Souri

"above my IQ" :)

Souri Khanoom, you are being very modest. Though not good at literature, I particularly enjoy reading Kipling,  as his writings are so straight forward, happy and charming. Kipling wrote for the common people in their own language.  He also at times used regional english dialects, which you would probably recognise as I understand you live in Europe. let me recite a verse or two before allowing your fine blog back on it's original, intended course...

 "I am sick o' wastin' leather on these gritty pavin'-stones,
An' the blasted Henglish drizzle wakes the fever in my bones;
Tho' I walks with fifty 'ousemaids outer Chelsea or Strand,
An' they talks a lot o' lovin', but wot do they understand?
                    Beefy face an' grubby 'and —
                    Law! wot do they understand?
                    I've a neater, sweeter maiden in a cleaner, greener land!
                    On the road to Mandalay . . .
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a thirst;
For the temple-bells are callin', an' it's there that I would be —
By the old Moulmein Pagoda, looking lazy at the sea;
                    On the road to Mandalay,
                    Where the old Flotilla lay,
                    With our sick beneath the awnings when we went to Mandalay!
                    On the road to Mandalay,
                    Where the flyin'-fishes play,
                    An' the dawn comes up like thunder outer China 'crost the Bay!
"

A simply charming and cheerful verse, dont you think?

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

Souri Banoo

To Roozbeh : It is above my IQ

I read that poem, but didn't get a word of it....

That English, is too hard for me to undestand.

Thanks but no thank!

Souri How about a blog on Kipling?

this thing is just getting quite poetic.

I am waiting for my Mandalay ....

You really need to have read and known of Rudyard to beging to appreciate the exchange between our friends Anglo and Houshang :) 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

For the benefit of the interested readers

Please you two, berin gir bedin be yek blog digeh.

The interested readers hate to see this "war of the roosters" here.

The fact that a certified Gunga Din speaks on blind fanatacism

What else do you expect from rabid Mosaddegholahis?

Dear VPK

Your points in reply to your Mosaddegholahi friend are spot on. Such charchter are defined by their blind fanaticism against the Pahlavi dynasty - that their way of life, their raison d'etre.

They call their opponents Shahollahi and Hezbollahi but just look how they argue aganist any opposed view - name calling. 

Seconding Ahang1001, MPD and others

Souri jaan, I hope you do write more than comments here. This is an important blog and very well-written.

چگونه خبرگان را به جای مجلس موسسان قالب کردند

On historical complexities and analytical simplicities.

The piece below is a an account of how nullahs lied, and cheated their way to power. It's also another powerful reminder that what khomeini said before and after coming to power was two different things. Some people forget that due to their own agendas.

Some folks in here are still allergic to the truth about the early years of IR, that's not a good sign.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Arj

Nobody including me is stopping your right to speech. I asked you something and you did not reply. What I was asking was the obsession with Shah. It reminds me of the obession some people have with Israel.

Regarding others you said; nobody is stopping them. If they want to organize do it. Did I go stop Ebadi from organizing? How is anyone forcing you to give RP special treatment. You chose to do that yourself by attacking him all the time.

Where did I demand any of the things you wrongly accuse me of. You appear to confuse respecting free speech with not disagreeing.

• I never tried to stop your free speech or restrict it in any way.
• I am not in a position to do it if I wanted to.
• Therefore your claims are flat out wrong.

Re Freedom of speech

Dear VPK, for someone who invokes America's first ammendment and considers being able to call the U.S. president an a-hole (your exact wording) the ultimate form of free speech, you are demonstrating double standards with regards to my rights to free speech here! I don't go so far as calling anyone an a-hole, however, reserve the right to express my opinion based on my observations and experience! Indeed, if that's hard to fathom for you, then perhaps you should re-examine your standards!

About Shah and his regime being "irrelevant," I disagree with you! I believe what we have been (or are going) through as a nation in the past and present, should be a lesson for our future. Shah tried to sweep his problems under the rug, pretending they don't exist, but he was proven wrong when they hit the fan! IRI is doing its utmost savagery in a desperate hope of exterminating its problems! Since neither way has worked and are ultimately rejected by our people, we have to ensure that we do not repeat the same failed experiences in the future! IMO, not being able to talk about the failures of Shah, is a great disservice to our nation since they're directly dealing with failures of IRI first hand already, yet may take Shah's failures for granted! Moreover, since RP's supporters are in most part supporters of Shah too, RP's stance vis a vis Shah's failures can be a good indicative of his paradigms with regards to his potential role -- that is unless one denies the existence of such failures!  

