AFP/File – Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979. Britain and the United States clung to the belief that …
LONDON (AFP) – Britain and the United States clung to the belief that the shah of Iran would remain in power until shortly before the Islamic revolution, newly declassified documents from 1978 revealed Tuesday.Officials thought Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would continue to rule in some form up to the final weeks of 1978, in spite of violence, protests and the increasing influence of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.The shah left Iran in January 1979 and later Khomeini became supreme leader of the Islamic republic, the creation of which was one of the key events in 20th century Middle Eastern history. "It is not so much that the regime is in danger; more that their car has bogged down in soft ground and it is difficult to see how they are going to pick up speed again," wrote Britain's then ambassador to Tehran Sir Anthony Parsons in May 1978. A US official said in September that year that it was "more likely than not that the shah could weather the next period. It was not in his nature to throw in the sponge." The Western powers' views were revealed in files released by the National Archives in London under laws which allow official papers to be made public after 30 years. Parsons kept London updated on the situation in Iran throughout 1978 in a series of messages. In one of the longest, on May 10, 1978, he said he did not think there was a serious risk of the shah being overthrown and dismissed the influence of religious leaders. "The religious leadership... thunder from the mosques about the destruction of traditional Islamic and Iranian values by the blind adoption of Western customs, Western technology and so on," Parsons wrote. Speaking of the opposition more generally, he added: "I do not believe that this conjuncture poses a threat to the present shah's regime." A briefing from Britain's Tehran mission to the Foreign Office on August 29 added that "the Islamic church as such has no real interest in seeing the Pahlavi regime overthrown when the complexion of any alternative is so uncertain." On September 8, Britain's ambassador to the United States Peter Jay sent a message to London indicating the US was not thinking in terms of the shah being deposed, either. Jay reported then US deputy secretary of state Warren Christopher had "confirmed US concern, though he saw the shah as given to pessimism and was not aware of anything really new." Eight days later, Parsons sent another note to London which an official annotated with a note of concern about the shah's "passivity and depression". Then British prime minister James Callaghan added: "Yes. But he can come back!" Amid more violence and the imposition of martial law in major cities, Callaghan later became more uncertain -- on October 24, he wrote on a report from Parsons: "On the basis of this, I wouldn't give much for the shah's chance." Intensifying unrest saw an attack on the British embassy in Tehran on November 5, 1978 which caused extensive damage. By November 20, Parsons was voicing "very little cause for optimism." "The only hope I can see at present is that, for reasons of exhaustion and general concern about a slide into total anarchy, the temper of the country may abate and Khomeini's simple anti-shah message decline in attraction," he added. In a letter to then US president Jimmy Carter on December 2, Callaghan said it was "impossible" to forecast whether the shah would cling on. But he predicted that if he did not, it would have the "gravest" implications "for our two countries, with their great stake in Iran, in particular". "It is only a minor consolation that continued chaos in the country or the emergence of an extreme government dominated by the religious right wing might create almost as many problems for the Soviet Union," Callaghan wrote. By December 7, Parsons was telling London that it was "increasingly difficult" to see the shah remaining, just a few days before Jay got in touch, quoting Carter as saying he "fully expected" him to retain power. On December 19, Parsons said it was "as difficult as ever to predict the outcome" and said the "only hope" for continuing the dynasty was for him to become a constitutional monarch and hand over to his son quickly. Britain finally advised its subjects to leave Iran on December 31 unless they had a compelling reason to remain, and the shah followed soon after, on January 16, 1979.
HH. REZA PAHLAVI ' 'PRINCE OF PERSIA.' "PRINCE REZA PAHLAVI" "PLEASE COME HOME" Full Version Remixed by BAHRAMERAD Original Video by ARSHAN Music: ' Guinea Pig ' by Ben Watt on Buzzinfly Label.
Political Disorders - Does Executive Authority Corrupt the Mind? - Sherwin B. Nuland
David Owen has been in the thick of British politics almost since he qualified as a physician in 1962. After just four years of practicing medicine and conducting research on brain chemistry, he was elected as the Labour member of Parliament for his home constituency, Plymouth Sutton, in the southwestern corner of England. For a time, Lord Owen attempted to attend to both parliamentary business and his own research, but in 1968 he left medicine, never to return. He has since served as minister of health, foreign secretary, and leader of the Social Democratic Party. He is currently chancellor of the University of Liverpool and a member of the House of Lords. In the six years that he practiced medicine, Owen came into close contact with doctors treating prominent politicians and observed firsthand the toll that political life takes on public figures. Thus began his interest in health and power, which culminated in The Hubris Syndrome. This book, published in 2007, argues that being in power brings about changes in one's mental state and leads to hubristic behavior, and that hubris is not merely a personality characteristic but a pathological state. Mental illness, Owen notes, "may need to be redefined to include a hubris syndrome." His latest book, In Sickness and in Power, examines how both specific diseases and intoxication with power have shaped major decisions by world leaders in the twentieth century. A HISTORY OF SILENCE In Sickness and in Power delves into the cases of four politicians whose judgment was impaired by disease in times of crisis: British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who suffered from biliary tract disease during the 1956 Suez crisis; U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who was plagued by adrenal insufficiency during the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion; the last shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who had leukemia during the final years of his rule; and French President François Mitterand, who was battling prostate cancer from 1981 to 1995, during the Falklands War, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the Rwandan genocide. Of all these cases, Eden's illness during the Suez crisis remains the single most striking historical example of a severe illness' impacting the conduct of a state. As the United Kingdom, France, and Israel went to war against Egypt, Eden's behavior was volatile. The prime minister had temper tantrums, insomnia, and suffered from anxiety. According to Owen, Eden's inability to confront an increasingly complex situation -- involving the clashing interests of four warring nations, two superpowers, and the United Nations -- is traceable to the vicissitudes of the disease, which causes liver disturbances and high fevers. The medications Eden was taking played a role as well; the drug Drinamyl, for example, is known to produce restlessness, irritability, and overconfidence. Owen argues that Eden's judgment was "seriously impaired" when he made the crucial decisions "to collude with Israel, to mislead the American President and to lie to the House of Commons, even after the invasion." French and Israeli officials managed to convince the usually cautious Eden to join their plot -- a strategic misjudgment on Eden's part that was entirely the result of his disease and treatment, according to Owen. American readers will be most intrigued by Owen's detailed examination of Kennedy, who assumed the presidency with a long history of Addison's disease -- a chronic adrenal insufficiency that can cause muscle weakness, fatigue, and apathy -- and was beset with severe, disabling back pain during his three years in the White House. No single physician was in charge of Kennedy's care; it was "deliberately compartmentalized," leaving different doctors to treat different problems -- often incorrectly. The two doctors closest to Kennedy -- Janet Travell and Max Jacobson (also known as "Dr. Feelgood" due to his habit of treating everything with amphetamines) -- had neither the training nor the experience to see the entire clinical picture. Most of their treatments were inappropriate. Owen argues convincingly that the Bay of Pigs fiasco was the direct result of Kennedy's poor judgment, which in turn was the result of his ill health and inadequate treatment. Kennedy was suffering not only from severe back pain but also from stomach and colon problems, high fevers, sleeplessness, and occasional abscesses. By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, with his medical matters under much better control, a healthier Kennedy was able to make better decisions. This was largely because Travell and Jacobson were out of the picture and the president's Addison's disease was being treated by the highly respected endocrinologist Eugene Cohen. Compounding the problem of Kennedy's clouded judgment was the White House's insistence that the president was in good health -- even while he was being injected with steroids and taking hundreds of pills per week. Otherwise honorable men, such as Cardinal Richard Cushing, a close friend of the Kennedys, lied to keep the Kennedy family's secret, as did several doctors. Allowing Eden to govern while ravaged by disease and destabilized by drugs placed the United Kingdom in grave danger during the Suez crisis. Similarly, compartmentalizing Kennedy's care and withholding information about his health endangered the United States during the Bay of Pigs crisis. DIAGNOSIS: HUBRIS Conventional diseases are not the only maladies that plague leaders. For many heads of state, the experience of being in power brings about psychological changes that can lead to grandiosity, narcissism, and irresponsible behavior. Leaders suffering from this political hubris syndrome believe that they are capable of great deeds, that great deeds are expected of them, that they know what is best under all circumstances, and that they operate beyond the bounds of ordinary morality. Such leaders often insist that their nations are forces for good in the world and can do no wrong. And the longer they stay in office, the stronger these tendencies seem to become -- as the cases of Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and Robert Mugabe have made clear. The result, observes Owen, is absolute "incompetence in carrying out policy." To illustrate the symptoms of the hubris syndrome, Owen focuses on one leader he knows well and another whom he has met: former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush. Of Blair, who once considered going into professional acting, Owen writes, "Politics offered him a very large stage on which to perform," adding that "actor-politicians tend to be especially narcissistic." According to Owen, as prime minister, Blair also possessed an absolute moral certainty -- a conviction that his motives were always supremely honorable. This certainty drew the British prime minister to Bush, who also seems to believe that he functions for a higher purpose. According to Nabil Shaath, who was then the Palestinian foreign minister, in 2002 Bush told him and other assembled Palestinian officials, "I'm driven with a mission from God. . . . God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did." Such religiosity and missionary zeal bound Blair and Bush together in their effort to oust Saddam Hussein. To a hubristic leader, lying, cutting corners, and even invading foreign countries are justified in the interest of accomplishing a supremely moral mission. As time passes, such a leader's inherent overconfidence is bolstered by his or her unchallenged and increasing power. Once it reaches this stage, the hubris syndrome becomes full-blown and its victim delusional in his or her tendency toward grandiosity. It is a common error of physicians to overestimate the decision-making capacities of their patients. But this everyday phenomenon becomes far more dangerous when the patients are heads of state. Owen is not the first to observe that hubris sometimes overtakes leaders, but he is the first to argue that it is a pathological condition that requires serious study, especially of the ways in which it affects decision-making. Looking back on the eight years of the Bush presidency, this seems sensible. Owen's book should be read by all practicing physicians responsible for the health of political leaders -- and by the leaders themselves. After all, the hubris syndrome is probably not only a preventable disease; it may be a reversible one as well. Having brought the disease of hubris to the world's attention, Owen offers only one possible remedy for it: "strengthening national democratic checks and balances." It is weak tea, but it may help. The U.S. Constitution already provides one such check: the Twenty-fifth Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of cabinet officials or of Congress to declare the president unfit to serve if they feel that he or she is unable to discharge the responsibilities of the office. In such a situation, accurate, unadulterated information from a presidential physician would be vital for decision-makers. But there are stronger safeguards that should be considered. In cases involving physical illnesses, such as Eden's or Kennedy's, a single physician should be placed in charge of both overseeing the patient's treatment and issuing medical reports to political advisers and the public. This would commit the doctor to transparency in cases in which the national interest is concerned, guarantee that the public is informed, and result in better care for the leader. A doctor treating a leader must also be on the alert for hubristic behavior and inform the head of state and his or her closest advisers when the symptoms arise. After all, by its very nature, the hubris syndrome makes it unlikely that someone afflicted with it will recognize it in him- or herself. But early warnings from doctors and top advisers could ward off its full-blown expression. Finally, heads of state should, on taking office, agree to forego medical privacy. And the doctors treating them should waive their commitment to doctor-patient confidentiality for the greater good of the country. Too often, confidentiality is confused with secrecy, transforming physicians into willing accomplices in a conspiracy to mislead the public. But deliberately distorted medical reports that paint a rosy picture can endanger national and international security. Rather than hiding the truth when a head of state is severely ill, doctors should not hesitate to disclose important health information. Some might argue that public discussion of leaders' ailments and official recognition of the hubris syndrome would lead to more secretiveness, defensiveness, or even paranoia. But in democratic societies, discussion of leaders' and potential leaders' medical problems should become the norm. And if a defensive or paranoid head of state ever dismisses a doctor for sharing medical information with the public, such conduct should constitute grounds for impeachment.
