Danz Family: Reagan & Khomeini Funerals

* NEW * Danz Family Forums

Links		Sounds
Portal		Pictures
Palm		Videos
People		Private
Interesting		Site Map
Texts		Contact

May 2008
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Random Family Photo

www.flickr.com

This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from dondanz. Make your own badge here.

Random Photo of Chief Illiniwek (Read why this is here)

I Never Get Tired of Clouds
Drudge Report Uses My Image
Talking on the Phone
Peanut Butter Jelly Time
Solution to Third-World Poverty
Photo Booth Pictures
Saturday Morning Cartoons
Painting with Water
New Computer - Dell XPS 630
What Is It ???
The End of a Busy Week
Brotherly Love

Most Recent Comments

CGHill: Wow. Do let us know when the collage resurfaces.... [view]

carl: Once when I worked for an electromechanical R&D shop we developed a prototype handheld Palm style gi... [view]

Anthony: I have a great feeling patriotism that works me up with inspirational stories like this one. Does a... [view]

Don: Shaypshifter, So many fallacies in your arguments, I don't know where to begin. There are few, if a... [view]

shaypshifter: The irony behind the philosophy of "minutemen" in Oklahoma is the fact that they are descendants of ... [view]

Reagan & Khomeini Funerals

Two world leaders of the 1980s were the United States President Ronald Reagan and the Iranian Shiite fundamentalist cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Reagan was elected in 1980, took office in January 1981 and remained president for eight years until 1989. In January 1979 the Shah of Iran was forced to flee the country and the Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in France to become the spiritual and political leader of Iran. He ruled Iran until his death in June 1989.

Whatever your thoughts about Ronald Reagan, you cannot deny the incredible solemnity, grace, beauty, class and style in which President Reagan's funeral was conducted. Do you remember what the Ayatollah Khomeini's funeral was like or were you ever taught about it in school? Probably not. In fact, there is surprisingly little about it even on the internet and even fewer photographs. Below are two I found from a GIS (Google image search) using the terms: Ayatollah, Khomeini, and funeral.

Here is how the politically correct Time magazine described it:

"The funeral of the Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini ignited an emotional outpouring from his fanatical followers that Westerners found as bizarre, frightening -- and ultimately incomprehensible ***

While the Ayatullah's body lay in state inside a refrigerated glass box, the crowd of mourners in Tehran became so thick that eight were reportedly crushed to death. The next day, as a helicopter brought the open wooden coffin containing Khomeini's remains to the city's Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, nearly a million mourners thrust forward in the blistering heat and choking dust, many wailing and pounding their heads as they groped to touch the body and snatch a piece of the linen burial shroud.

Some managed to surge past a force of Revolutionary Guards, clambering into the casket to plant kisses on the Imam's face. The corpse spilled to the ground, bare feet protruding from beneath the white shroud. As the Guards beat back the crowds, firing shots in the air and spraying fire hoses, other soldiers shoved the body and coffin back into the chopper. It lifted off with the casket hanging precariously out the door.

Some five hours passed before there was another, successful attempt to deliver the body to its final resting place, this time encased in a metal coffin. Again arms flailed and chants of "Death to America!" filled the air as the helicopter touched down. Although barricades held most of the crowd at bay, the Guards were forced to make a frantic push past the outstretched hands to deliver the coffin to the grave site. At the last instant, the metal lid of the casket was ripped off, and the body was rolled into the grave, in keeping with an Islamic tradition that requires that the dead be interred in only a shroud. The grave was quickly covered with concrete slabs and a large freight container to prevent delirious mourners from exhuming the corpse. By the end of the ceremony, more than 440 people had been hospitalized and an additional 10,800 had been treated for injuries."

6/19/89 TIMEMAG 38 (emphasis added).

Posted by Don

18 Comments

#1
Majeda said on June 4, 2005:

You spelled Shah wrong
#2
Don said on June 4, 2005:

Yes, I sure did. I had it as "Shaw" which looks to be a pretty common error, but an error none the less.

Thanks!
#3
G said on July 26, 2005:

Nice post. The Shah was the USA governments puppet in Iran.
#4
Don said on July 26, 2005:

Such a trite little comment "G." I wonder if you would simply knee-jerk say that about any leader who wasn't insane with hatred toward the West?
#5
Wajahat Ali said on February 16, 2006:

Hey,

Great post. The difference between Imam Khomeni(RA) & Regen was that Imam Khomeni was a successful leader where as, Reagan was a failed leader.

Long Live Imam Khomeni(RA)..

Bye
#6
Don said on February 16, 2006:

LOL...thanks, I'm drowning in work and enjoyed the laugh!

