Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The Iranian Mullacracy are executing these protesters because the Koran instructs the Muslim government to execute 'mischief makers'.

I can't see how this is exclusively a Shia belief/interpretation of the Koran - so the problem lies with taking the Koran literally and in rejecting the reactionary commands in the Koran in favor of modern ethics.

event horizon wrote:The Iranian Mullacracy are executing these protesters because the Koran instructs the Muslim government to execute 'mischief makers'.

I can't see how this is exclusively a Shia belief/interpretation of the Koran - so the problem lies with taking the Koran literally and in rejecting the reactionary commands in the Koran in favor of modern ethics.

Regardless the Shiite beliefs, it's the regime way to manipulate religion for their own favour.

Simply, as the Iranians shout in the streets "Death to the dictator". I can only translate the term "dictator" to how this regime (based on their very shiite beliefs) is abusing the country & nation, thus Shiism.

Iran passed away on 1979 when Khomaini arrived to Iran from exile "France". The irony is that people wanted him at the first place, but look at them how they pity their own mistake. Despite any bad thing the Shah did, he surely was protecting the country from demons like Khomaini, Khamenei, & Nejad.

I am neither Iranian nor Shia, so your insights about what is happening is very interesting.

From what I have read though - Shah Reza was quite notorious and did a bit more than a 'few bad things' - notably the oppression of any political opposition (killing, torture, rape etc by his secret police). Do you think these are exagerations?

Also, I read that Moussadek (sp?) Was a progressive politician who wanted to use Iran's oil for the people of Iran's benefit, but was stopped by outsiders. What is your rake on that?

And finally, wasn't Shah Reza put into power by Britain when they forced his father to step down in favour of the 21 year old? The reasons appeared to be that his father did not want to do what the Brits etc wanted him to do? Did you not think this is an insult to the Iranians?

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the current regime - but I just want to check what I've read of iranian history )

Cheers
Shafique

What’s your point Shaf? Of course lots of things that Reza Shah has done was not right, after all he was a king! But in comparison with the religious kings before him ( safavis and Qajars) and the dictator regime after him, he has done plenty of great things for Iran and Iranian, which we are thankful for. I’m not a fan of Pahlavi’s kingdom, but they brought updated education and civilization to Iran. They took good care of ancient civilization and national treasures. About Mosaddegh (mousaddek) you are right, but even he was successful in bringing the oil benefits back to Iran, well as u may know, all oil benefits now is going for support of Hamas and your Palestinian friends!

It’s very simple. People of Iran were proud and wealthy in Reza Shah’s time. Iranian passport was not 4th worst passport in the world, we were no terrorists, and 1 USD was equal to 70 Iranian Rial. Now, 1 USD is equal to 10000 Iranin Rial. You can check it for yourself.


haha, am i gonna be the nest who will be executed or not?! lol

My point was to find out whether what I had read about the last shah were true - eg that he was put into power by the Brits who forced his father to step down, and that Moussadek's reforms were in the interest of Iranians, but the CIA objected and deposed him. Subsequent to this the Shah's rtegime reportedly imprisoned, tortured and raped Iranians - hardly a model for freedom.

Didn't the shah also famously spend millions on a party celebrating Persian history (inviting the great and the good) when the rest of the country was suffering economically?

I perhaps have a hard time reconcilng what appear to be atrocities carried out by a puppet dictatot (someone put into power by external forces because the father was not playing nice) with the description 'he did some bad things'

But that's just based on what I've read happened - if this is a mistaken view of the Shah's regime, please let me know what is incorrect.

I personally don't make distinctions between atrocities - where they hapopen, they are wrong. I have a particularly low regard of thoise in power who exploit and oppress those under them - hence why I'm not a great fan of the current mid-east leaders (with a few exeptions)

I also think that sanctions have a large part to play for iran's economic woes, rather than mismanagement of reources.