All Things Considered, October 18, 2008 · Scholars who study the Iranian Revolution of 1979 have paid a lot of attention to the internal factors that precipitated revolt. Now, a new study argues that the United States secretly helped create the conditions that led to the overthrow of its ally, the Shah. Andrew Scott Cooper, who wrote the report using previously classified information, talks about the mistakes that led to the demise of the Shah.
Iran before of the islamic revolution.
Javid Shah va Shahbanou!!!
Javid Reza Pahlavi II!!!
Javid Farahnaz,Javid Ali Reza,Javid Leila!!!
Panyadeh Iran va Irani!!!
Rumours, exaggerated claims by the leaders of the Islamic revolution and a disinformation campaign against the fallen monarchy, not to mention Western media reports that the imperial regime was guilty of "mass murders", has finally been challenged by a former researcher at the Martyrs Foundation (Bonyad Shahid). The findings by Emad al-Din Baghi, now a respected historian, has caused a stir in the Islamic republic for it boldly questions the true number of casualties suffered by the anti-Shah movement between 1963 and 1979. In the aftermath of the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, ordered the creation of the Martyrs Foundation with the sole purpose of identifying the names of the so-called "martyrs" and provide financial support for their families as well as those who had sustained injuries in the fierce street battles with royalist troops. The necessary funds were immediately raised from the assets seized from the high officials in the Shah's regime, many of whom had been executed after summary trials. For many years the Martyrs Foundation collected the names of the victims of the anti-Shah revolution classifying them by age, sex, education, profession and address. The files were kept secret until 1996/7 when a decision was made to make public the figures on the anniversary of the revolution. At about this time, Emad al-Dib Baghi, was hired as a researcher and editor of the bonyad's magazine "Yad Yaran" (Remembering our Comrades) to make sense of the data. By the time his work had finished he was told that the names were not to be made public. The reason given was that to pursue the matter would run contrary to the statements made by the late Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors who claimed that "60,000 men, women and children were martyred by the Shah's regime." Emad al-Din Baghi who left the Martyrs Foundation to write two books on the subject claims that the authorities felt that releasing the true statistics would simply confuse the public. So, officials continued to stick to the exaggerated numbers. During a debate in the Majlis at the height of the US hostage crisis, an Islamic deputy claimed that giving in to America would be an insult to the memory of "70,000 martyrs and 100,000 wounded who fought to destroy the rotten monarchy." In fact, by continuing the myth that so many people had been killed, the regime was able to buy a certain legitimacy for its "noble revolution" and excesses. "Sooner or later the truth was bound to come out," Baghi argued. In his opinion history should be based on objective findings and not baseless rumours which was the root of the anti-Shah hysteria and street demonstrations in 1978 and 1979. The true numbers are fascinating because contrary to the official view they are quite low and highly disproportionate to the hundreds of thousands murdered in the last 24 years in the Islamic republic. The statistical breakdown of victims covering the period from 1963 to 1979 adds up to a figure of 3,164. Of this figure 2,781 were killed in nation wide disturbances in 1978/79 following clashes between demonstrators and the Shah's army and security forces. Baghi has no reason to doubt these figures and believes that it is probably the most comprehensive number available with the possible exception of a few names that were not traced. During the years separating the arrest of Khomeini on 5th June 1963 for instigating the riots against the Shah's White Revolution and his return from exile on 1st February 1979, most of the 3,164 victims were in Tehran, Rey and Shemiran and 731 were killed in riots in the provinces which constitutes 14% of the country. Most of the casualties were in central Tehran and the poorer southern areas. Of this number 32 "martyrs" belong to the 1963 riots who were killed in 19 different parts of the Iranian capital. All were male and from southern Tehran. Despite this revelation all officially sanctioned books in Iran dealing with the history of the Islamic revolution write of "15,000 dead and wounded". Such wild figures have found its way in Western accounts. Another myth is the number of those killed on Friday, 8th September 1978 in the infamous Jaleh Square massacre. On that day the Iranian government imposed martial law in Tehran after troops had fired at several thousand anti-government demonstrators in the capital. The opposition and Western journalists claimed that the massacre left between 95 and 3,000 dead, depending on widely varying estimates. Historians agree that the bloody incident was to be a crucial turning point in the revolution. Baghi refutes those numbers as "grossly inflated." The figures published by Baghi speaks of 64 killed among them two females – one woman and a young girl. On the same day in other parts of the capital a total of 24 people died in clashes with martial law forces among them one female. Therefore, according to Baghi, the number of people "martyred" on Black Friday is 88 of which 64 were gunned down in Jaleh Square. These statistics are closer to the figures announced by Dr Ameli Tehrani (executed by the revolutionaries) who served in Prime Minister Sharif Emami's government. The Shah's officials repeatedly spoke of 86 people dead and 205 wounded in clashes. But at the time nobody in Iran was prepared to believe the government version, says Baghi, himself an ardent revolutionary in those troubled days. Instead rumours turned into facts and made headlines further weakening the Shah's crumbling regime. Opposition leaders quoted figures as high as "tens of thousands" and agitators spread stories that soldiers had fired on the people from helicopters piloted by Israelis. Michel Focault, a leading French journalist, who covered the Jaleh Square wrote of "2,000 to 3,000 victims" and later increased the figures to "4,000 people killed" adding that the demonstrators had no fear of death. The number of non-Muslims who died for the revolution was deemed by the Martyrs Foundation as "too insignificant" to be included in the list. Many of them were die-hard Marxist guerrillas who had fought running battles with the Shah's secret police known as Savak. In the 1970s the Shah's regime faced many threats from so-called Islamic-Marxist terrorists who carried out assassinations of top officials, kidnappings, bank thefts and bomb attacks on cinemas. Savak was given special powers to deal with this "terrorist" threat and appeared successfully ruthless in its "dirty war." Savak's crude brutality received a lot of criticism in the West. Amnesty International reported cases of illegal detention and torture. But how many were killed? Baghi is methodical in the way he states numbers. Firstly, he claims that the total number of guerrillas killed between the 1971 Siahkal incident during which armed Marxists attacked a police station in a Caspian village and the February 1979 insurrection is 341. The figure 341 is made up of 177 persons killed in shoot-outs with the Shah's security forces; 91 were executed for "anti-state activities"; 42 died under torture; 15 were arrested and "disappeared", 7 committed suicide rather than be captured, and 9 were shot while escaping. From among the guerrilla groups who died fighting the imperial regime the Marxist Fedayeen Khalq organisation suffered the highest losses. From the total figure of 341 killed, 172 were Fedayeens (50%); 73 Mujaheddin Khalq (21%); 38 fringe communists (11%); 30 Mujaheddin marxists before changing their ideology to Islamic (9%) and 28 Islamists (8%). For completion sake, Baghi has added 5 other names to his long list. Four of them (Sadeq Amani, Reza Safar Herandi, Mohammad Bokharaie and Morteza Niknejad) were executed by firing squad after a military tribunal found them guilty of assassinating Prime Minister Mansour in 1965. The fifth name belonged to Reza Shams Abadi, a member of the Imperial Guard, who opened fire on the Shah as he came out of his limousine at the Marble Palace. The assassin was shot down by the king's bodyguards. By adding these five names to the 341 we get the figure of 346 non-demonstrators killed between 1963 and 1979. In addition to the 32 demonstrators killed in the June 1963 pro-Khomeini riots two other persons were shot dead in the following weeks in an undisclosed part of Tehran. On 2nd November 1963 a certain Mohammad Ismail Rezaie was murdered in jail and on the same day Haj Mohammad Reza Teyb was shot by firing squad at the Heshmatiyeh army barracks. The mysterious death of the famous wrestler Gholam Reza Takhti in 1967 was attributed to Savak but Baghi has established that Takhti committed suicide. Unfortunately, Baghi makes no mention of the Islamic philosopher Ali Shariati and the Imam's eldest son, Mustapha Khomeini. Both died of heart attacks in London and Najaf respectively. At the time of their deaths there were many rumours that they had been eliminated by Savak agents but subsequent evidence proves the opposite. Nevertheless, the negative effect on public opinion was tremendous and played a major role in eroding support for the Shah's regime. In any case, by adding Takhti's name the total of those killed for underground action against the Shah's regime comes to 383 which added to the 2,781 "martyrs" would mean that 3,164 Iranians lost their lives in the revolution against the monarchy and not 60,000 as the Imam had stated. In time, other historians may take up the task of finding the truth about the countless people executed or eliminated during the brutal 24 years rule of the mullahs. But that will only be possible in a free Iran and the findings may prove to be a greater shock. Rouzegar-Now August issue " http://www.a-listonline.com/iran/html/article1056.html
THE SHAH'S LAST WILL and testement-BY MANI TURKZADEH
How we miss you Shahnshan Aryameher. Dorood beh Prince Reza Pahlavi and Queen Farah Pahlavi va Khanedan e Azizz e Pahlavi.