With regards to the term 'Shahollahi,' I did not invent it, yet I find it appropriate to describe supporters of Shah. Let me elaborate; Hezbollahis put their belief above anything else (e.g. putting religion before country and people), so do Shahollahis (put monarchy and king above the nation, aka 'Khoda, Shah, Mihan'). Hezbollahis only condiser themselves righteous and enyone else as agents of enemies, so do Shahollahis (if you do not support RP, you are an IRI agent)! Hezbollahis do not tolerate freedom of speech and have their own imterpretation of human rights, so do Shahollahis -- e.g. legal execution for "treason," the righteous torture of "traitors," etc.! 

There are countless other parallels in that regard, but I don't have the time or interest to count them all. Yet, one that stands out in my mind is the treatment we're supposed give RP as opposed to everyone else, e.g. Ebadi, Musavi, Khatami, Banisadr, Rajavis...! We're allowed to criticize anyone else and in many instances utter the worst insults at them for not being the way we want, but god forbid, if we dare to criticize or oppose the majesty-in-waiting, RP! Seriously, how are we supposed to treat him, as a prince? If so, why doesn't he say it outloud and declare himself as one? And if he is an ordinary citizen, why shouldn't I have the right to criticize or oppose him?! 

this blog

is a response to why people refuse to join forces with RP. It is not about Shah. It is talking about blind hatred that Mr. Ghanbari mentioned. 

Dear Arj why is it that every single issue has to revolve around Shah. All the actions of his regime are documented and known. But they are irrelevant to RP since he did not do then. They are diversions from the work at hand.

Generalizations about positions of others are inaccurate. The use of name "Shahollahi" is a deliberate insult. Meant for those whose only sin is disagreeing with you. How do you claim to be for democracy but intolerant of opposing views. 

Re HR

Dear Souri, thank you for your patience! With regards to discussing the torture and murder of political prisoners by the Pahlavi regime, it's a waste of time to argue with the Pahlavi supporters as it is with Hezbollahis! They either try to deny that it ever happened, or in most cases, even condone it as "necessary" to interrogate (torture) and execute (murder) "traitors" as long as it's done by the right people and in "good faith" -- which for Shahollahis is in the name of Shah and RP, and for Hezbollahis it's Khomeini and Khamenei! Neither of these gangs have the slightest consideration for HR once in power! 

Souri, I watched part 1 and 2,

It was a good interview and complimented what you were trying to convey.

Reza Pahlavi has been repeating over and over again that he does not see himself as a leader. He indicates it's the people who need to assign him the leadership role. 

That was exactly my point.  

Iraj khan

Thanks for the reply.

The main purpose of my blog was to discuss whether people of Iran, want to give RP the chance to represent himself in the Iranian political scene, yes or not?

The question was: If the Iranians, hate him or not?

And if they hate him, Why?

Now, if you think that he can't be a leader (of any movment) because of his lack of motivation, this is something else.

Personally I don't care about the Monarchists. I know they constitute the majority of his supporters, but again, this is RP's own problem, not mine.

Please do review the second part of that interview with Massih Alinejad, which has been posted later. In that 6 minutes video, he says clearly : The Monarchists insult me more than you (to MA)

And also he says: If someone doesn't support exactly my ideas and my views (bikhod mikonand mano support mikonan)

What you want to hear more ?

souri,

you stated:

"We are not electing a leader, here. We are talking his legitimity for being a representative of the opposition."

My response is:

"Yes, why not? and for that matter anybody else who is a political figure or activist could be included in that group".

But that's not what the monarchists are advocating. They are looking up to him as another 'Shah', the king of Iran. Their scenario has two problems:

1. He is not 'motivated' enough to be a 'Shah'

2. The political situation would not let him to become a 'King' if he lacks certain political savvy, courage and boldness that is seen in leaders such as Rajavi, Bakhtiar, Reza Khan, Mosadegh, etc.