Cheers
Shafique

I’m sorry you are boring as always, where do you get your resources? Mullah’s library?
Reza Shah was the father, Mohammad Reza shah was the son. That’s just a theory which Reza shah was deposed by brits ,rest of that theory says that Mullahs are in power with the support of Brits too. I think Symmetric is the fan of this idea, when the revolution happens in 1979, there was not just Mullahs, there were communists, nationalists and more other parties, which all had been executed with even no courts! by which power? Who knows? About rapes and tortures in shah’s prisons, I am not sure, yes it has been reported, but there are lots of propaganda by the current regime about what shah did. I was not born when shah was in charge, but my parents and other elder people say that his military never do what basijis do to Iranians in the streets, and who knows about the prisons.
People were not suffering economically in Shah time in comparison to what happens now in Iran economically! Haven’t u seen a very simple example of what I provided of dollars exchange rate? Inflation rate is predicted to be 60 percent in next year!!!!

Mismanagement of resources? Ah that makes me laugh!! Do u know who is in charge economically in Iran? And what are their education???? And if they know anything about economics? How do they get their degrees? ever heard of population of people with brains are running out of Iran? Do you know in Iran government, commitment to regime is more important than any other factor? Sanctions? Yes it is important for sure, but they have the ways to reduce sanctions, like what Khatami did when he was in charge.

Shah celebrated Persian history, that gave us pride of our past civilization, hehe, and how much do they spend on that celebrations? That was celebration for all people of Iran.

Pppffff,do u know how much each year they spend on their religious traditions? Wow!! Do you know how much they spent on war and how many people we lost there? Shahids which go to heaven for virgins… The was started by Iraq, but after one month the stepped back, but Iran government kept it on to make people more miserable!! Ahh I can write a book in this but it is just boringgggg! You will say and support anything that goes right with your religion!

I am sorry my questions are boring. Mixing up the names of the last two shahs obviously shows I am no expert and should indeed be asking questions to improve my knowledge.

So, why was Reza replaced by his young son? (We'll come to Mousadek, reports of torture and repression and reported excesses after you've schooled me on the basics)

Was Reza not replaced because his son would be more compliant with the wishes of the Brits?

Cheers
Shafique

Ahmadinejad send tens of thousands little boys into the mine fields with taiwan produced keys on their neck, keys for paradise.

shafique wrote:My point was to find out whether what I had read about the last shah were true - eg that he was put into power by the Brits who forced his father to step down, and that Moussadek's reforms were in the interest of Iranians, but the CIA objected and deposed him. Subsequent to this the Shah's rtegime reportedly imprisoned, tortured and raped Iranians - hardly a model for freedom.

Didn't the shah also famously spend millions on a party celebrating Persian history (inviting the great and the good) when the rest of the country was suffering economically?

I perhaps have a hard time reconcilng what appear to be atrocities carried out by a puppet dictatot (someone put into power by external forces because the father was not playing nice) with the description 'he did some bad things'

But that's just based on what I've read happened - if this is a mistaken view of the Shah's regime, please let me know what is incorrect.

I personally don't make distinctions between atrocities - where they hapopen, they are wrong. I have a particularly low regard of thoise in power who exploit and oppress those under them - hence why I'm not a great fan of the current mid-east leaders (with a few exeptions)

I also think that sanctions have a large part to play for iran's economic woes, rather than mismanagement of reources.

Cheers
Shafique

The Shah was a spoiled king, but nevertheless he had always loved his country. He surely disliked having any political competitors, thus he executed whom ever stood in his face. However, he accomplished a lot to the nation, and loved the Iranian identity with passion for he was a TRUE IRANIAN, and after all this slumber of having dumb dynasties starting from Safavis to Qajaris who were NOT Iranian, even if they adopted the Iranian culture they remain intruders and non-native, nor they ever served the Iranian nation. Just read how Ismail Safavi brutaly massacred people of Tabriz and kept on dragging more turks from Asia to serve his wills, while the land was wet with Iranian blood. Khomaini and Khamenei are repeating the same thing as they are NOT Iranians and it's totally annouying how they are supporting Hizballah and Hamas both parties that got nothing to do with Iran. I say it loudly, it's the Shiism crap. They dont care about Iran and Iranians. Last I heard is that they want to build a dam on Cyrus the Great's tomb!! Cyrus is the father of all Iranians, even Islamic sources mentioned him as the wise king, and a believer of God. Surely during Sunni period of Iran no one was sacred or given any special treatment for being holy or something, because it's based on logic thoughts. Expanding civilization and more productivity! Where as Shiism from its first day in Iran, it gave no sense of respect to Iranians, and gave all attetion to prophet Mohammad's family members as if they were Gods!! Thats what Shiite clerics are doing in Iran, filling up people's minds with endless tragedic stories about how Yazeed and Hussain faught and how Omar and Fatima had a conflict. Why would the new generations give a damn shit what hapened between Hussain and Yazeed before 1200 years ago!! God will judge, FULL STOP!