IRAN - Invaded by ISLAM 1400 years ago - see the crimes - From: Fravahar
Iran -since the old ages of Zoroaster we call us Aryan, but Aryan mean to be free, gentle and respectful to all humanbeings. What islam did in the last 1400 years after bloody occupation of iran by islamic camelriders was bringing darkness in the heart of The light. I hope the children of Zoroaster, cyrus the Great and Ardeshir Babakan will rise again like the mythical age against ZAHAK the tyran, and i wish the day that the flag of Kaveh (derafshe kaviyan) overrule the darkness of those jihad-ists of islam. Iran is not arabia,We iranians belong to one of the eldest civilizations of the our Planet, we gave so much to the world but what did world to us? JIMMY CARTER the president of USA supported massively khomeini in 1978 and 1979, Europe hated shah and pahlavi dynasty because they have ended europeans specially british influence in IRAN, so EUROPE supported khomeini specially as khomeini arrived Paris 1978 by giving all publicity khomeini needed, BBC sended every night a persian radio programm to IRAN calling khomeini as MESSIAS of freedom and humanity ,Europe started an ugly campaign against shah that stil today goes on. They are making till now huge Propagnda for one of the most nasty personalities in iranian history called mosadegh, a prince of backwarded ghajar dynasty, just to challenge all progress and achievment during pahlavi dynasty. BUT as the same arabs or mongolians could not annihilate our history and culture, the same JIMMY CARTERS and BBC's and all others will fail to change our history.
Mossadegh plays with fire : Source: The New York Times, Editorial : August 15, 1953
The world has so many trouble spots these days that one is apt to pass over the odd one here and there to preserve a little peace of mind. It would be well, however, to keep an eye, on Iran, where matters are going from bad to worse, thanks to the machinations of Premier Mossadegh.Some of us used to ascribe our inability to persuade Dr. Mossadegh of the validity of our ideas to the impossibility of making him understand or see things our way. We thought of him as a sincere, well-meaning, patriotic Iranian, who had a different point of view and made different deductions from the same set of facts. We now know that he is a power-hungry, personally ambitious, ruthless demagogue who is trampling upon the liberties of his own people. We have seen this onetime chamption of liberty maintain martial law, curb freedom of the press, radio, speech and assembly, resort to illegal arrests and torture, dismiss the Senate, destroy the power of the Shah, take over control of the army, and now he is about to destroy the Majlis, which is the lower house of Parliament. His power would seem to be complete, but he has alientated the traditional ruling classes — the aristocrats, landlords, financiers and tribal leaders. These elements are anti-Communist. So is the Shah and so are the army leaders and the urban middle classes. There is a traditional, historic fear, suspicion and dislike of Russian and the Russians. The peasants, who make up the overwhelming mass of the population, are illiterate and nonpolitical. Finally, there is still no evidence that the Tudeh (Communist) party is strong enough or well enough organized, financed and led to take power.All this simply means that there is no immediate danger of a Communist coup or Russian intervention. On the other hand, Dr. Mossadegh is encouraging the Tudeh and is following policies which will make the Communists more and more dangerous. He is a sorcerer’s apprentice, calling up forces he will not be able to control.Iran is a weak, divided, poverty-stricken country which possesses an immense latent wealth in oil and a crucial strategic position. This is very different from neighboring Turkey, a strong, united, determined and advanced nation, which can afford to deal with the Russians because she has nothing to fear — and there the West has nothing to fear. Thanks largely to Dr. Mossadegh, there is much to fear in Iran.
از مرغ طوفان ، تا مرغکان خود شیفته در پاسخ به مقاله ای که من در نقد پیام ابوالحسن بنی صدر در رابطه با سالگرد انقلا ب57 نوشته بودم ، مقاله ای ازآقای دلخواسته در رسانه های اینترنتی منتشر شد که مرا واداشت ، بدون اینکه قصد به درازا کشاندن موضوع بنی صدر و ایجاد پلاتفورمی برای مطرح کردن ایشان را داشته باشم ، پاسخی در دست تهیه بگیرم. آقای دلخواسته در آغاز مقاله خود ، با نصیحت در باره ی اینکه ما باید با نگرشی سیستمی و با چشم اغماض به گذشته و اعمال کسانی همچون آقای بنی صدر بنگریم ، تلاش در این دارند تا اذهان را آماده ی مطالبی کنند که در پی این موعظه می آید. از اینکه ایشان اعتقاد به رشد و نفوذ اندیشه های بنی صدر در قلمرو گفتمان های دینی و ملی دارد شگفت زده شدم ، چرا که نشانی از آن در میان نیروهای ملی یافت نمی شود. ولی شاید ایشان و آقای بنی صدر از چیزهایی خبر دارند که ما از آنها بی خبر مانده ایم. بنی صدرخودش مینویسد که جبهه ای ها را در بحبوحه ی انقلاب «یک به یک خنثی کرده است». حال شما از کدام "ملی ها" سخن میگویید معمایی حل نشده باقی می ماند. ایشان دست کم در شش ماه اول دوران انقلاب یک بار هم نامی از مصدق و جبهه ملی بر زبان نیاورد تا مهر خمینی را به کین تبدیل نکند. آقای دلخواسته در نوشته شان از حضور مقاله نویسان مزدور در سایت های ولایی و سایت های پهلوی خواه نوشته اند و برای بنده هم قفسه ای به نام "بختیار طلب" آفریده اند. از آنجایی که طرح مداوم تئوری" توطئه" از جانب آقای بنی صدر وحواریون ایشان معرف حضور بسیاری از خوانندگان آگاه می باشد ، نیازی به پرداختن بیشتر به آن نمیبینم. برای همچون منی که گرایش ملی و اندیشه ای سکولار دارد ، دکترمحمد مصدق و دکترشاپور بختیار دو ستاره ی تابناک تاریخ معاصر ایران هستند . دو ستاره ای که همچون هر سیاستمدار دیگری خالی از اشتباه نبودند. مصدق و بختیار از نادر سیاست مدارانی بودند که دقیقا میدانستد چه می خواهند و چه چیزی را نمی خواهند. ایشان بر این باورند که ارزش های امروز را در دل دیروز بردن و از دیروزیان انتظار نگاه امروزین داشتن بد داوری است. این اظهار ازجناح های به خصوصی به کرات شنیده میشود.این وجه مشترک کسانی است که با توسل به چنین راه گریزهای سفسطه آمیزی در پی آنند تا آبروی رفته را باز یابند و جبران مافات کنند. مگر 30 سال پیش ما چه ارزش هایی داشتیم که امروز دیگر ارزش نیستند ؟ مگر صداقت ، پایمردی ، شهامت و اصول گرایی که ما در برخی از کسانی که 30 سال پیش در صحنه بودند و پایمردانه ایستادند تا ایران ویران نشود سراغ داشتیم ، امروز هم ارزش نیستند؟ مگر حقوق بشر و حقوق زن [1] آن زمان مطرح نبود؟ یه یاد داشته باشیم که ما در باره ی 1400 سال پیش صحبت نمی کنیم ، بلکه صحبت در باره ی 30 سال پیش است! آن زمان هم صحبت استقلال و آزادی در میان بود و نه اقتصاد توحیدی و حکومت عدل علی! آقای دلخواسته معتقد است که گناه بر کسی که کردار نیک را ترک کرده ، وارد نیست ( برگردان زبانی که ایشان به کار گرفته است). گذشته از اینکه اینگونه نگاه که بر گرفته از جهانبینی حوزوی و اسلامی است ، و برای من که شیفته ی فرهنگ ایران هستم که یکی از اصول بنیادینش آن است که - جهان را نباید سپردن به بد – جذابیتی ندارد، باید به آگاهیشان برسانم که این ادعا شاید در مورد شخصی با مسئولیت و وظایفی که دایره ی اثرش از دو یا سه نفر تجاوز نمی کند صادق باشد ، ولی برای کسی که خسته نمی شود تا خود را به عنوان اولین رئیس جمهور منتخب ایران معرفی کند صادق نیست. رئیس جمهور کشوری همچون ایران ، آن هم در آن شرایط سرنوشت ساز و با داشتن حکم فرماندهی کل قوا ، نمی تواند پس از 30 سال ادعا کند که نمی دانستم و نمی توانستم! یکی از مسائل مهم که بنی صدریان قصد کتمان و لوث کردن آن را دارند ، مسئله تشعشع موی سر زنان است که به نام و ابتکار بنی صدر وارد تاریخ شده است. آقای دلخواسته دیگر بار این را هم اتهامی از جانب یکی دیگر از بد خواهان بنی صدر دانسته و خواهان دادن ابسولوسیون به بنی صدر شده است. در اینجا یک یادآوری خیر خواهانه خطاب به آقای بنی صدر درباره ی افاضاتشان در باره ی تشعشع شهوت آمیز موی زنان میکنم. خاطرشان هست که حدود دو ماه پیش از وقوع آشوب انقلاب ، ایشان در حضور جمعی از ایرانیان در شهر کلن آلمان[2] تحت عنوان "ایران در لبه پرتگاه" همین مسئله اشعه موی زن را عنوان کردند. در تایید این مورد دست کم 50 شاهد زنده وجود دارد.