PS: Let me respond in English for now and 'Behnevis' for later. 

Iraj khan

Fast replying to you, because I was just around :)

I don't understand what you mean?

We are not electing a leader, here. We are talking his legitimity for being a representative of the opposition.

After that, if there would be a secular republic  in Iran, what does hold him back from being a legitimate candidate for presidency? A president of the republic for 4 (or more) years, is not a leader. Leader of what?

I am sorry if I annoy you, but I have to say that I still didn't get your point. I don't have a good English, maybe it is better that you write in Farsi, if you don't mind?

Thank you.

Maybe it was

lost in

translation.

questions:

Compare Reza Pahlavi's political savvy and organizing abilities with the following people:

Rajavi

Bakhtiar

Mosadegh?

Reza Khan (his own grandfather)?

The above people were 'Leaders'.

How does he compare with them?

PS: I don't hate Reza Pahlavi.

Dear Arj

Thank you for the complementary comment. More power to you.

Thank you so much Mr Ghanbari

If it wasn't  for answering your wise question, this blog would not have been posted.

It is good sometimes to have such exchanges with the valuable members of this site. I was very satisfied with the whole discussion.

VPK:

"But why not accept it when it happened?" Exactly! The problem was at the time the opposition forces were in such a state of euphoria that had forgotten they had no leader except Khomeini!

نه خانم جون نفست از جای گرم در میاد

شما این قدر به خودت زحمت نده و صغری کبرا به هم نباف. اگر شما یک سر سوزن از این انقلاب لطمه دیده بودی نمی‌‌گفتی‌ که این فاجعه اشتباه نبود. از "ارج" هم مثل نیار که اونم حرفی‌ واسه گفتن نداره به جز "هرج" و "مرج". این جاست که باز اون ژن قجری میاد جلو و اتحاد مقدّس مصدقیست‌ها و قجریا به سرشو از پرده بیرون میاره. در ضمن شما هنوز جوابی ندادی،

Hi Souri

mg

Thanks for  your delicate rendition of the subjec which still has a lot reveal about our small but devastating mistakes and failiures.

it takes two

Shah should've backed off much earlier on than he did 

Well maybe so. But why not accept it when it happened? I mean the other option was to bit off our own nose. Was that smart? 

to come to fruition within 1-2 months! 

Who set the 1-2 month period. I did not and nobody I know did. Why should we have rushed instead of giving Bakhtiyar a chance. This is what bugs me about the revolutionaries. As my parents say they "cut and sow" then expect us all to wear it. I did not set the deadline. Why should I have to bear the results of their hurry.

khod-kardeh ra tdbir nist!

If it was about Shah. But it is not "khod" is not Shah it is "us". Next "kardeh" is that revolution that we in the most general sense brought on ourselves. And there better be a "tadbir" or else we are really f***.

Re mistakes

Dear Souri, I was not questioning your opinion as to whether the 1979 revolt was a mistake or not! For whichever way you think, it's your opinion and should be respected while being allowed to be challenged! However, what confused me was the contradiction between the notions of inevitability and mistake! I personally believe that the 1979 revolution would have been avoidable had Shah relaxed his chokehold on power and allowed someone like Dr. Bakhtyar who was respected by the secular opposition run the government and create a democratic atmpsphere in which the political parties could participate in the governing processes. 

In order for this to have realized, Shah should've backed off much earlier on than he did (e.g. in 1976-77 as opposed to 1978-79) when it was already too late for any democratic gesture (even if genuine in nature) to come to fruition within 1-2 months! So, primarily, the onus should be on Shah for not allowing a peaceful alternative to realize! Indeed, it's not just Shah, but all megalomaniacs such as Khamenei, Saddam, Gaddafi... would not come off their high horses while they can, but have to be pulled down!

So, do I -- albeit not necessarily a supporter of revolutions -- personally regret that Shah was deposed? No, for as per the old saying; "khod-kardeh ra tdbir nist!" Do I believe it was avoidable? It might have, had he acted as a monarch rather than a megalomaniac! Was it a mistake? Yes, but only HIM "ariamehr's" than anyone else's!

Iraj khan

I was expecting more substance from you about that particular matter.

