constitution and statutes, by conspiracy:

The Middle East Conflict: Zionist Quotes

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."
-- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

RACIST ZIONIST QUOTES : Indybay

In 1923, radical Zionist Ze'ev Jabotinsky-- spiritual father of not only of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin but of Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane-- wrote:
the "sole way" for Jews to deal with Arabs in Palestine was through "total avoidance of all attempts to arrive at a settlement"-which Jabotinsky euphemistically termed the "iron wall" approach. Not coincidentally, a picture of Jabotinsky graces Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's desk. Source: The Village Voice, "Death Wish in the Holy Land," Dec. 12, 2001.

Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, 'Begin and the "Beasts"', New Statesman, 25 June 1982:
"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return."

Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel (date undetermined, in an Israeli cabinet meeting):
"Don't worry, we [Israel] control the United States."
(In response to concerns raised by another cabinet member about Sharon's ["the butcher of Beirut"] invasion and brutality in the West Bank.)

Zionists is, as Zionists does.

 

[Roudy]

Art the Shah didn't oppress anyone. He was very much like what King Hussien of Jordan is today, but even more tolerant towards minorities and women. He and his father actually had an aversion towards allowing any Islamic influence in their country. As I said there was a lot of cronyism and bribery in his regime and with those that were close to the ruling party. He was a Monarch / dictator, yes, and there was a secret police, but as long as you did not actively plot against him or any of the key members of govt. nobody had anything to do with you.

 

[Roudy]

Ha! If you are goibg to lie - and let's face it, it is the only option you have on most threads - perhaps lie about sonething that people cant check by scrolling about 3 posts up....!!

What i posted was "it is just a shame that Mullahs who replaced the Shah turned oit to be no better - and possibly worse."

Is that difficult to understand?

Possibly? The Mullahs were POSSIBLY, not definitely worse? Then you went about trying to prove how bad the Shah was? And you wonder why those who know better call you an ignoramus? The Mullahs were possibly worse? Seriously. Give it up, you just got check mated. Maybe you can hire one of your Holocaust denying buddies like Tinmore, Jos, or Sunni man to throw in the white towel for you when you're getting pummeled like this.

Roudy, I bow to your patience. I give up. Every five year old knows that the shah didn't oppress the Kurds. They wanted independence and he wouldn't cave in. Would the US grant any state that wants to secede from the union?
Comparing the shah, an educated progressive patriotic leader who spoke several languages fluently and piloted fighter jets to these little stinky ayatollahs, mullahs and unwashed and unshaved semi Arabs who currently are in charge speaks volume of how much our
"political experts" know.......Zilch.

Amir, Fatima Saigoon, our local well traveled, studied, Middle East expert from the lunatic asylum thinks the Ayatollahs are "possibly" worse than the Shah, or to put it another way, "the jury is still out" on who was worse. True words of wisdom, you heard it here first. What do you think? Are all the Iranians inside and outside Iran wrong? Ha ha ha.

 

[Saigon]

Art the Shah didn't oppress anyone. H.

It's so great to know this - it's amazing to think all of those Kurdish leaders can have got it so wrong.

And all of those history books - out the window with them!!

And to know that all of those stories of innocent peopple being arrested, tortured and often raped - they are just lies!!

Meanwhile, for anyone genuinely interested in learning something of Evian prison, here is a stunning book written by the Financial Times journalist who was based in Iran for many years....

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Good-Place-Die-Panther/dp/1860467423/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1338906512&sr=8-2"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Good-Place-Die-Panther/dp/1860467423/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1338906512&sr=8-2[/ame]

The undoubted masterpiece on the Shah's time is by Ryzard Kapusincki, who I could consider to be amongst the greatest journalists of all time. This book is an absolutely classic.

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shahs-Penguin-Classics-Ryszard-Kapuscinski/dp/0141188049/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338906634&sr=1-1"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shahs-Penguin-Classics-Ryszard-Kapuscinski/dp/0141188049/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338906634&sr=1-1[/ame]

 

[Saigon]

I think the Shah was known for oppressing just about everyone. That doesn't mean that the ones that replaced him were better (they have proven to be much worse). But it's silly to make the Shah's regime into something it wasn't.