آنانی که در آلمان بنی صدر را "سید" خطاب میکنند مفاد سخنرانی مشعشعانه ی ایشان را میتوانند شهادت بدهند. بنی صدر در این سخنرانی با خونسردی تمام مسئله اشعه موی زن و تاثیری را که آن بر حالات مردان می گذارد را بیان می کند. اندیشه کردن که چه گویم به از پشیمانی که چرا گفتم. ایشان در این سخنرانی نکته سنجی و ژرف نگری خود را با این گفته که پپسی کولا فسفر مغز را میشوید و مغز را از کار میاندازد به اوج خود میرساند! وی در پاسخ به این پرسش که این کشف جانانه را چه کسی کرده که ایشان به ترویج آن میپردازد میگوید:« دوستی، مقاله ای از پروفسوری را در یک مجله علمی خوانده و به آگاهی ایشان هم رسانده»! آیا ایشان با پوپولیسمی که آن هنگام از خود نشان داد ، کمی فضا برای تمایز خود با خلفش احمدی نژاد باقی گذاشت ؟ آیا اینگونه گفتار ها جز در راستای نزدیک شدن به قطب قدرت آن زمان که خمینی بود و خود ید طولایی در عوام فریبی داشت میتوانست باشد ؟ اگر بگویند که نخیر ایشان به آن چیزهایی که آنزمان اینجا و آنجا میپراکند اعتقاد راسخ داشتند که کارنامه ی ایشان را از آنچه هست خراب تر میکند. حال گیریم که کسانی که این گفته ی ایشان را نقل میکنند همه سر به سر معاند و مخالف و مفسد فی الارض هستند. با افاضات ایشان در مسجد امیر المومنین در سال 58[3] چه میکنید که در مورد فلسفه ی کتک زدن زنها می گوید: «به روانپزشکی مراجعه کنید فلسفه اش را به شما خواهند گفت. بعضی زنان در رابطه با هم خوابگی خشونت پذیرند.من در رابطه با این مسائل نیستم از قول آنها می گویم. چون در طی قرون زن در موقعیت مادونی بوده و همیشه در حالت تحقیر و توسری خور بوده ، یک حالت بیم و ترس در او هست و این حالت در بعضی زنها شدید است و اینها متمایل به یک حمایتی می شوند و این حمایت به صورت خشونت طلبی در می آید و خشونت می طلبد.این آیه در مورد نشوز است و نشوز به معنی نافرمانی است.اما نه بطور مطلق ، منظور از نشوز، همانطور که امام خمینی تفسیر کرده ، نافرمانی جنسی است. نافرمانی در رختخواب، آن هم ممکن است در تمام مدت زندگی یک دفعه اتفاق بیفتد که یک خشونت جزیی لازم دارد، اگر کفایت نکرد یک خشونتی می خواهد و موردش را روانپزشک یا حاکم شرع خواهد کرد یا دکتر باید تشخیص بدهد.» شگفتا! ایشان در نوشته ی خود، بنده را نصیحت به رعایت اخلاق سیاسی و ترغیب به خواندن سایت و کتابهای بنی صدر میکنند. من نظر خود را در باره ی تخیلات و نوشتار بنی صدر در مقاله ی پیشین خود نوشتم . من هیچ گونه نکته ی تازه و یا نشانی از دریافتی جدید و راهکاری مناسب زمان در آثار ایشان نمی یابم. در پایان دفاعیات از آقای بنی صدر، آقای دلخواسته می پردازند به شاپور بختیار، که آقای بنی صدر توهم همسنگ بودن با ایشان را در سر می پروراند. در بررسی علت اینکه پذیرفتن نخست وزیری دکتر شاپور بختیار در آن شرایط از دید شخصی ایشان درست نبود از جمله این نکته را ذکر می کند که: «عامه مردم بنا به طبع شیعی همه حکومت ها راغصبی و در زمره ظلمه می شمردند.» اگر من نمی دانستم که نگارنده ی این سطور چه کسی است ، بدون لحظه ای تردید گمان میکردم این سطور شاهکاری از شاهکار های آیت الله جنتی یا ملا حسنی است. این نگرش متعلق به حوزه ، آن هم مرتجع ترین بخش های آن است. ایشان بر مبنای کدام تحقیق و کدام آمار آن را به عموم مردم ایران تعمیم می دهد؟ چند نفراز ایرانیانی که در تظاهرات آن سال ها شرکت میکردند و بعضا جانشان را در این راه از کف دادند بر پایه ی این باور عمل کردند که حکومت غصبی است ؟ از آن گذشته این چه اصلی است که شخصی چون شاپور بختیار با آن سابقه ی مبارزاتی و آزادی خواهی و با پیشینه ی هفتاد سال مبارزه ی مشروطه و روشن گری در پشت خود حتا یک لحظه بخواهد به آن تن در دهد؟ از آن گذشته برخی از علمای شیعه بر این باورند که تا ظهور امام دوازدهم شان، تمام حکومت ها غصبی هستند ، اما عده ای دیگر از جمله خود آقای خمینی بر این باور نبود و نخستین حکومت اسلامی ایران را بنا نهاد. در تحلیل ایشان جای عامل شهوت قدرت در میان پیرامونیان خمینی به گونه ای چشمگیر خالی است. انگیزه ی بسیاری از کنش های افرادی چون بنی صدر که ما اکنون به ارزیابی آنان نشسته ایم رسیدن به قدرت بود. در بسیاری از مواقع حتا به هر قیمتی. شخصی مانند بنی صدر میدانست که در چارچوب یک حکومت پادشاهی که اپوزیسیون ملی آن را وادار به رعایت اصول مشروطه کرده جایی برای خودنمایی او نیست . طبیعی است که او بخت خود را برای رسیدن به قدرت نزد خمینی که با فریب توده ها و تحریک احساسات مذهبی آنان و پشتیبانی دلگرم کننده از خارج میرفت تا در صحنه یکه تاز میدان شود می آزماید. در آن برهه از زمان، امکان آنکه نیروهای با سابفه و خوش نام ملی با قبولاندن رعایت اصول مشروطه که حاصل 70 سال مبارزه ی خسته گی ناپذیر مردم بود و اصرار بر پذیرفتن این اصول از جانب شخص شاه ، راه را برای گذار مسالمت آمیز و کم هزینه بسوی حکومتی مردمی هموار کنند وجود داشت. این توان و مقبولیت را اما خرده پاهایی مانند قطب زاده و یزدی و بنی صدر نداشتند. آقای دلخواسته پس از دادن پند و اندرز در باره ی لزوم خارج شدن از فضای تاریخ پژوهی فرضی ، خود بی درنگ و پیش از خشک نشدن جوهر نوشته شان، به ترسیم تخیلی عجیب و دور از ذهن می پردازد و فرضیه ای در مورد علت ایجاد سپاه و کمیته و حتا برپایی استبداد ولایی و ارتباط واهی آن با نپذیرفتن نخست وزیری از جانب بختیار ارایه میدهد که جای بسیار تعجب دارد. ایشان مینویسد اگر بختیار پیشنهاد نخست وزیر شدن برای حکومت خمینی را می پذیرفت چنین میشد و چنان میشد. نخست آنکه عنوان نمی کنند که شرط خمینی برای دادن حکم نخست وزیری بختیار استعفای او بود[4].در اینکه سوگند شرعی آقای خمینی چقدر ارزش دارد تاریخ به اندازه ی کافی گواه دارد. بختیار برای ملاقات با خمینی شرط داشت و آن هم این بود که نخست هیچ تعهدی نسپارد و دوم اینکه از پست خود استعفا نخواهد داد و خمینی نه به عنوان رهبر ملت ایران ، بلکه به عنوان روح الله خمینی با او بر سر میز بنشیند. در تدارک این نشست هم بازرگان ، بهشتی و مطهری دست داشتند ، نه آنطور که ایشان مینویسند بنی صدر. بختیار می نویسد ، میدانست که امکان توافق با خمینی نبود چرا که او از ملت و ایران صحبت میکرد ، خمینی اما از امت و اسلام. دکتر بختیار در مصاحبه با رادیو ایران میگوید دلیلش برای دیدار با خمینی این بود که حساب 50 سال دیگر را می کرد تا متهم به خود خواهی نشود. می خواست ببیند این سید چه میگوید.اگر بختیار نخست وزیری خمینی را می پذیرفت ،پیرو آن باید زعامت و رهبری او و ایدئولوژی متحجرش را نیز می پذیرفت. در صورت ناسازگاری با "آقا" هم به زودی همان بلا بر سرش می آمد که سر بنی صدر آمد. بختیار برای خمینی بر خلاف بنی صدر مشروعیت قائل نبود. بنی صدر اما بر خلاف ادعای آقای دلخواسته ، همه جا با افتخار و طمطراق از شیرین کاریش داد سخن میدهد و عنوان میکند ، او بود که جلوی دیدار بختیار با خمینی را گرفت. در مصاحبه با یک روزنامه ی فرانسوی بنی صدر اظهار میدارد: « اگر نفس بختیار به خمینی میرسید امکان داشت که آقا خیلی از این شدتی که داشت کاسته شود و جا بزند ، ونفع ما در این نبود. انقلاب اسلامی بایستی میشد و لازم بود که ما این ملاقات را بهم بزنیم.» در اینجا میخواهم یادآوری کنم ، که بنی صدر پس از فرارش از ایران در مصاحبه ای با روزنامه ی لیبراسیون[5] ادعا میکند که سیاوش دوران جدید است. نخوت و خودبزرگ بینی را بسیاری از کسانی که آشنایی با وی دارند ، از جمله حسین ملک ، گوشزد کرده اند. اما بیرون آمدن این مطلب از دهان کسی که خود به سرپرستی خمینی در سیاوش کشی دستی داشته است ، تراژیک شخصیت بنی صدر را دو چندان میکند. اگر ما چیزی از بختیار آموختیم و میتوانیم بیاموزیم ، صداقت و شهامت اوست. او خود را به موج توده های هیستریک و فریب خورده نسپرد. بنی صدر اما با خودش هم صادق نیست. او در جایی با مخالفتش با خمینی در دوران دولت موقت بازرگان در سال 1358 می گوید[6]: «تمام دروغگویی و دغلکاری خمینی روزی بر من روشن شد که در قم جلسه ی شورای انقلاب داشتیم. بحثی در باره ی چادر و پوشش زنان در گرفته بود. من به خمینی یادآوری کردم که در پاریس قول داده بود که زنان آزاد خواهند بود چادر به سر کنند یا نکنند و پرسیدم حالا چرا می خواهید چادر را اجباری کنید؟ جواب داد در پاریس من به ملاحظه ی اوضاع و احوال خیلی حرف زده ام ولی تعهد نکرده ام که آن وعده ها را رعایت کنم. وقتی این حرف را زد من به او گفتم: شما دیگر یک مرد مذهبی نیستید. وقتی از شورای انقلاب بیرون آمدم بازرگان به من گفت شما شجاع تر از آن هستید که من خیال میکردم». ایشان به احتمال زیاد نطقی را که خود یک سال پس از وقوع این رویداد کرده از خاطر برده است. بنی صدر در نطق خود در شهریور 1359 می گوید[7]: « حالا تبلیغ میکنند که نخستین رئیس جمهوری جمهوری اسلامی ایران با بنیانگذار این جمهوری مخالف است. چه جای تعجب ، آنها که این تبلیغات را می کنند راه معاویه را میروند و من به آنها میگویم خیلی کوشیدید و خیلی زحمت کشیدید ولی بخواست خدا که توکل ما به اوست ، شکست کامل خوردید. در دل من که خود را فرزند امام میدانم جز عشق و صمیمیت به امام نیست و در فکر من هیچ نمی گذرد جز اینکه خواست او به اجرا در آید. با وجود بوسه بر زمین خدمت خمینی زدن و اظهار عشق آتشین ، خمینی او را مورد غضب قرار داد و از جاه به چاه افکند. اینجا فرق بنیادین و چشمگیر کیفیت شخصیت شاپور بختیار با شخصی چون بنی صدر آشکار می گردد. در بزنگاهی اینگونه است که عیار افراد محک زده می شود. اعتقاد و پایداری بر اصول نزد بختیار آنچنان بود که با وجود فشار زیاد از جانب شخص شاه و دیگران زمانی را صرف گرفتن رای اعتماد از مجلس می کند تا پس از 36 سال اولین نخست وزیری باشد که نه تنها حکم شاه ، بلکه اعتماد مجلس را نیز در دست دارد. بختیار فرمان و اختیار از قانون اساسی گرفت نه از شاه. او بر اصول پایدار ماند و تن به سازش نه با شاه و نه با شیخ داد. موضوع اتهام زدن به بختیار هم موضوع تازه ای نیست.از جمله آقای دلخواسته ، که خواسته و نا خواسته ، با تکیه زیاد و ناسالم به گفته ها و نوشته های بنی صدر دامن به این اتهامات واهی میزند. این ادعا که بختیار صدام را ترغیب به حمله به ایران کرد ، ادعای پوچ و بی ارزشی بیش نیست ، چرا که دکتر بختیار در اعلامیه خود ، چند روزی پس از حمله ی عراق به ایران این حمله را محکوم کرد[8]. بختیار به عراق سفر کرد تا صدام را از تصمیم ادامه جنگ باز بدارد. او به درستی معتقد بود جنگ مانع کار اپوزیسیون می شود. [9] بختیار از دید سلطنت طلبان دو آتشه به دلیل ترغیب شاه به ترک ایران یک جنایتکار،از نظر مذهبی ها تشکیل دهنده ی دولت غاصب و غیر قانونی (تئوری آقای دلخواسته ) و از دید توده ایها سد راه انقلاب بود [10].دوران زمامداری کوتاه بختیاراما همراه بود با انحلال ساواک، آزادی بی بدیل رسانه ها ، آزادی، اعاده حیثیت و پرداخت غرامت به زندانیان سیاسی[11] ، در حالیکه زمان اقتدار بنی صدرتوام بود با اعدام ها ، تشکیل کمیته و سپاه ، انقلاب فرهنگی و بسته شدن دانشگاه ها ، تحمیل حجاب اجباری ، تصفیه های لجام گسیخته و نابودی زندگی وآوارگی میلیون ها ایرانی. بختیار در خاطره ها به عنوان مردی می ماند که نه دست از آنچه درست میپنداشت ( تاریخ نشان داد آنچه او در باره ی انقلاب ، حکومت اسلامی و خمینی میپنداشت ، درست بود) شست ، نه سر خم کرد و نه بوسه بر دستان پدر خوانده زد. رضا عزیزی 11 فروردین 1387 خورشیدی – 30 مارس 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [1] برای تازه کردن حافظه بعضی از هم میهنان ، توجه را به لینک زیر جلب میکنم که نشان دهنده گوشه ی کوچکی از مبارزه ی زنان آزاده ایرانی است که از روزهای آغازین انقلاب ، تحجر و اسلامزدگی را به چالش گرفتند: http://www.iran-women-solidarity.net/falsh/Slides/slide_show.html [2] سخنرانی بنی صدر در شهر کلن آلمان ، دو ماه پیش از پیروزی انقلاب 57 در رستورانی به نام: Vatikänchen در سالنی که لبریز از شنوندگان بود و دست کم 50 نفر آن را شهادت می دهند.این سخنرانی در شهرهای بوخوم و زاربروکن هم برگذار شد. [3] سخنرانی بنی صدر در مسجد امیر المو منین در سال 58. آقای بنی صدر در جواب کسی که می پرسد با توجه به آیه 34 سوره نسا، فلسفه اینکه در صورت نافرمانی زن ، باید او را حبس کرد و در صورت تکرار جرم ، اضربوهن، یعنی کتکش بزنید ، چیست. پاسخ بنی صدر در بالا. [4] چند گفتگو با دکتر شاپور بختیار در باره ی دوران زمامداریش – از انتشارات رادیو ایران [5] شماره ی پنجشنبه ، 6 اوت 1981 [6]مصاحبه با لو کوتیدین دو پاری – شماره ی1 فوریه 1982 [7] نطق 17 شهریور 1359 ، در میدان شهدا – روزنامه بامداد شماره ی سه شنبه 18 شهریور [8]سخنان مهندس حمید ذوالنور در سمینار " جبهه ملی و شاپور بختیار در گذار 22 بهمن" برگذارکننده: جبهه ملی ایران – واحد آلمان ، در تاریخ 8 سپتامبر 2007 ، کلن - آلمان [9]اعلامیه دکتر شاپور بختیار--پاریس 21مهرماه 1359--برگرفته ازکتاب مرغ توفان، صفحه 164 متن اعلامیه: در شرایط ناگوار و خطیری که ملت قهرمان ایران در حال مبارزه علیه حکومت سیاه و استبدادی خمینی است، تحریکات مستمر و مغرضانه رژیم روحانی نمایان در تحمیل حکومت خود از یک سو و دخالت در امور سایر کشورها از سوی دیگر به دولت عراق امکان داده است تا با استفاده از آشفتگی حاکم بر کشور به خاک میهن عزیز ما حمله ور گردد و مصیبت تازه ای برای مردم ستم دیده ایران ببار آورد. با درود فراوان به ارتش دلیر ایران که علیرغم همه نامردمیها و بی عدالتی های رژیم غاصب خمینی در برابر تجاوز بیگانه مردانه قد بر افراشته و جان بر کف از خاک وطن دفاع می کنند و همچنین با درود به مردم شجاع و از جان گذشته ایکه همدوش ارتش خود، در این جنگ میهنی شرکت نموده اند، آمادگی خود را، همانطور که قبلا هم اعلام داشته ام، جهت بکار بردن کلیه امکاناتی که در اختیار دارم به منظور دفاع از تمامیت ارضی و استقلال میهنم اعلام میدارد. دکتر شاپور بختیار - پاریس 21 مهرماه 1359 http://www.namir.info/home/pdf/akba8/morgh_tofan.html [10] [11]رئوس برنامه های فوری دولت بختیار – در آینه 37 روز – حمید صدر
From: sunpacificblue My humble tribute to the Shahbanou of Iran.God bless her & her family.Javid Shabbanou!!!!Javid Shah!!!Long live Reza Pahlavi II!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st4wfX6vROA
پیام شاهزاده رضا پهلوی بمناسبت نوروز ۱۳۸۷ اول فروردین ماه ۱۳۸۷ هم میهنان عزیزم، همواره حیات و دوام ملت ها با قابلیت آنها در تولید، حفظ و اشاعۀ فرهنگ خویش در پیوندی تنگاتنگ بوده است. همواره، پایداری هرملتی در عرصۀ تاریخ، با استواری فرهنگی آن ملت عجین بوده است. اهل اندیشه و ایران شناسان، ملت ما را فرهنگجو و سرزمین ایران را از مهمترین بسترهای فرهنگ خیز در پهنۀ تمدن بشری به شمار آورده اند. تا فرهنگ ایران هست؛ تا ایرانی قابلیت خود را در خلق و تولید و سپس پاسداری از ارزش های هنری و ادبی و اخلاقی، در بطن ملت خود، با تمام تکثر آن، زنده نگه دارد؛ ایران و ایرانی زنده و پا برجا خواهد ماند. در ژرفای سرد و تاریک تحجر، همین پابرجایی فرهنگی بوده و هست که ملت ما را زنده و زاینده نگه داشته است. براستی اگر شما ملت در برابر تهاجم فرهنگ ستیز جاهلیت در این سال ها نایستاده بودید، برچهارشنبه سوری، برتخت جمشید، برچهل ستون و بر نوروز ما چه می رفت؟ این شما ملت ایران و پیشتازان هنری و فرهنگی امان بوده اید، که خداوند جان و خِرد را در برابر این بی خدایان نهاده اید. این شما بودید که جهل را با علم، کراهت را با زیبایی و ماتم این شادی ستیزان را به پایبندی به آئین هزار و هزاران سالۀ خود پاسخ گفتید.
هم میهنانم،
نوروز، ستایش زندگی ست. زندگی، زیباترین زیبایی ها و ارزش ارزش هاست. هم میهنان عزیزم، فصلی نو و روزی نو و طرحی نو در پیش است. بهارانتان خجسته و نوروزتان فرخنده باد، که ایرانی نو در پیش است، سربلند و پوینده. نوروزتان شاد و پیروز باد، که ایرانی آزاد و شکوفا در افق نمایان است که درآن، نخستین و آخرین رسالت دولتمردان و دولتزنانش، هیچ نباشد مگر رفاه، آسایش و امنیت ایرانی.