Do you think all those facts you have enumerated about RP, are typically realted to him?

Do I need to remind you, that Obama had even drug problems and is still smoking ciarette like a cheminee? His parents never were politically active? Do I have to remind you that Bush was also a drunk driver, with not a so so catholic past? And Clinton, a coureur de jupons? How about Roosvelt? Cherchil?

All i see here, are the hate toward his asl o nasab., As I said before,  one of his major problems, is to be the son of Shah.

Do you know that he still doesn't have an American passport unlike many of you?

What do you know about his family? Are you informed about his wife's activities? Do you know how many Iranian ill children she has saved so far, with her foundation?
What do you really know about his activities? Are you sure you really want to know anything?

I don't agree with you. I don't buy your objection, as being relevant. Sorry.

Why is he irrelevant?

It's a psychological/characteristic trait of Reza Pahlavi.

He is not motivated to lead, why?

Lets look at his family's history:

His grandfather, Reza Pahlavi was deposed and sent to exile where he died.

His father was forced into exile and died there.

A brother and a sister of his committed suicide.

His mother Farah is not politically active and has no ambition to go back to Iran.

He has a fine little family of his own and he would not sacrifice his or his family's peace of mind for political power.

He does not have the fire in his belly to be a decisive political leader and it's fine with him.

Lets not forget it's not easy to overthrow an Islamic regime with deep religious followers and he's just not motivated to go thru it.

More on RP

I used to think nothing of RP also. In fact just over a month ago I was arguing about is irrelevancy with Amirparviz. But I am open minded and willing to give him a chance. He is obviously making an impression on people.

For a long time Pahlavi were no good by people including me. It is only recently that Shah has been rehabilitated in minds of people. But there are still those who deeply resent him. I got a letter from Omid Jamshidi with his reason against RP. 

I read it but found it unconvincing. One of the main complaints he has is RP was inactive for so long. And RP was claiming he is inactive because West is not supportive of regime change. Jamshidi says if RP is now active it must mean West is for regime change. And RP is their pawn; hence not worthy. I turn the argument around and say this. If RP has West behind him so much the better. It is much easier to organize with West behind us than against.

Regarding being a "pawn" of West. I ask people: what did they hate about Shah? From remarks so far it is lack of political freedom not being a "pawn". No one has complained about Iran being too close to the West. If so why were people sleeping outside the US embassy in the 1970s just to get a visa. In fact his close ties to West were very good for Iran. If we can get the same cooperation without the repression I say we do really well. Does anyone disagree and if so why. 

The next is why is US now supporting RP? I don't have any inside information. But I guess they decided IRI was not supportable a while ago. They played with the idea of MEK; it failed. Now they are going for the only feasible option they got.

Dear Arj

My friend,

I think I have not been expressing my views very well (even though I wrote this text in Persian :))

If you had a chance to read the conversation between Hooshang and myself, some comments down, I have explained fully and clearly, what could go wrong with the interpretation of my ideas.

I repeat again: I think that the revolution was INEVITABLE and it was NOT A MISTAKE!

What I have said in response to Mr. Ghanbari's question:

Why some people, hate Reza Phalavi, while he didn't do anything wrong so far?

I answered: Because, THOSE PEOPLE WHO HATE HIM (not me ) think that if THEY give him a chance to be back to Iran's political scene, this would be an admition FOR THEM, that they have done a mistake by doing a revolution against his father.

All I have tried to say in my response, was to explain the HATE toward RP, from the "haters" point of view. Wrong or right, I think this is a reasonable explanation of the extreme hate trend toward RP,

I don't hate him. I have no reason to be afraid of giving him a chance to go back.

On the other parts of your comment, I agree with everything you have said (every thing :))

We had already talked them fully, in the other blog.

Thank you very much for your great information about the Gohar-Dasht prison and all other points you have mentioned in your comments. We need more input of the informed people like yourself, in this site.

Respects;

anglophile

Usually I ignore all of your comments. This time, as you address me directly, in my own blog, and because you don't have your usual disrespectful tone, I answer to your question:

Just read the comments from Arj. They have good information for you which answer all of your questions (although you should not even have this question, if you were a wise and informed  compatriot)