Yes....you'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

[Saigon]

The shah's secret police, the Savak, were notoriously savage. (My first instruction in this came in Amman, Jordan, in the early 1970s. A British consular official told me about an Iranian exile who had gone from Jordan into Iran to try to organize unions. Savak caught him, surgically amputated his arms and legs, and sent his living trunk back to his family in Amman as a warning. I looked for the man, but his family had fled with him from Jordan. The consul knew him, though, and had talked with him.) After the Shah fell in 1979 and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took over, one of his early appointees to a top job, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, decided to delve into the Savak archives. He found neatly filed certificates recording the demise of everyone who had died under torture—hundreds and hundreds of forms. "How Ottoman we are," Ghotbzadeh marveled. "Even in this, there is a procedure to be followed." He also found a shelf of reels of film. He smuggled a couple out to Cairo, and it was there that, under an oath of secrecy, I viewed one in the Nile-side apartment of an Egyptian friend and ally of Ghotbzadeh's. (Ghotbzadeh was terrified, trembling. He suspected, correctly as it turned out, that Khomeini's regime would turn to just these measures, so anyone who knew of them would be at risk. His fear proved prescient; he was executed in 1982.)

Watching Torture - The Daily Beast

it tells the story of female political prisoners during the Shah's time, in Ghasr and Evin, both prisons built during the Pahlavi era and used by Savak torturers, infamous men like Shahriari, Hossein Zadeh (Atta Poor), Hosseini (Mohammad Ali Sha'abani who was the head of Evin prison before the revolution) a gorilla-like monster, Azodi (Mohammad Hassan Nasseri) or Tehrani (Bahman Naderi-Pour) and Rassouli( Nozari). Later, they were replaced with new interrogators, all of whom were known as Haji Aqa, men like Haji Rahmani, and other Haji Aghas! This book includes interviews with well known women who were tortured, such as Fahimeh Farsai, Atefeh Ja'afari, Farideh Lashai and Mastoureh Ahmad Zadeh, the sister of Massoud, Majid and Mojtabah.

Cries from the heart: History of torture and abuse of women in Iranian prisons

Luckily, we now know from Roudy that these are lies.

 

[Roudy]

Art the Shah didn't oppress anyone. H.

It's so great to know this - it's amazing to think all of those Kurdish leaders can have got it so wrong.

And all of those history books - out the window with them!!

And to know that all of those stories of innocent peopple being arrested, tortured and often raped - they are just lies!!

Meanwhile, for anyone genuinely interested in learning something of Evian prison, here is a stunning book written by the Financial Times journalist who was based in Iran for many years....

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Good-Place-Die-Panther/dp/1860467423/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1338906512&sr=8-2"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Good-Place-Die-Panther/dp/1860467423/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1338906512&sr=8-2[/ame]

The undoubted masterpiece on the Shah's time is by Ryzard Kapusincki, who I could consider to be amongst the greatest journalists of all time. This book is an absolutely classic.

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shahs-Penguin-Classics-Ryszard-Kapuscinski/dp/0141188049/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338906634&sr=1-1"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shahs-Penguin-Classics-Ryszard-Kapuscinski/dp/0141188049/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1338906634&sr=1-1[/ame]

The Shah was a dictator. Dictators are by nature oppressive, because they do not allow anybody to replace them. Ancient Persia of 2500 was also an empire with a ruling king, but the people enjoyed many of rights Islamic countries today do not accord. Again your knowledge comes not from reality and facts, but made up misrepresentations and lies.

The current regime in Iran is not "possibly" worse than the Shah. It is night and day. One would think a person who claims to have read books and have knowledge of the people and region would know these basic principles.

 

[Saigon]

Roudy -

As I said earlier - it's fantastic to know that the Kurds have simply lied and lied and lied about the oppression they experienced under the Shah.

Presumably you know the famous story that Shah Jnr had the population of an entire Kurdish village blinded because the population had allegedly shown "disrespect" to his father on an earlier state visit. (I'll link this later, if I have time)

That is all lies, obviously.

The current regime in Iran is not "possibly" worse than the Shah.

Yees....bbut unfortunately, Roudy - the current regime is NOT THE SAME REGIME as that which overthrew the Shah. I haven't mentioned the current regime anywhere on this thread.

But of course - you knew that all along.

 

[Saigon]

My work has provided the honor and opportunity to meet and be friends with the current leader of Kurdistan and his family. .

Does he work in Frozen Foods or the Deli section?

 

[Roudy]

The shah's secret police, the Savak, were notoriously savage. (My first instruction in this came in Amman, Jordan, in the early 1970s. A British consular official told me about an Iranian exile who had gone from Jordan into Iran to try to organize unions. Savak caught him, surgically amputated his arms and legs, and sent his living trunk back to his family in Amman as a warning. I looked for the man, but his family had fled with him from Jordan. The consul knew him, though, and had talked with him.) After the Shah fell in 1979 and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took over, one of his early appointees to a top job, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, decided to delve into the Savak archives. He found neatly filed certificates recording the demise of everyone who had died under torture—hundreds and hundreds of forms. "How Ottoman we are," Ghotbzadeh marveled. "Even in this, there is a procedure to be followed." He also found a shelf of reels of film. He smuggled a couple out to Cairo, and it was there that, under an oath of secrecy, I viewed one in the Nile-side apartment of an Egyptian friend and ally of Ghotbzadeh's. (Ghotbzadeh was terrified, trembling. He suspected, correctly as it turned out, that Khomeini's regime would turn to just these measures, so anyone who knew of them would be at risk. His fear proved prescient; he was executed in 1982.)