A little research will reveal that under Khomeini's rule, Sharia (Islamic law) was imposed, freedom of speech and freedom of the press were eliminated, newspapers and other media outlets not parroting the party line were shut down, and any opposition to the religious rule of the clergy or Islam in general was met with harsh punishments, systemic human rights violations, and mass executions and torture. Khomeini had Iran's Islamic government approved by a referendum where there was only one choice on the ballot...and voting was NOT secret.

In contrast, Reagan, twice democratically elected, believed that freedom and limited government were qualitatively superior to tyranny and totalitarian government. Reagan's vision of a free world culminated fort-years of Western efforts in victory against communism and the Soviet Union, the greatest threat to mankind prior to radical Islam. Reagan pulled America and the world from the brink of economic disaster that existed in 1979 as the result of double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates and high unemployment. Reaganomics, utilizing dramatic tax cuts, spurred the economy to a record peace time expansion resulting in a doubling of federal revenues and which helped to drive the world's economy increasing trade and the plight of billions around the world.

One could argue that Khomeini so feared and/or respected the strength and fortitude of Reagan that Khomeini didn't even let Reagan finish his inauguration ceremony before releasing the American hostages which had been held for 444 days.

I guess we just have different definitions of what makes one "a successful leader." America remains the shining light for democracy and freedom while Iran remains mired in the dark ages, both in no small part due to the respective leaders discussed herein.
#7
jag said on May 15, 2006:

And the Iranians had all those things under the Shah did they?
The US sponsored an absolutely brutal murderous regime and Khomeini was the antidote. Iran is still recovering but slowly and steadily marching toward democracy on their own terms. the US is not the shining light of anything but christian fundamentalist arrogant dogma. If they had no oil and the Republicans weren't in danger of losing control of congress, there would be no 'crisis'.
#8
Don said on May 15, 2006:

Jag, the comparison in this post and above is between Reagan and Khomeini. However, if you want to compare the Shah to Khomeini that's fine and yes, Iranians had those things far more so under the Shah. Do some research or talk to someone who lived under both, as I have, and you will learn that life was under the Shah, while far from perfect, was far better than under the Ayatollah which I why I was able to talk to them because they fled Khomeini's stifling reign. Khomeini's regime was much more brutal and murderous than the Shah's.

Perhaps we have different definitions of democracy if that is what you think Iran is marching towards. Finally, Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons against UN mandate and in conjunction with the vow to eliminate another country and race of people from the face of the earth has nothing to do with oil...and comes well within the definition of a crisis for most people.
#9
jag said on May 15, 2006:

What nonsense. The Shah came to power in an American sponsored coup and was bruutal in the extreme.

Now, I think you are being hoodwinked by your ultra right wing administration regarding the current 'crisis'. There is NO evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons or indeed that it is developing so much as the capability to acquire them. It is a signatory to the NPT and there is no evidence that it has breached that treaty. Your buddies in Israel have over 200 nukes and have threatened to use them against Iran so don't carry on about the rhetoric that the elected Iranian president. He is a politician playing to an audience and the fact is that US/Israeli aggression in the region played a big part in his election.

Iran is definitely on the road to democracy. Look at the facts before rubbishing others. Anti-US is not the same thing as anti-democracy.
#10
jag said on May 15, 2006:

And, I find this nonsense....

(quote)One could argue that Khomeini so feared and/or respected the strength and fortitude of Reagan that Khomeini didn't even let Reagan finish his inauguration ceremony before releasing the American hostages which had been held for 444 days(quote)

.......very amusing too. If one argued that line one would be rightly laughed out of the room by anyone with any knowledge of middle eastern affairs.

Reagan bought the hostages release with arms channelled through those all round good guys the Israelis. Ever heard of the Iran/Contra affair? Or is that just a lie now dreamed up by the press?
#11
jag said on May 15, 2006:

AND, I would actually like to hear your view of what democracy is. I promise not to laugh.

No, really I do.
#12
Don said on May 16, 2006:

We are in agreement that the Shah was brutal...but, we'll have to disagree as to which regime was more brutal.

As to Iran and nuclear weapons...I'll just come back to this thread in one, five or ten years and I'll post a nice big, "I told you so." If you believe Iran isn't doing everything it can to develop nuclear weapons and that it doesn't give a spit about any signature to any non-proliferation treaty then you are incredibly gullible and very ignorant of the aspirations of radical-islamic-fundamentalists.

If Iran is "definitely on the road to democracy" then sometime in the future we can expect someone like a Christian to be able to run for office and not get their head cut off? S/he doesn't have to win, just be able to run and live. Sorry, but it's not much of a democracy if you have to belong to one group or risk death.

