[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Eternal1]

As a non Iranian, I have asked this question a number of times, and never really got a intelligible answer.

From what I understand the Shah and his father modernise Iran.

When I look at pictures of Khomeini and the Shah I realise that you can judge a book by its cover, and it will tell you an accurate story.

Khomeini did have something about his look which was....inhuman?

The Shah looks..honourable and human..thats what my instinct tells me. Maybe I'm wrong, I can't know for sure.

Every system/leader can be critised, as the Shah was, but to choose Khomeini over the Shah.

So what did happen. Why did Iranians turn against the Shah?

Or what did he do to justify this from his people?

[redemption]

You know - you are very intuitive and have a good understanding as a non-iranian and I thank you for asking a very important question, because there are many who have different views. Iran under the Shah was 100000X better than life under these Islamnic Wackos. Some people criticize Shah's security services, etc.. but fact of matter is, he was brutal and aggressive against the Islamic Fanatics that his government was opposed to.

Second of all yes, could there have been more political reform and continued progressive movement. Yes of course, and this was coming - but the West essentially used this demand by Iranian society for more freedom and change and twisted it around through Mind-Ops, Propoganda, etc.. and turned Iran psycho.. Many young Irnaians wanted change, but they didn't want to replace the shah with Khomeini's British-self.

This is why I say most importanstly we CANNOT TRUST ANY AYATOLLAHS - especially those who are backed by the British, like Sistani.

There are just way too many similarities between Sistani and Khomeini.

Hopefully someone else can add to this and help our our dear friend who has asked this IMPORTANT QUESTION!

-redemption
_________________
IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW!

[Eternal1]

[cyrus]

[Eternal1]

Thank you for taking the time to reply, and I appreciate the background history, which explains the outside interference that Iran has had to deal with.

But my original question is really directed at the psyche of the Iranian people before and after 1979, and the root causes that seemed to have turned them against the Shah.

[redemption]

Root cause - WEST that turned it's back on the Shah and installed Khomeini - after Islamists took control, they killed everyone!
_________________
IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW!

[Azadeh_55]

My take on it is that people back then were religious and would do anything that a mullah like Khomeini said to them. I don't believe it was anything the Shah or anyone else did. They hated him because they revered Khomeini and he was telling them the Shah was evil. Just the fact that a mullah was speaking out against the Shah was enough to turn the people against him. I remember they (the school) used to sit us around every year on the anniversary of 22 Bahman and show us videos of the "glorious Islamic revolution" (enghelabe shokoohmand e eslami) when we were little kids. I sear the crowd looked like the Al Qaeda supporters in Pakistan or the Hamas supporters in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Angry and full of hate. Evem the happy dancing crowds looked like the Palestinians who celebrate everytime an Israel bus is blown up or even the Palestinian crowd that celebrated on 9/11. They have the same look on their faces as the Iranians who supported the revolution did. Angry, cold, and full of hate. They are like zombies being controled from outside of their own bodies. Just look at the videos of that time. You will see. Here are some of the sloagans of the people supporting the revolutionn at that time:

Na sharghi, na gharbi, jomhuriye eslami.

Rooh e mani Khomeini, bot shekani Khomeini.

Ta khoon dar rage maast, Khomeini rahbare maast.

Esteghlal, azadi, jomhuriye eslami.

The more religious crowd said things like this:

Ma ahle koofeh nisteem, emam tanha bemanad.

Hezb faghat hezbollah, rahbar faghat Roohollah.