Interview of the President: by VOA Persian News Network Map Room White House News -
Q Mr. President, let me thank you first on behalf of the Voice of America, on behalf of the Persian News Network for giving us your time. We really appreciate that, sir. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Q As you know, Mr. President, this is the eve of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. What is your message to the Iranian people as they face tough economic circumstances and infringement on their freedoms? THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, Nowruz a tan Mubarak. Secondly, that the people of the United States respects the people of Iran; that we respect the traditions of Iran, the great history of Iran. We have differences with the government, but we honor the people, and we want the people to live in a free society. We believe freedom is a right for all people and that the freer the world is, the more peaceful the world is. And so my message is, please don't be discouraged by the slogans that say America doesn't like you, because we do, and we respect you. Q What do you say to the regime, sir -- what would you say to the regime? THE PRESIDENT: I'd say to the regime that they made decisions that have made it very difficult for the people of Iran. In other words, the Iranian leaders, in their desire to enrich uranium -- in spite of the fact that the international community has asked them not to -- has isolated a great country; and that there's a way forward. I mean, the Iranian leaders know there's a way forward, and that is verifiably suspend your enrichment and you can have new relationship with people in the U.N. Security Council, for example. It's just sad that the leadership is in many ways very stubborn, because the Iraqi -- the Iranian people are not realizing their true rights. And they're confusing people in Iraq, as well, about their desires. It's a tough period in history for the Iranian people, but it doesn't have to be that way. Q On the nuclear issue, sir, is there a solution to the problem that would both satisfy the United States' concern and at the same time allow Iran to proceed with non-military nuclear energy research? THE PRESIDENT: Well, part of the problem is that it's very hard for people to trust the Iranian government because they haven't told the full truth, and that's why the people of Iran have got to understand there are great suspicions right now, not only in the United States, but around the world. But there is a better way forward. And I thought, for example, the Russians proposed an interesting way, that says -- and I have said publicly, and the Iranian people need to know that I believe Iran has the right to have civilian nuclear power. I believe in civilian nuclear power. Iran is a sovereign country and they should have it. The problem is we just don't trust the government because they haven't been forthcoming about their enrichment of fuels to go into the reactor, and therefore Russia has offered to provide fuel on a contractual basis and provide fuel on a consistent basis. It would help solve the problem, and that is the Iranians wouldn't need to enrich, it would have fuel for their reactor and the people would have cheaper electricity. And I support that idea. Q Sir, would you allow enrichment inside Iran if there are guarantees and international supervision? THE PRESIDENT: I would have to be convinced that any secret programs would be disclosed. In other words, I -- once a nation hasn't told the truth, it requires a lot of work to convince people that they'll be telling the truth in the future. And my problem is, is that the Iranian government has not been forthcoming, has not fully disclosed their programs like the IAEA asked them to. So there's a lot of distrust right now. And the better way forward is for there to be a contractual, solid obligation to provide fuel for a nuclear reactor and then the Iranians can have their civilian nuclear power. Q At a time when Iranians are going through very difficult economic circumstances -- there's high employment -- high unemployment, there are high prices, there are unfilled promises -- the United Nations Security Council just passed a new set of sanctions against the regime. Is the United States concerned, sir, that the regime might exploit these circumstances to whip up anti-American sentiment, and also to use those and misuse them? THE PRESIDENT: Sure. No, I appreciate that. Of course we are. We're always concerned about the individual. I'm concerned about the mom trying to raise her child in a hopeful environment. I'm concerned about a child wanting to gain the knowledge so that he or she can realize her God-given talents. And of course we're worried about the human condition. And any time a government is failing to meet the needs of people -- or a lot of times, not "any time," but a lot of times governments have failed to meet the needs of their people, particularly in relatively non-transparent, non-free societies they always look for somebody to blame. And I'm not surprised that the leaders would blame the United States for the problems they, themselves, have created. So, yes, this enters my mind. On the other hand, the people of Iran must understand that the conditions exist in large part because of either management by the government or isolation because of the government's decisions on foreign policy matters -- such as announcing they want to destroy countries with a nuclear weapon. It is irresponsible remarks like that which cause great credibility loss with the Iranian government, the actions of which are affecting the country. Q Mr. President, if I may, I want to ask you about Iraq also. Today is the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war and you had a speech on the war on terror. Are you satisfied with the political situation in Iraq, in view of the improving security situation? And also, has Iran played a role in this? THE PRESIDENT: I am pleased, but not satisfied. I am pleased because there's a modern constitution in Iraq. I am pleased because people have voted in Iraq. I am pleased because they're heading toward provincial elections in Iraq. I'm pleased to see democracy moving. I'm not satisfied because there's more work to be done. One of the problems we do have in Iraq is the -- there's been some negative Iranian influence, such as the exportation from Iran of certain weapons that have been used by extremists to murder and to kill people. And it's been particularly unhelpful. Now, look, I understand Iraq and Iran are going to have relations; after all, they've got a long border. But from my perspective, Iran has not been helpful in terms of helping this young democracy survive. I would think it would be in Iran's interests to have a peaceful neighbor. They had been at war at one time with Iraq. I would believe that a peaceful Iraq would be in the long-term interests of the Iranian people. And yet it's hard to have a peaceful Iraq if there are elements inside the country that are trying to use violence and murder to continue to stir up sectarian doubts and raise concerns which will cause more violence. Q There have been recent contacts between the United States and Iran over Iraq. Some dissidents inside Iran think that these might expand to other areas, and they feel that this will undercut their position and that would strengthen the regime's hand. What are your thoughts on that, sir? THE PRESIDENT: My thought is, is that the reformers inside Iran are brave people, they've got no better friend than George W. Bush, and I ask for God's blessings on them on their very important work. And secondly, that I would do nothing to undermine their efforts. And thirdly, that the talks between Iran -- between the U.S. and Iran about Iraq are solely about Iraq, and that the message to the Iranians is: Stop importing your weapons, your sophisticated IEDs, or there will be consequences inside of Iraq. And when we find people transporting weapons that are aimed to harm innocent people or to arm militias that are aiming to harm innocent people, then they will be brought to justice; that there's a better way to deal inside of Iraq than the Iranians are now dealing. And so this message is nothing more than limited to Iraq. Q Mr. President, thank you very much. And thanks for allowing me to do the interview, sir. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you; yes, ma'am.
ای مزدا - اهورا: با دستهای برافراشته و خواهان خشنودی بتو روی می آوریم تا بهترین سرود ستایش خود را بدرگاهت بر افرازم . در آستانه ی سال نو ترا می ستاییم ای دادار ِ بزرگ که سپهر ِ بیکران را فراز گستردی و خورشید تیز اسب ِ جاودان پیروز را روشنی بخش آن کردی تا پرتو زرینش غبار تاریکی از چهره ی زمین برگیرد و رویش و بالش گیاهان، و پویش پویندگان را فراهم آورد . تا درختان بارده بار بردارند و با سرهای خمیده سپاس ترا بجای آرند. تا گلهای نوشکفته زرینه پرتوش را بنوشند و چهره ی زمین را به زیباترین رنگها بیارایند. تاآدمی راه از چاه باز شناسد و شایست از نا شایست بداند. ای بزرگترین سزاوار ستایش: ترا می ستاییم که گردونه ی ماه را گردن آویز ِ سپهر کردی تا با سیمینه پرتوَش پهنه ی بی کران جهان را روشنایی بخشد وسپاه تاریکی را بتارا ند. تا گیاهان را ببالاند و جامه ی زیبای سبزگون بر تن زمین بپوشاند. تا دریانوردان و کاروانیان را راه بنماید. تا هنگامی که پر می شود دلهای دلباختگان را بلرزاند، و هنگامی که کمان می شود آرش را بیاد آرد و کوهساران را پر از آوای ایران بگرداند. ترا می ستاییم ای هستی بخش بزرگ: که ستاره ی باران زای ِ تیشتر را آفریدی تا پیش آهنگ ِ خورشید در آسمان باشد و دیگر ستارگان را در پیرامون خود گرد آورد. تا بجنگ خشکی برخیزد و با آذرَخش و تُندَر سپاه خشکسالی را بتاراند. تا با آب ِ پَهنه ِ گستر غبار خشکی از تن زمین برگیرد و زمین را چِشمه ی زاینده ی زندگانی بگرداند. تا رودها و چشمه ساران را سرشار از آبهای توان ساز زندگی بخش بگرداند . ترا می ستاییم ای دادار همه دانا: که زمان ِ بیکران را آفریدی تا جام ِ سپهر باشد. تا هستی بیکران را در پیاله ی خود جای دهد . تا هر چیز را بزاید، ببالاند و بمیراند. ترا می ستاییم ای بهترین سزاوار ستایش: که فر کیانی نیرومند را آفریدی آن فر بسیار ستوده، و کار آمد و چالاک را، فری که بدان آ فریدگان را پدید آوردی، فراوان و خوب، فراوان و زیبا، فراوان و دلپذیر، فراوان و کار آمد، فراوان و درخشان . ترا می ستاییم ای مزدااهورا: که در میان کشور ها ایران را آفریدی: تا شهبانوی کشورها شود . که البرز ِ بالا بلند را آفریدی تا آرش کمانگیر تیرش را از فراز آن بپراند و مرزهای ایران را تا فراسوی پندار بگستراند. که الوند برفپوش را آفریدی تا فر شاهنشهی را در گنجنامه ی خود جاودان نگهدارد. که زاگرس سخت گذر را آفریدی تا دشمن از ایران دور بدارد. که رود ارس، و کارون فراخ بستر، و خلیج همیشه پارس را آفریدی تا ایران را جاودان بالنده بگردانند. ترا می ستایییم ای سزاوار ستایش: که ما را به کالبد هستی در آوردی و به ما خرد بخشیدی تا