Bring back the liberal Sunnism like in the days of Saffarids and Samanids, both were early proper Sunni Muslim Iranian dynasties after the Islamic conquest and they were the first to revive the Persian culture & to reshape Iran again in a beautifull way. Even the Qaznavids who were of Turkish roots, yet they were Sunni and Iranians were not harmed at all, but just compare them to the Shiite period of Iran starting with Safavids and Qajaris and tell me if you see the difference or not. Read history my friend, and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Read this link if you're interested and see how Iran was destroyed and Iranians were humilated by the Turk-Safavids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_co ... _to_Shiism

Let the Shah celebrate the 2500 years of Iranian history,it's always good to show respect to the nation and it's heritage. Like Melika said, don't you see how Khomaini gangs are celebrating their endless funerals on ahlul bayt and Ashura?

There were intrusions from the West for sure, but we have to stop blaming others for once and start taking responsibilities. I have a good feeling that something is going to come up soon. I live to see this regime collapse with it's Shiite nightmare.

Iranian economy was way much better back then. I keep on hearing endless positive comments from our elders how Iran had a strong name with strong economy compared to the current terrible situation.

All the best to our fellows who are protesting against this evil regime.

I hope the world can understand what's going on exactly in Iran.
Feel free to ask any questions Shafique. After all I represent my own point of view, but I'm pretty much sure there are a lot of shared point of views that most of Iranians agree with.

Thanks symetric for offering to answer my questions.

The question above to melika I guess is where to start - is it true that Shah Muhammad Reza was put into power by the Brits who deposed his father because he was not co-operating? What I've read (and seen in documentaries) is that the 21 year old was given power after his father was forced out.

Now, I think we can make a good argument for the last Shah's nationalism. However, a lack of nationalism is not one of the crimes he is accused of. Most of the heinous dictators of the 20th century cannot be accused of hating their respective countries, for example.

What I'd like to find out in future questions is whether it is true that the Shah did not act in the best interest of Iranians - specifically I want to look at the Mousadek attempts to get control of oil resources under Iranian control, and what happened after that.

But first, can you tell me from your perspective what the circumstances were behind the last Shah's ascension to the throne at the tender age that he was.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Thanks symetric for offering to answer my questions.

The question above to melika I guess is where to start - is it true that Shah Muhammad Reza was put into power by the Brits who deposed his father because he was not co-operating? What I've read (and seen in documentaries) is that the 21 year old was given power after his father was forced out.

Now, I think we can make a good argument for the last Shah's nationalism. However, a lack of nationalism is not one of the crimes he is accused of. Most of the heinous dictators of the 20th century cannot be accused of hating their respective countries, for example.

What I'd like to find out in future questions is whether it is true that the Shah did not act in the best interest of Iranians - specifically I want to look at the Mousadek attempts to get control of oil resources under Iranian control, and what happened after that.

But first, can you tell me from your perspective what the circumstances were behind the last Shah's ascension to the throne at the tender age that he was.

Cheers,
Shafique

I don't know exactly if the Brits were responsible directly for that, but I'm pretty much sure they have intruded. Even if we assume that the Brtis were the one to put Shah Mohammad Reza in control, I think later on he turned his back to the West (UK & USA), and he condmned the Jewish intrusion in the US and specially media. Perhaps lessons were learnt by Shah, but in a late stage. I personally loved the Pahlavis.

The Shah's mistake in my point of view is that he forced very liberal concepts on his nation that was and still simply a middle eastern nation that tend to have an Eastern conservative life style regardless religion.

You can't force a women to remove her scarf just because you want to see your nation in the same image of the French or Germans. Iran is not a Western country, it's a main hub that represent the Eastern cultures and nations.