Watching Torture - The Daily Beast

it tells the story of female political prisoners during the Shah's time, in Ghasr and Evin, both prisons built during the Pahlavi era and used by Savak torturers, infamous men like Shahriari, Hossein Zadeh (Atta Poor), Hosseini (Mohammad Ali Sha'abani who was the head of Evin prison before the revolution) a gorilla-like monster, Azodi (Mohammad Hassan Nasseri) or Tehrani (Bahman Naderi-Pour) and Rassouli( Nozari). Later, they were replaced with new interrogators, all of whom were known as Haji Aqa, men like Haji Rahmani, and other Haji Aghas! This book includes interviews with well known women who were tortured, such as Fahimeh Farsai, Atefeh Ja'afari, Farideh Lashai and Mastoureh Ahmad Zadeh, the sister of Massoud, Majid and Mojtabah.

Cries from the heart: History of torture and abuse of women in Iranian prisons

Luckily, we now know from Roudy that these are lies.

Do you know how many innocents the current regime has tortured and killed, not only for POLITICAL REASONS, but for violating Islamic principles? It is exponential. Again, bullshit factoids being thrown out which are not indicative of the real picture. There was an active Marxist campaign against the Shah at the time, which is another reason the West plotted to overthrow him, they were afraid he wasn't strong enough to prevent and fight off a Soviet invasion.

 

[Roudy]

Roudy -

As I said earlier - it's fantastic to know that the Kurds have simply lied and lied and lied about the oppression they experienced under the Shah.

Presumably you know the famous story that Shah Jnr had the population of an entire Kurdish village blinded because the population had allegedly shown "disrespect" to his father on an earlier state visit. (I'll link this later, if I have time)

That is all lies, obviously.

The current regime in Iran is not "possibly" worse than the Shah.

Yees....bbut unfortunately, Roudy - the current regime is NOT THE SAME REGIME as that which overthrew the Shah. I haven't mentioned the current regime anywhere on this thread.

But of course - you knew that all along.

The Kurds are not lying you idiot. The Kurds lost their empire and according to them they have been oppressed by five countries, which have prevented them from gaining statehood. Fortunately, as a result of the US invasion of Iraq, they now have a totally autonomous region, and are one of the most stable parts of Iraq. That is a good start, although I doubt the Turks, Iranians and Syrians would be in the mood to give them more land. Who knows.

 

[Roudy]

My work has provided the honor and opportunity to meet and be friends with the current leader of Kurdistan and his family. .

Does he work in Frozen Foods or the Deli section?

I'll let you know if there is any need for "escort services" especially those who specialize in Arab men. Heh heh heh.

 

[MJB12741]

Thanks to Shah Reza Pahlavi there is today a pro democracy Iranian youth movement to oust the dictator, the mullahs & the ayatollahs.

 

[amir]

Possibly? The Mullahs were POSSIBLY, not definitely worse? Then you went about trying to prove how bad the Shah was? And you wonder why those who know better call you an ignoramus? The Mullahs were possibly worse? Seriously. Give it up, you just got check mated. Maybe you can hire one of your Holocaust denying buddies like Tinmore, Jos, or Sunni man to throw in the white towel for you when you're getting pummeled like this.

Roudy, I bow to your patience. I give up. Every five year old knows that the shah didn't oppress the Kurds. They wanted independence and he wouldn't cave in. Would the US grant any state that wants to secede from the union?
Comparing the shah, an educated progressive patriotic leader who spoke several languages fluently and piloted fighter jets to these little stinky ayatollahs, mullahs and unwashed and unshaved semi Arabs who currently are in charge speaks volume of how much our
"political experts" know.......Zilch.

Amir, Fatima Saigoon, our local well traveled, studied, Middle East expert from the lunatic asylum thinks the Ayatollahs are "possibly" worse than the Shah, or to put it another way, "the jury is still out" on who was worse. True words of wisdom, you heard it here first. What do you think? Are all the Iranians inside and outside Iran wrong? Ha ha ha.

The other night I felt like listening to some old Persian songs and went on You-tube.
I cannot tell you how many people under the comments (mostly in Farsi) have written how regretful they are for supporting the revolution and how they would trade life under the shah versus these blood sucking inbred who took over and steered such wonderful country to the 14th century.
Yup, Saigon is right. The mullahs are possibly worse than the previous regime.