راه از چاه، و شایست از ناشایست باز شناسیم. اندیشه ی نیک را بر ما فراز آوردی تا گفتار و کردار خود را با آن همساز کنیم. به ما توان بخشیدی تا با کار و کوشش و جهش و جنبش، خانمان- و روستا - و شهر- و کشوری آباد پدید آوریم. به ما توان دادی تا با شادی پراکنی و مهر گستری دستیاران تو در کار آفرینش جهان باشیم و جهان بهتری برای خود و برای دیگر مردم ِ جهان پدید آوریم و شادی و مهر در میان مردمان بگسترانیم. ای مزدا اهورا: درآستانه ی سال نو سرود ستایش ما را که از ژرفای دل فراز می شود بشنو و خواست هایمان را برآورده ساز. نیروی پایداری را در ما بیفزا، تا بر کاستی ها چیره گردیم و در پیکار زندگی سربلند باشیم و پیروزگر . در خانه هایمان پسران و دختران سینه ستبر و بلند بالا و خرد گرا را فزون بگردان، و ما را که ستایشکران تو ایم پیروز گر بساز. به ما تندرستی و توانایی ارزانی بدار تا همه ی آن چیز ها را که به زندگی شکوه و شادمانی می بخشند فراچنگ آوریم... بشود که روشنایی تو بر زندگانی ما پرتو بیفشاند... بشود که در خانه ها ی ما شادمانی و پر خواستگی ریشه بگستراند... بشود که دانش نیک بیاریمان آید و ما را بسوی زندگی بهتر راه بنماید... بشود که در خانه هامان فرزندانی زیبا پیکر و دانا و توانا زاده شوند... فرزندانی زور مند و گویا و خرد گرا و رزمنده در راه کشور... فرزندانی با هوش و دانش و توانش، و با فر و فرهنگ... فرزندانی آراسته به اندیشه و گفتار و کردار نیک که در یابند خانه، و خانواده، و روستا، و شهر، و کشور را. واینهمه را خواستاریم: نه برای آنکه گام به بیراهه بگذاریم، نه برای اینکه دانش و توانش خود را در راه تباهی جهان بکار بندیم ! نه برای اینکه پیک اندوه، و پیام آوران مرگ باشیم ! برای اینکه اراده ی ترا که پیشرفت و نو سازی جهان است جامه ی کردار بپوشانیم، برای اینکه زمین را جشنگاهی بزرگ برای مردمان سازیم . برای اینکه پیرو خرد باشیم و از خرافه باوری که دستاورد اهریمن است روی بگردانیم. برای اینکه ریشه ی دروغ برکنیم و آیین نیاکانمان را که همساز با هنجار آفرینش است جایگزین آیین تازیان بگردانیم. برای اینکه میهن خود را از چنگال اهریمنی رایات دور بداریم. پس ای دادار بزرگ که چرخه هستی جز به داد تو نمی چرخد، به ما دانش و توانش بیشتر ارزانی بدار تا اراده ی ترا در زندگانی خود به کردار درآوریم. این سال نو خورشیدی را بر همه ی مردم جهان، بویژه به هم میهنان خوب ما در هر کجای این جهان فراخدامن که هستند خجسته بگردان و سفره ی شادمانی را فراروی همگان بگذار. ایدون باد و ایدون تر باد . آرش برخی از واژه ها: 1- سپهر: آسمان - فلک 2- زرینه: طلایی. 3- پویندگان: جانداران . 4- سیمینه: نقره ای 5- تیشتر Tishtar: ( تیر ) که ایزد باران زا است و نام درخشتنده ترین ستارگان می باشد.در اوستا یشت هشتم بنام او است. در زبان لاتین Sirius و در زبان تازی شعری یمانی. در پارسی شباهنگ هم گفته شده است . این ستاره در شبهای تابستان نمایان می شود. 6- آذرخش: صاعقه. 7- تُندر: رَعد . غُرش ابر. 8- فر کیانی: نیرویی نادیدنی و نابسودنی که از آن اهورا مزدا است. 9- پُر خواستگی: دارشمندی . داراییِ فراوان ( خواسته= دارایی) ایدون باد: اینچنین باد ( آمین) از سرپرستان تارنماهای ایرانی خواهش می کنم اگر دوست دارند این نیایش را در تارنمای خود بگذارند .از برنامه سازان رادیو تلویزونهای پارسی زبان خواهش می کنم این نیایش را جایگزین دعای «یا مقلب القلوب» کنند
Pluto at 1 Capricorn: An Iranian chief claims power from the assembled tribe. The power and responsibility implied in any claim for leadership
Sun at 2 Aries: A comedian reveals human nature. The capacity to look objectively at oneself and others – with humor!
Moon at 2 Libra: The transmutation of the fruits of past experiences into the seed-realizations of the forever creative Spirit. A repolarization of inner energies leading to a creative centralization of consciousness. This symbolizes a mystery – after the fruition of all past efforts and activities, you find the seed to the new life cycle in the SELF. . These Sabian symbols speak to the fact that all of our life experiences up until now have made us who we are. Can we look at ourselves objectively? Have we achieved the maturity and accepted the responsibility of being leaders? For each of us, if we have traveled the paths of consciousness in our lives, are being called upon to lead in some capacity. Now is the time to stop and see ourselves and life objectively, and then go on and create the life we are called to by Spirit. REED THE REST HERE : http://tinyurl.com/2gk8hg
Spring begins in the northern hemisphere around the months of March, April, May, or as reckoned astronomically extending from the vernal equinox. As in summer, the axis of the Earth is tilted toward the Sun, and the length of daylight days rapidly increases as latitude increases. The northern hemisphere begins to warm significantly, causing new plant growth to "spring forth", giving the season its name. Snow begins to melt, and streams swell with runoff and spring rains. Most flowering plants bloom this time of year, in a long succession beginning even when snow is still on the ground, and continuing into early summer. In normally snowless areas, "spring" may begin as early as February during warmer years, with subtropical areas having very subtle differences, and tropical ones none at all. Subarctic areas may not experience "spring" at all until May or even June, or December in the outer Antarctic.
Nowruz Main article: Nowruz The first day of spring is the beginning of the new year, Nowruz, in the Iranian calendar. Nowruz (also Norooz, Newroz, Navroj, and many other variants) marks an important traditional holiday festival celebrated in Iran as well as in many other countries with a significant population from one of various Iranian peoples, such as Azerbaijan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and by Kurdish communities in Turkey and elsewhere. Several Turkic peoples also celebrate Nowruz Main article: Equinox The first day on the Iranian calendar falls on the spring equinox,(turkish called this day choog day) the first day of spring. At the time of the equinox, the sun is observed to be directly over the equator, and the north and south poles of the Earth lie along the solar terminator; sunlight is evenly divided between the north and south hemispheres. [edit] History and Tradition Tradition dates Noruz as far back as 15,000 years ago, before the end of the last ice age. The mythical Persian King Jamshid (Yima or Yama of the Indo-Iranian lore) symbolizes the transition of the Indo-Iranians from animal hunting to animal husbandry and a more settled life in human history. Seasons began to play a vital aspect in culture; after a severe winter, the beginning of spring was a great occasion with Mother Nature rising up in a green robe of colorful flowers. Prophet Zoroaster (Zarathushtra) was the architect of the pre-Islamic Iranian cosmology who instituted many feasts, festivals and rituals to pay homage to the seven creations, the holy immortals and Ahura Mazda. The seven most important ones are known as Gahambars, the feasts of obligation. The last and the most elaborate was Noruz, celebrating Ahura Mazda and the Holy Fire at the spring equinox. Some 12 centuries later, in 487 BC, Darius the Great of the Achaemenian dynasty celebrated the Noruz at his newly built palaces of Persepolis. On that day, the first rays of the rising sun fell on the observatory in the great hall of audience at 06:30 a.m., an event which repeats itself once every 1400-1 years[citation needed]; it also happened to coincide with the Babylonian and Jewish new years. It was, therefore, a highly auspicious occasion for the ancient peoples. It has been suggested that the famous Persepolis complex, or at least the palace of Apadana and the Hundred Columns Hall, were built for the specific purpose of celebrating Nowruz. However, no mention of Nowruz exists in Achaemenid inscriptions (see picture). Nowruz later became the national holiday of Arsacid/Parthian dynastic Empires who ruled Iran (248 BC-224 AD). There are specific references to the celebration of Nowruz during the reign of Vologases I (51-78 AD), but these include no details. Extensive records on the celebration of Nowruz appear following the accession of Ardashir I of Persia, the founder of the Sassanid dynasty (224-651 AD). Under the Sassanid emperors, Nowruz was celebrated as the most important day of the year. Most royal traditions of Nowruz such as royal audiences with the public, cash gifts, and the pardoning of prisoners, were established during the Sassanian era and persisted unchanged until modern times. Nowruz, along with Sadeh (celebrated in mid-winter), survived in society following the introduction of Islam in 650 AD. Other celebrations such Gahanbar and Mehragan were eventually side-lined or were only followed by the Zoroastrians, who carried them as far as Turkey. Nowruz, however, was most honored even by the early founders of Islam. There are records of the Four Great Caliphs presiding over Nowruz celebrations, and it was adopted as the main royal holiday during the Abbasid period. Following the demise of the Caliphate and the subsequent re-emergence of Persian dynasties such as the Samanids and Buyids, Nowruz was elevated to an even more important event. The Buyids revived the ancient traditions of Sassanian times and restored many smaller celebrations that had been eliminated by the Caliphate. Even the Turkish and Mongol invaders did not attempt to abolish Nowruz in favor of any other celebration. Thus, Nowruz remained as the main celebration in the Persian lands by both the officials and the people. Omar Khayyam in his Nowruznama has written a vivid description of the celebration of ancient Persians: “ From the era of Keykhosrow till the days of Yazdegard, last of the pre-Islamic kings of Persia, the royal custom was thus: on the first day of the New Year, Nau Ruz, the King's first visitor was the High Priest of the Zoroastrians, who brought with him as gifts a golden goblet full of wine, a ring, some gold coins, a fistful of green sprigs of wheat, a sword, and a bow. In the language of Persia he would then glorify God and praise the monarch.. This was the address of the High Priest to the king : "O Majesty, on this feast of the Equinox, first day of the first month of the year, seeing that thou hast freely chosen God and the Faith of the Ancient ones; may Surush, the Angel-messenger, grant thee wisdom and insight and sagacity in thy affairs. Live long in praise, be happy and fortunate upon thy golden throne, drink immortality from the Cup of Jamshid; and keep in solemn trust the customs of our ancestors, their noble aspirations, fair gestes and the exercise of justice and righteousness. May thy soul flourish; may thy youth be as the new-grown grain; may thy horse be puissant, victorious; thy sword bright and deadly against foes; thy hawk swift against its prey; thy every act straight as the arrow's shaft. Go forth from thy rich throne, conquer new lands. Honor the craftsman and the sage in equal degree; disdain the acquisition of wealth. May thy house prosper and thy life be long!"