Perhaps though it technically is a democracy where you get to pick the psychotic islamofacist of your choice to oppress you. Sorry, but when I think of democracy I have expectations of true freedom and liberties.

You are right, anti-U.S. is not anti-democracy...but anti-freedom and liberty is anti-democracy...at least to me.
#13
Don said on May 16, 2006:

And you would be laughed out of the room by anyone with a calendar, a history book or a computer hooked up to the internet. Iran-Contra took place after the US Congress passed the Boland Amendment in 1982 which prohibited the CIA from spending any money "for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua" and involved hostages in Lebanon...all more than two years after the hostages in Iran.

"In 1983, members of Al-Dawa ("The Call"), a pro-Iranian militant organization, were imprisoned for their part in a series of truck bombs in Kuwait. In response to the imprisonment, an ally of Al-Dawa, Hezbollah took thirty hostages, [1] six of whom were American. Hezbollah demanded the release of the prisoners for these hostages. Members of the Reagan Administration believed that by selling arms to Iran, Iran would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon to release their hostages. At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War and could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. It would also, according to National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, improve strained relations with Iran. President Reagan rejected McFarlane's suggestions, and maintained the United States would not support enemy nations. Despite Reagan's refusal to sell arms to Iran, McFarlane proceeded with his plan."

Seriously, your time here is almost up. YOU DO NOT KNOW HISTORY...actually, you do very well with American history but only in comparison to my knowledge of New Zealand history which is next to nothing.
#14
jag said on May 16, 2006:

Well, democracy doesn't happen overnight and it can't just be imposed. There are many aspects of politics in Iran that are troubling but calling everyone an Islamo-fascist is arrogant, untrue and fairly puerile. The current president was elected over a moderate western leaning candidate. US/Israeli warmongering and anti Islamic policy, not to mention the war for oil played no small part in the election of the current radical. They are. after all, surrounded by nuclear powers, and they lost over a million people in a war quite recently you know. And who was the aggressor then? Your man Ronnie Reagan's man in Baghdad, good old uncle Saddam. Delicious irony eh? They probably watched on their televisions your president welcoming the war criminal Sharon as a "man of peace". Oh how they must have shuddered at that.
So, you have 'a feeling' that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and that, in your view of the world, gives you the right to advocate the threat of unilateral nuclear strikes against a sovereign state that has yet to be found guilty of any breach of international law. Hmmmm. Tough to argue with someone so smugly arrogant that they think that their 'feelings' should take precedence over the checks and balances provided by the NPT. Incidentally your country has stopped even paying lip service to most international treaties and has breached international law on numerous occasions. Even the Geneva Conventions have been thrown out the window.
I think the Iranian people along with the arab world that you so despise would like a bit of democracy and freedom you know. US policy is as big a cause as any in the reason they don't have it, and they are certainly not going to have it imposed on them by you. You've murdered too many people in the middle east for them ever to see you as anything but hypocrites and thieves. Your policies of deceipt have been the radical islamist's biggest recruitment tool.
And we haven't even got to Palestine yet and your lovely friends the (uncriticisable Israelis).
BTW you stated "Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons". They don't have them or have the ability to refine uranium to weapons grade even. If the IAEA is allowed to do its work without US interference, then that can be assured. Imposing conditions over and above the NPT is illegal and unconscionable behaviour designed to cause a problem that need not exist. the reasons that this has been engineered are only speculation but I can tell you, that outside the US, people are way more scared of your president and his cronies than they are of Iran. And that, my friend is within your allies.
#15
Don said on May 16, 2006:

"There are many aspects of politics in Iran that are troubling" this we are in agreement.

"but calling everyone an Islamo-fascist is arrogant, untrue and fairly puerile." I'm not calling everyone an Islamo-facist...just people who subscribe to the theory that you must become Muslim or submit to the will of Islam, or people who advocate any harm to cartoonists, or people who want to eliminate an entire country or race of people from the earth, or people who condone or refuse to condemn those that cut people's heads off.

"US/Israeli warmongering and anti Islamic policy" The vast majority of the world's armed conflicts involve Muslims, not Christians, not Jews, not Americans, so who's warmongering? Churches, Synagogues and Mosques exist peacefully side by side in American, Israel and Europe? What about in Iran? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? But, the West and Israel gets the "anti" label...I don't know how to describe that other than insane.

"So, you have 'a feeling' that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons" Yes, kinda like I feel damp when I dive in a pool of water.

