Pahlevi (the deceased one) made a complete fool of himself, in my opinion, when he crowned his queen in a grotesque display of egotism, at Persepolis. 1971, Iran commemorated the 2500th anniversary of the Persian Achaemenid Empire of Cyrus the Great with an elaborate celebration in the desert at Persepolis. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/iran_history.asp Another bit of history from the same source: Iran is a theocratic Islamic republic governed under the constitution of 1979, as revised in 1989, when presidential powers were expanded and the post of prime minister eliminated. Appointed, rather than elected, offices and bodies hold the real power in the government. The supreme leader, who effectively serves as the chief of state, is appointed for life by an Islamic religious advisory board (the Assembly of Experts). The supreme leader oversees the military and judiciary and appoints members of the Guardian Council and the Expediency Discernment Council. The former, some of whose members are appointed by the judiciary and approved by parliament, works in close conjunction with the government and must approve both candidates for political office and legislation passed by parliament. The latter is a body responsible for resolving disputes between parliament and the Guardian Council over legislation. The president, who is popularly elected for a four-year term, serves as the head of government. The legislative branch consists of the 290-seat Islamic consultative assembly, or parliament, whose members are elected by popular vote for four-year terms. Keep D&D Civil.
It's not uncommon a disgruntled former employee has an axe to grind against his old employer, especially if he's well paid by third parties which have political agenda of their own. The fact no reputable major news media picked up or corroborated his story says a lot about his objectivity and credibility.
if you even bothered to look at the sources you would see they are all written by iranians...the majority of them are primary sources....do you know what that means? primary sources are considered evidence you're just ranting
exactly and there are no sources or citations in his article i providing tons of primary sources and a scholarly text to back-up the position that the shah killed tens of thousands of iranians
So a member of the bonyad shahid who still supports this regime, has an axe to grind. ok, thats a new spin on it.
He can post as much as he likes, obviously, something you've taken full advantage of. Everyone hasn't, "called him out," as you put it. He's giving his opinion. Several have called you out, but you run away when it happens. If you don't care for his posts, don't read them. No one is forcing you to. Keep D&D Civil.
No offense Wnes but that sounds awfully like what supporters of the GW Bush Admin. say when insiders like Richard Clarke and others have come out and criticized the Admin..
No you conveniently ignored the second part of my post. When Richard Clarke spoke out, almost every major news media reported. He was not merely invited as a guest speaker on Air America Radio.
pot...meet kettle Not sure what impact it being 'news' or not is - especially considering much of 'news' IS opinion, but I'm sure we can expect you to similarly dismiss opinion pieces going the other way as well, right? What is 'overly favorable?' DO you dispute that the Shah was considered a lynchpin for ME stability or that he ushered in modernity? Again you don't actually dispute the findings in the editorial. Actually you explain why this particular conclusion can be credible. Er, what is wrong with that statement? IIRC Blazer Ben has not denied the repression under the Shah, rather his point is that people like creepy exaggerate the harm from the Shah while minimizing or outright denying the harm from the Mullahs. No, stupid - it's your hypocrisy I pointed out. You've claimed many times that you 'don't use other people's opinions' (despite the fact that its a false statement). Then you post an op ed piece. See the contradiction? Its that too complicated for you to understand? Get it dumbass?
You have selfesteem problems?.. trying to make you'self look big?. atleast i dont evade stuff. you evade and run when posed by a seriouse question.
I have a question for you, blazer_ben. If U.S. bombed the hell out of Iran -- your motherland, and tens of thousands of innocent Irans -- your countrymen/women died as a result of "collateral damages" from the U.S. military campaign or maybe an Iraq War-style brutal occupation, would you be for it or against it?
If you ever botherd reading my posts, i've said countlessly, i support an Evolution. so dont pull stuff out of you're backside. i've said counlessly usa has no right to attack iran.
wow curse words...that's a new low for you...so we can add that to you being a liar and somebody who uses fake photos as evidence it's not my fault everybody is calling you out on your propaganda...don't take your frustrations out on me let's see if deckard scorns you for this the same way he's quick to lecture me
how come no condemnation of hayes for cussing at people and insulting them? dare i say you're a hypocrite