From: mybeata : About This Video A music for Iran-e-man TV in Portland Oregon featuring Saadi Nikoo
Protest Closure of Iranian Women's Magazine
With parliamentary elections around the corner in Iran, the free press and the right to freedom of expression are increasingly under fire. Last week, the authorities shut down Zanan, the country's premier women's magazine. President Ahmadinejad said that Zanan showed Iranian women in a "black light" and was a threat to the psychological well being of Iranian society. Zanan had long argued that the legal discrimination suffered by women in Iran is not mandated by Islamic law and that therefore it can and should be changed.
Join us in demanding that Iran: Cancel the order to close the magazine and reinstate its press license. Ensure the safety of the staff of Zanan. Urge all branches of the government to respect the right to freedom of expression and the importance of a free and independent press. Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this important case. Click Here to Take Action>>Learn more about this case>>Tell-a-friend!
HOW TO CORRUPT A SOCIETIES MOROL BACKBONE THROUGH MARXISAM - BY AN EX KGB DEFECTOR IT WORKED IN IRAN - NOW LETS USE IT IN AMERICA A corrupção moral da sociedade pelos Marxistas
وبلاگ دانشجويان الکترونيك دانشگاه گيلان کمتر کسي است که بداند در ايران باستان، از بيست قرن پيش از ميلاد، روزي موسوم به روز عشق بوده است! جالب است بدانيد که اين روز در تقويم جديد ايراني دقيقا مصادف است با 29 بهمن، يعني تنها 3 روز پس از والنتاين فرنگي! اين روز "سپندار مذگان" نام داشته است. فلسفه بزرگداشتن اين روز به عنوان "روز عشق" به اين صورت بوده است که در ايران باستان هر ماه را سي روز حساب ميکردند و علاوه بر اينکه ماهها اسم داشتند، هر يک از روزهاي ماه نيز يک نام داشتند. بعنوان مثال روز اول "روز اهورا مزدا"، روز دوم، روز بهمن (سلامت، انديشه) که نخستين صفت خداوند است، روز سوم ارديبهشت يعني "بهترين راستي و پاکي" که باز از صفات خداوند است، روز چهارم شهريور يعني "شاهي و فرمانروايي آرماني" که خاص خداوند است و روز پنجم "سپندار مذ" بوده است. سپندار مذ لقب ملي زمين است. يعني گستراننده، مقدس، فروتن. زمين نماد عشق است چون با فروتني، تواضع و گذشت به همه عشق ميورزد. زشت و زيبا را به يک چشم مينگرد و همه را چون مادري در دامان پرمهر خود امان ميدهد. به همين دليل در فرهنگ باستان اسپندار مذگان را بعنوان نماد عشق ميپنداشتند. در هر ماه، يک بار، نام روز و ماه يکي ميشده است که در همان روز که نامش با نام ماه مقارن ميشد، جشني ترتيب ميدادند متناسب با نام آن روز و ماه. مثلا شانزدهمين روز هر ماه مهر نام داشت و که در ماه مهر، "مهرگان" لقب ميگرفت. همين طور روز پنجم هر ماه سپندار مذ يا اسفندار مذ نام داشت که در ماه دوازدهم سال که آن هم اسفندار مذ نام داشت، جشني با همين عنوان ميگرفتند. سپندار مذگان جشن زمين و گرامي داشت عشق است که هر دو در کنار هم معنا پيدا ميکردند. در اين روز زنان به شوهران خود با محبت هديه ميدادند. مردان نيز زنان و دختران را بر تحت شاهي نشانده، به آنها هديه داده و از آنها اطاعت ميکردند. ملت ايران از جمله ملتهايي است که زندگي اش با جشن و شادماني پيوند فراواني داشته است، به مناسبتهاي گوناگون جشن ميگرفتند و با سرور و شادماني روزگار ميگذرانده اند. اين جشنها نشان دهنده فرهنگ، نحوه زندگي، خلق و خوي، فلسفه حيات و کلاً جهانبيني ايرانيان باستان است. از آنجايي که ما با فرهنگ باستاني خود ناآشناييم شکوه و زيبايي اين فرهنگ با ما بيگانه شده است. براي اينکه ملتي در تفکر عقيم شود، بايد هويت فرهنگي تاريخي را از او گرفت. فرهنگ مهمترين عامل در حيات، رشد، بالندگي يا نابودي ملتها است. هويت هر ملتي در تاريخ آن ملت نهاده شده است. اقوامي که در تاريخ از جايگاه شامخي برخوردارند، کساني هستند که توانسته اند به شيوه مؤثرتري خود، فرهنگ و اسطوره هاي باستاني خود را معرفي کنند و حيات خود را تا ارتفاع يک افسانه بالا برند. آنچه براي معاصرين و آيندگان حائز اهميت است، عدد افراد يک ملت و تعداد سربازاني که در جنگ کشته شده اند نيست! بلکه ارزشي است که آن ملت در زادخانه فرهنگي بشريت دارد.
NOW READ THIS : "SOVIET" PUTIN INCHING CLOSER TO DOMINATING IRAN
The late Shah of Iran lost his throne twice, once to falsely lauded "nationalist" Dr. Mossadegh (acting on behalf of the Soviets) and the second time, again on behalf of the Soviets, orchestrating it from their Tehran Embassy, to the Marxist-Islamists Mojaheddin & Fedayeen, from whom the Mullahs usurped it.
Old "Mossyface" as many called Mossadegh, always pretended to be ill and even received foreign dignitaries when he was Prime Minister lying on an army cot or wrapped in a military blanket. In the video below, he drags his "ill" persona into court for his trial, the poor little victim. Then forgets his role and jumps up and down gesticulating in excitement. He was sentenced by the Shah's courts to only THREE YEARS in prison for plotting and conducting the overthrow of the legal monarchy, whereas those who now rule (Mullahs) thanks to peanut Carter, have been executing (hanging) someone convicted of having been caught having consumed alcoholic drinks THREE TIMES. The first time, if very lucky, he gets some physical abuse, a warning and perhaps some prison time, the second time the standard 80 lashes and the third time he/she HANGS by the neck till dead. Interesting to note: nearly all supply of illegal drugs and alcohol to the Iranian populace is a virtual monopoly of the Mullahs and their henchmen. As interesting a factoid is the absolutely false claim by Mossy's supporters , then and now, of Mossy having a nationalistic "democracy" in mind. To the contrary, he brooked no argument nor advice from anyone and was an absolute dictator in running his government by virtual decree. Finally, overthrowing the Constitution to make it easier to rule this way and favor the Soviets, something the Shah strongly opposed.Never was it on behalf of the people. As one of his major Socialist/Communist supporters admitted recently, the political "freedom" they demanded of the Shah was not for the populace but for their own, "imported" Soviet philosphy and freedom to have a Communist Iran. Even today, "Soviet" Putin has some 50,000 Russian advisors inside Iran, every Islamic government agency or office seems to have one attached to it. Providing a revenue of some $100 million a MONTH to Russia, the way Mexicans, legal or otherwise, send money home from the USA. An example of Mossy's absolute control was when one of the Farmanfarmaian family (of the pre-Pahlavi, Qajar dynasty) suggested that he follow the example of another country which was making huge profits from the way it handled its oil. Instead of listening, the highly irritable, suddenly incensed Prime Minister considered the advice as criticism, threw the man out of his office and later ordered his arrest! Fearing for his life, this member of a prominent family ran to the Shah and asked for a passport with which to leave the country before Mossy caused him grievous harm. The next day, on the monarch's orders, a military Colonel brought a passport and escorted the man to the airport and ensured his safe passage out of the country. Bad, bad, Shah! Poor, kind, democratic, nationalist Mossy! What nonsense.Mossy was about to hand Iran and its oil to Soviet control and a path to warm waters for their navy and the USA and the West removed him before he could achieve his aims and rescued Iran from total Soviet domination. So it was again the bad, bad Shah's fault! Had the West not restored him to the throne, history would have been very different for Western interests and the well being of Iran's populace (minus the pro-Soviet . Communist Tudeh party), who continued to plot the overthrow of the government on behalf of the Soviets, often ending up in prison for sedition. Had idiot Carter, considered by more than you might know, as a Soviet mole, not again destabilized the Shah, we would not be facing ANY of the Islamic problems that threaten us today and might even end up destroying us.
Dorood beh yadeh_e_shirin_e_Shahanshah Aryameher
Light of the Aryans, the greatest lover of all
things Iranian/Persian and the Pahlavi Dynesty.
Dorood beh Queen Farah Pahlavi & Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Payandeh Iran - Sarfraz baad Iran e Novien
Death to the Islamic Republic of Idiots- the butchering fascist mafia's of Qom and Tehran
FARAVAHAR
AHURAMAZDA
Happy Nu Rooz
NU ROOZ E TON PEEROZE BAD
I A M A R A I N D R O P.
FARSI _ BEH _ ENGLISEE
Hi everybody,
This is an INCREDIBLE Software.
When you write your words in Farsi
with the English alphabet, It will
convert it to Parsi writing..
Try it and see it for yourself.
www.behnevis.com
God bless whomever wrote this
fascinating program !!
http://www.behnevis.com/
Download any YOUTUBE video using this tool.
Paste a YouTube or Google video link and click the Get video button. Tick the DirectDownload box to start download immediately.
DirectDownload
Posts
اخبار مربوط به زندانیان سیاسی و نقض حقوق بشر
Tulips in Holland