They saw Khomeini's picture in the moon. Forget honour and decency... How could the Shah compete against a guy whose picture was seen in the moon? And don't forget the lies they were speading against the Shah and Savak. First they burned down Cinema Rex and blamed the Shah. They chose Abadan on purpose. Most Abadanis worked in the oil industry. They succeeded in turning them against the Shah and soon, the oil strikes followed. With no oil export, the country's economy came to a hault. Then they turned their attention to Tehran when they staged 17 Shahrivar and spread rumor that as many as 20,000 people were killed on that day(witnesses say less than 10 shots were fired). And during all this time there were demonstrations during Ashura, Moharram, Safar, and whatnot in Qom, Tabriz, Esfahan, and every other city. Not to mention the decades of lies and propaganda spread against the Savak by torture stories of the mullahs and leftists. Savak was our version of the "Homeland Security Department" to fight against Communist and Islamic terrorist influence in our homeland: sazmane etela'at va amniyat e keshvar. It was their job to identify people threatening our security. People like Rafsanjani and Khamenei (both were "political prisoners" during the Shah). And people like Azam Taleghani, daughter of mullah Taleghani, spread lies like how Savak agents cut off her breasts. I saw her on Appadana TV a few months ago. She said that in hindsight that perhaps negotiating with the Shah to accomadate "The Ummah" may have been a better option than revolution. What happened to her breasts that were mutilated by the Shah's Savak? What were those two melons bouncing everytime she laughed (a little aside: this old, overweight, and rather unattractive woman hides every part of her body including her forhead and chin and yet you can see her breasts bouncing up and down as she talks! You'd think she'd at least have the decency to war a support bra). Leftists groups said the same things about the Shah. All lies. I have an aunt in a wheelchair because to a car accident when she was in her 20s. She told me that one day she went in the Bazaar shopping with my grandmother and everyone stopped her and wanted to ask her about whether she was raped by the Savak in jail. She kept explaining to them that she was never in jail and knows nothing about any Savak. She became wheelchair bound after a car accident but no one would listen to her. They told her that they would understand if she was still afraid of Savak. I heard by a woman on Pars TV saying how her 70 year old uncle died and when they were burying him, and all of a sudden his body went missing in the middle of the burial ceremony. About an hour later they found the body. A bunch of people dressed in black were carrying the old man's dead corpse around the cemetery yelling "In sanad e jenayat e Pahlavist". Havnig the BBC being your mouthpiece every day, day after day, doesn't hurt either. It's all like pieces of a puzzle that you can put together. The mullahs started a serious and deadly propaganda campaign against the government by comming various acts of terrorism (like Cinema Rex) and blaming it on the Savak. Every time they saw a disabled or blind person in the Bazaar or on the street, they would create the impression that s/he was crippled by the Savak but was afraid to speak up. They stole corpses at cemeteries and carry them around cemeteries to get the people present at the cemetery thinking that the Shah was killing poeple and this was their funeral. They spread fears about horrific stories of how Savak was torturing prisoners, raping them with coke bottles, etc. All lies. All things that the mullahs regime does, but there is no evidence that Savak did any of them. Then they brought out Khomeini with all his supposedly Charisma (although I don't see it) and said his picture was in the moon. People were unbelievably superstitious and bought it all. Some were just downright moronic and crazy. My family is from Khuzestan. A year before the revolution there was a huge flood in Khorramshahr. There was a guy by the name of Dadras who came to Tehran collecting funds from ordinary people to give to the victims of the flood. Anyways, he collected a very large sum of money from ordinary unsuspecting kind-hearted Tehranis and gave it all to MKO to fight the Shah's government. The government found out and arrested him, but for some reason he was released after just two months in jail. When he came back he made it his full time job to organize and rally the oil worker's protest in Abadan. I don't know what his beef was with the Shah but I am guessing the government didn't look too kindly on giving flood donations to Islamic terroriorist groups, and he was pissed.

So to sum up, their hatred of the Shah stemmed from propaganda by the mullahs (and also from Western media like BBC).

[Eternal1]

Thank you Azadeh 55 for your reply. I felt the hairs rise up on my back as I was reading some of what you wrote.

It seems that the propaganda against the Shah was huge.

When you mention how the Iranians were full of hatred, and almost not themselves, I'm not sure how I feel about them (Iranians) as a nation. I say this respectfully.

I have asked myself the question, what if the same events had taken place in a different nation, would the outcome have been the same, or would the people have recognised the value of what they had in the Shah. Its easy to comment now 25 years later..so I won't, because I am not sure.

One thing your post clarifies, (and conversations with friends) is how Islam played a crucial role in creating a fever of hatred against the Shah.

For me Islam embodies all those characteristics that in essence oppose civilisation and progress. I do not say this because I have a dislike of Islam, not at all. I say this because logically, Islam is a philosophy which was was suited to a tribal people who had no history, no culture and no civilisation.

Although the Shah was suppossedly religious himself, he embraced progress, change, and the preservation of the national Identity.

It seems that the Pahlavis were ahead of their time. Yes, they modernised Iran and transformed a country, but they could not do the same for their people, who were maybe still holding on to the ideals (islamic and maybe otherwise), that were steeped in superstition and/or traditions, that should have had no place in a country with a history/civilisation dating back thousands of years.

I hope people will take the time to write similar posts and reveal some more of the history of pre 1979, especially focusing on domestic issues in Iran at the time, which led up to the fall of the Shah.

[Azadeh_55]

[Eternal1]

If this is the case, then the Shah had his back against the wall with very few options.

It is interesting that although the Shah was moderate he was constantly accused of being a dictator.

Imagine if he had taken the advice of his father and actually eliminated the clergy altogether, the west would have had a field day...I guess they did anyway.

[Azadeh_55]

[blank]

Azadeh:
It would be nice if you could come to www.daneshjoo.org discussion board. There are several Tudehee and leftist that think people will buy their lies like 25 years ago.....There are no female point of views except for Spenta and Stefania.....it would be nice if you join them.

[Eternal1]

On the assumption that you are correct (ref Azza. last post). Then two things strike me, about the Pahlavis and Iranians.

That the Pahlavis were indeed ahead of their time, i.e they could change a country but not the people.

The clergy are always opposed to progress and change.

How many stories are there in History were the clergy plot and use intrigue against any person seeking to bring about change and progress, or who were seen as a threat.

..and in history we have examples of this in all religions, including christianity and Zoroastrianism (prophet mani), It seems religion is the perfect way to control people.

For me the 25 year rule is the most devastating and painful lesson that the Iranians could ever learn. If before they felt religion (Islam) could offer them something good before '79, now it has to be clear that this is not the case and never will be.

If there is a regime change, the biggest mistake will be to blank out this period of theocratic rule, or to forget and forgive.

[stefania]

[Azadeh_55]