"...and that, in your view of the world, gives you the right to advocate the threat of unilateral nuclear strikes against a sovereign state that has yet to be found guilty of any breach of international law." No. I'm not, and I don't know anyone who is advocating that. Now...unilateral conventional strike with UN and Congressional authorization...sure.

"Tough to argue with someone so smugly arrogant that they think that their 'feelings' should take precedence over the checks and balances provided by the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]" Munich Agreement...NPT...same thing...they are not what keep people safe at night. I prefer to learn from my history, thank you.

"Incidentally your country has stopped even paying lip service to most international treaties and has breached international law on numerous occasions. Even the Geneva Conventions have been thrown out the window. We frequently break them after the other side tosses them away like the Soviet Union used to do...you'd have to be an idiot not to. Your mention of the Geneva Convention, again, reveals your lack of knowledge. The terrorists we are fighting and are detaining in Gitmo are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

In order to enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention, under Article 4, a POW who was a member of a militia or resistance movement must satisfy four conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; and (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

"I think the Iranian people along with the arab world that you so despise" I don't despise the Iranian people or the Arab world, just those people who subscribe to the theory that you must become Muslim or submit to the will of Islam, or people who advocate any harm to cartoonists, or people who want to eliminate an entire country or race of people from the earth, or people who condone or refuse to condemn those that cut people's heads off.

"...would like a bit of democracy and freedom you know. US policy is as big a cause as any in the reason they don't have it" There are about 8.5 million voters from the January 30, 2005, Iraqi National Assembly elections that might disagree with you.

"...and they are certainly not going to have it imposed on them by you. Hey, we agree again. All we can do is give them the opportunity and a start in the right direction. After that, it is up to the Iraqis themselves.

"You've murdered too many people in the middle east" Not nearly as many as they've murdered there themselves.

"for them ever to see you as anything but hypocrites and thieves" Hypocrites? You mean the same people who want everyone all over the world to respect all the tenants of their religion (don't draw Muhammad) but who have zero respect for other religions. Radical Islam is a synonym for hypocrisy.

"Your policies of deceipt have been the radical islamist's biggest recruitment tool. Yes, the West and the U.S. practice deceit, that's why we have the freest, most open societies with the greatest educational systems of higher learning. But, Islamic nations keep their people mired in dogma and restrict their abilities to learn about the world. Who is it again that practices deceit?

"And we haven't even got to Palestine yet and your lovely friends the (uncriticisable Israelis)." I used to be neutral about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until I studied it and found one side that wants to live in peace and one side bent on the total eradication of the other. Uncriticisable...obviously not. No person or nation is. But, an objective analysis reveals there is no moral equivalency there.

"BTW you stated "Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons". They don't have them or have the ability to refine uranium to weapons grade even. If the IAEA is allowed to do its work without US interference, then that can be assured." Iran will allow the IAEA to do its work only until it gets in Iran's way, then it will be kicked out while Iran continues on towards developing nuclear capabilities. Oh but the UN will issue stern words which if not followed will result in more stern words which if not followed will result in more stern words, etc., etc. I feel safer already.

"outside the US, people are way more scared of your president and his cronies than they are of Iran" We have some people here like that...we call them crazy.
#16
Don said on May 16, 2006:

In the interest of reasonably full disclosure, jag went on to write three more responses here before I could reply again. His second one started out, "Don't bother posting the last few. I can't be bothered any more."

I think he and I feel the same way. We certainly weren't going to convince each other of anything. I'll leave it to the reader to determine who won the war of words.

His last post really headed downhill with the name calling: "archetypal redneck," "Nazis" and "Warmongers" so it's best we bring this all to a close. (Not to imply that I was fault free with respect to an occasional ad hominem.)

Thanks for posting jag, it was fun for a while.

We'll continue to try to make the world better and safer for everyone...even if we might stumble along the way sometimes.
#17
Cameron said on June 30, 2006:

I am Iranian and anyone who thinks that iranian hitler khomeini was less brutal than the shah has rocks in their head. I've seen both and don't need some outisider spreading bs lies. Goh bekhor (thats for you jag, translate it from persian)

[From an email exchange with Cameron:

I think this article follows up on what people in Iran think of khomeini.

Thanks, Cameron

- Don]
#18
mindrtist said on October 15, 2006:

thanx for posting this. i was remembering the bullseye targets my dad had of either the Shah or of Khomeni that we used to shoot bb guns at.

i thought i remembered his head being cutt off and rolling around on the ground, but i guess that's something i made up. still, being older now and reading it, the impact is still freaky .. AND W. A PHOTO! i love the 'net

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this post: Reagan & Khomeini Funerals.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.danzfamily.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/4

Reagan & Khomeini Funerals

18 Comments

Post a comment

0 TrackBacks