Mosaddegh was a great man, I'd vote for him instead of the Shah although I'll still request for a monarchy in Iran.
It's Iran's thing, to always be ruled under monarchy.

Thanks symetric - however, there wasn't much in your reply that shed any light on the matter. I guess you weren't alive at the time and only have what your elders have told you to go on. Fair enough.

At least your opinion of Mossadegh is that he was preferable to the Shah - it appears to me that he wanted to improve the economy of Iran by taking control of the oil resources and was doing what Chavez is doing now - but look at what happened to Mossadegh.

My understanding is that the Shah was part of the crackdown against him and his supporters. I'm not sure how that ties in with the view that the Shah was doing the best for Iran. It appears that he was doing what was best for the US and the West at that time.

By the time of the revolution - the reports all say that he had lost popular support (as well as political support). So perhaps his actions changed over time (from being a young puppet, to showing some independence, to being a cruel despot??). I'm sure some of that must be spin - but the BBC documentaries that were shown last year to commemorate the anniversary of the revolutions were quite detailed and didn't show the Shah in the best light (hence why I was fascinated by your posts praising the Shah's regime).

Thanks for sharing.

I hope you and your family remain safe.

Cheers,
Shafique

Some facts:
- Reza Shah was replaced be his son, after Iran has been evaded by US, UK and Russia. These three countries. They decided that they will elect the next shah of Iran, because Reza shah was going to make agreements with Germans (Persians are from the same generation as germans, and Reza shah liked to go after them.) These three promised Reza shah that the next king of Iran will be from Pahlavi family and he ordered all his military to stop. So his son became Shah of Iran when he was 22. He was educated in Switzerland.
- In his years of governance, he gave women the right to participate in elections, even they could be elected as senators in parliament. He got out lands from feudal to all Iranians. He increased the age of marriage from 13 to 18. He made a law that hinders men to have multiple! Wives.
- He became the main decider of OPEC in middle east, oil money came to Iran to make people live easier. 3 islands in Persian gulf which has been occupied by arabs, came back to Iran in his time.
Just FYI, I’m not a fan of Their kingdom, that was a dictatorship, the yhad done wrong things just to keep their kingdoms, but all I know their period is one of the significant steps to civilizations for us, they brought benefits, they got our pride, nationality and money back. We are grateful to them for that.

Thanks Melika - as I said I wanted to understand the view points of those who have a good opinion of the Shah's reign.

So, let me understand the issue of his accession - he was put into power because UK, Russia and US invaded, and his father was looking like he was going to side with the Germans. Therefore the accusation that the last Shah was put in power by the US and allies, is correct.

It appears that at the start he was a puppet then.

I also agree that as part of Opec he caused the west problems - I recall reading that Sheikh Zayed was also responsible for calling for the Opec decisions which led to the 1970's oil crisis (I think in 1973?) - and the Shah was in power at the time.

But what is troubling to me is the Mousadegh affair - where the Shah seemed to be against him, and then suppressed violently the supporters of Mousadegh. The poor man seems to me to have only been doing what is good for Iran, and because the US objected, he was deposed and eventually killed (if I remember correctly - the details are hazy, so correct me if I'm wrong).

So, doesn't that incident show that the Shah was acting for the US when he went along with this and then imprisoned and tortured the opposition? Wasn't he therefore turning against Iranians who only wanted the best for Iran - and basically doing US's dirty work?

And finally, wasn't there genuine popular opposition to the Shah when he finally left Iran?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
So, doesn't that incident show that the Shah was acting for the US when he went along with this and then imprisoned and tortured the opposition? Wasn't he therefore turning against Iranians who only wanted the best for Iran - and basically doing US's dirty work?

Do you really think that Khomaini has done any good to Iran? Or Khamenei or even Nejad?

They are another puppets. All what you see on news of this ayatoltrash having conflicts with the US and Israel is just another play. Some dirty game just like what happened between Saddam and the U.S. Friends at first, serving the U.S interests, meantime Saddam had his own joy, later on when he goes against uncle Sam's wants, he ends up as a looser. I don't care if people accuse me of being unreasonable, but atleast some of this is true!

Why did the west & Israel kept on selling weapons to both Iraq and Iran during the 1st Persian Gulf War??